Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

The current WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration article is Confuciusornis.
The last article for collaboration was: Brachiosaurus.
Feel free to cast your vote for the next article.

Ornithischians and Classification in General

I was working on some ornithischian pages and noticed a potential problem with the Linnaean classification being used across the project. We're ostensibly using Benton (2004) for ranks, but the current system does not reflect this closely. For example, he places Ceratopsia, Pachycephalosauria, and Ornithopoda as Infraorders in suborder Cerapoda--we're using Suborder Marginocephalia for the first two, and have Ornithopoda bumped up to Suborder with an Infraorder Iguanodontia. Now, since my push to adopt Benton, a very good resource has come online-- the Paleobiology Database [1]. Not only does this list authority information for most taxa I tried searching for, it also lists rank, which in most cases reflects the original published rank for that taxon. This site has the more 'traditional' ornithischian setup, with Ceratopsia, Stegosauria, Ornithopoda, etc. etc. as Suborders. While this site does include some contradictions as contradicting rankings have been published (for example, in the 70s and later the various major coelurosaurian clades began to be hived off as infraorders, while coelurosauria itself was originally an infraorder). I see two possibilities for revision--continue using Benton and revise the dinosaur entries to better adhere to it, or use the ranks as originally published for individual taxa, and revise accordingly. Either way, the ornithischian classification right now appears to be original research or uncited. Dinoguy2 00:01, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of ranks above family, but when I'm here, I'll go with whatever is chosen. Offhand, I'd say go with Benton because it's more modern than most (except for things like Turiasauria, which have to be dealt with as they appear), but I wouldn't get too fond of any particular ornithischian classification at this time. It's nice to have just one source, but we do have to compensate at times. What happens if Iguanodontia and Marginocephalia turn out to be sister groups, for example? J. Spencer 02:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unicerosaurus up for deletion

You can comment here. There seems to be a disconnect here, between an article that is nonsense, and a subject that is pseudoscience. People just aren't getting it. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with nomina nuda (and the lack of sources for same on DinoGeorge's list): exhibit A ;) . Dinoguy2 23:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and you have every right to say "I told you so". At the same time, I only wanted Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs to be as comprehensive as any other source. This is a bit depressing, as we were also forced to keep that stupid "Antarticopelta" redirect. Trust Wiki to require us to keep a mispelled article, but delete a correctly-spelled one. Ugh. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where being comprehensive is a good thing, though, and being able to expalin why a genus name is dubious, or improperly described, or whatever in individual articles is actually a big advantage over pure lists of names. It's just that actually citing these things is gonna be tough, especially since nomina nuda tend to be found in really obscure places and sources. Dinoguy2 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you're absolutely right, Dinoguy. I've added citations where they have been requested; hopefully this will be enough to mollify people on the AFD. But I doubt it. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:45, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misspellings are for people who can't spell correctly--one of the most frustrating things about Wikipedia is the poor number of incorrect spelling redirects. This is substandard for the web. Nomina nuda by their nature tend not to have sufficient resources to merit an entire article. Can't this just be included in Baugh's article? Does it really merit its own article? I don't know of any botanical nomina nuda that get their own articles. KP Botany 17:23, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we had misspelling redirects for every dinosaur, we'd have literally thousands and thousands of redirects to watch. Nepenthes x truncalata is one example of a nomen nudum plant; there are several others. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:28, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So instead there are none? There should be redirects for common mispellings, it adds to the utility of Wikipedia. The Nepenthes x truncalata article doesn't say it is a nomen nudum except in the categories section--bad. KP Botany 18:37, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree common mispellings should be redirects. The problem was that the redirect we were forced to keep showed no google hits, not even one, indicating it was not a common misspelling. Wiki is addicting. I need to get to work! Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:42, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! the rampant DELETE!!!!! KEEEP!!!!!. I can't believe the arguments used for deletes and keeps, "I never heard of it," "He only wrote four books, none about 2 million on Amazon." The world exists outside of the net, and you better get to it if you want to keep your connection to the on-line community. I do want to know the arguments for the keep sometime, though. KP Botany 18:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that deleting it conflicts with an internl Wikiproject policy of including articles on nomina nuda (which I object to, since by definition there is nothing to say about nomina nuda except "this name was printed somehwere", and 95% of the time nobody can even say exactly where that somewhere is). But I am willing to defend our policies here since others disagreed with me on this point. The argument for keeping nomina nuda articles boils down to the fact that we should strive to be comprehensive, and other internet sources such as George Olshevsky include nomina nuda. Dinoguy2 20:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been kept. I'm really interested to see what happens with your request for more information, Firsfron. J. Spencer 05:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So far, no response, but it's still early, and I have other leads. I'll let you know what's going on as soon as I know. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's Thagomizer article featured in comic

Did anyone else see this? Might this be of use on our article? Firsfron of Ronchester 07:55, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty cool! As for using it in the article, won't citing a comic about a Wikipedia article in that same Wikipedia article make the space-time continuum implode or something? (or in other words, I bet there's a policy against self-referential information) ;) Dinoguy2 17:59, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get your hopes up guys, I'm only passing through, not here to stay for a solid chunk of edits. Anyway, citing the about thingy in the article would be self-referencing & is generally frowned upon. It would be kind of like putting in the Triceratops article - "On 7 January 2007, Triceratops was on the Wikiproject Dinosaurs collaboration list!". Just seems kind of silly really. Now if it were an outside comic, that would be a different ball game... Anyway guys, (& girls if there are any), have a great New Year & I trust you all don't miss me that much. I see the project page has been polished a bit. Anyway, have a good one... :) Spawn Man 04:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, put a small thumbnail on the talk page for fun. Although there still is the space-time continuum concern.... KP Botany 17:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some structural\category ideas: dubious and unofficial dinosaurs

Hi, everyone; I've been considering how nomina dubia and nomina nuda are handled, and I had a few ideas.

1) List of dubious dinosaur genera is, in its current state, pretty redundant, as it's very short, and the information there is dealt with better on individual pages. It's a idea that I think didn't really work out, and I think a category would handle dubious dinosaurs better. It would be a lot easier to use and maintain as a category, and nobody seems to be doing anything with it now besides routine maintenance. Would it be a problem if this page was deleted?
2) Related to the above: Category:dubious dinosaurs for those now in the non-affiliated Category:nomina dubia. This one is dangerous, because dubious is subjective, but some names are much more dubious than others (Deinodon, Cionodon, Thespesius, etc). If we don't want to use a category for dubious dinosaurs, that's fine, too, but if there is a point to be made about validity, I think it should be made with a category connected to dinosaurs, as opposed to filling up a category intended for all life (whether or not that's a good idea is another thing). Lately, I've been the one to use Category:nomina dubia, for lack of a better idea. Category:invalid dinosaurs seems to be intended for chimeric dinosaurs, not dubious dinosaurs.
3) Similarly, a lot of dinosaurs have ended up in Category:nomina nuda. I'd like to have one in the dinosaur section, say, Category:informal dinosaurs, or Category:unofficial dinosaurs, or something like that. This one is much more objective than dubious dinosaurs, because a name either is described or it isn't (and I would include dissertation names in this as well, but that's just me). It's also useful because it collects all those unofficial names that otherwise look as official as the next when you can't see the quotation marks.
4) I'd like to put up Category:Dinosaurs named in the 20th century for deletion, because it's never been used and the author didn't seem too interested when I asked about it.

Of course, it may be that when we think about it, we don't want categories for dubious and unofficial dinosaurs. I'd just like the policy to be clarified, and these are my ideas on how to do it. J. Spencer 16:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments and ideas. Regarding nomina dubia, since it's rather subjective, and will vary from source to source, I never created a category for it. You are right that there are varying degrees of dubiousness; the ones which are for all intents and purposes rejected by everyone (petrified wood, mollusc borings, complete hoaxes, etc), I stuck in Category:Invalid dinosaurs. I'm worried that a dubious dinosaurs category would eventually lead to edit wars or other disputes (not from our current team, but what about in the future?), because such a category is mostly subjective.

The current Category:Nomina nuda is small; I'm not sure a spin-off is needed at this time, and nomina nuda seems more professional-looking than "unofficial dinosaurs".

Category:Dinosaurs named in the 20th century has been deleted (by me) as it met speedy deletion requirements: C1. Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories. Some folks here had already weighed in with comments indicating that since most dinosaurs known are from the 20th Century, the category was hardly sustainable, and as only a few dinosaurs had ever made it into the category, it was somewhat useless. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:15, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Category:nomina dubia: should I stop using it, then? I've been careful, but we may want to remove temptation.

Similarly, should I continue to use Category:Nomina nuda? J. Spencer 17:22, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cat:Invalid dinosaurs appears to be a wastebin cat, so to speak, with a few nomina nuda, a few junior synonyms (which technically are valid names if they were named right), etc. I'm thinking this category should be restricted to junior synonyms, and pages should probably only be made/kept for those if there's a detailed or convoluted taxonomic history of the name that needs explaining, especially if various species of a js genus have been moved to a wide variety of genera. I agree that the label nomen dubium is completely subjective. I say we either don't use such a category, or stick closely to one particular source, like Olshevsky's list. While it's not a published source, we have been using it to determine what is and is not nomen nudum. The problem you run into in having two categories, one for nuda and one for invalid dinosaurs, is that Olshevsky includes invalid names according to ICZN rules among his nomina nuda, so some articles would belong in both categories if we follow Olshevsky's list. A nomen nudum is not invalid, it's just not considered to be described. Junior synonyms are not invalid either... so the main problem here is the way this cat is named, I think. Maybe a signle cat for 'disused dinosaur names' or something would be more appropriate, and could include both junior synonyms, nomina nuda, and maybe even the really, really bad nomina dubia? Dinoguy2 19:49, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not opposed to an umbrella category for names that aren't in use (nomina nuda, and Olshevsky's "nomina ex dissertationes"), aren't used (Apatodon or Dysganus-class nomina dubia), notable junior synonyms ("Brontosaurus", "Seismosaurus", "Ultrasauros"), unadressed chimeras (Sanpasaurus), etc., as long as we're all clear on what it's to be used for. J. Spencer 21:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had created the invalid dinosaurs category for articles on animals which aren't considered valid by pretty much everyone. Aachenosaurus and Succinodon are petrified wood, Albisaurus is known from two scraps of bone, Apatodon from one (which is lost), Archaeoraptor is a forgery, Arstanosaurus is chimeric and indeterminate, Atlantosaurus, Lametasaurus, Pal(a)eosaurus, Procheneosaurus, and Sanpasaurus are chimeric, Coelurosaurus and Tyreophorus are probably typos/translation errors, Procerosaurus is a junior synonym/bit of bone, Rutellum is a nomen oblitum not used for hundreds of years, and Unicerosaurus was identified as a fish. None of these were placed in the category because they're nomina nuda (some are, most aren't), but because the sources indicated they've been declared invalid, and that no one today seriously considers them dinosaurs.

Dravidosaurus, which appears in the category, may actually be a valid dinosaur; it may be either a dinosaur or a plesiosaur. The only other name which appears in the category is Ultrasauros. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeoraptor is a forgery Yes, but the name is not invalid. Olshevsky's criteria would have considered it a nomen nudum until it's name appeared in print for the find portion of the chimera. It's a future nomen oblitum at best and a senior synonym of Microraptor at worst. Dinoguy2 02:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends. Not according to Jaime Headden. Headden states: "The name *Archaeoraptor* is just not valid under the present rules of the ICZN, and these were established the first day of 1999, well before Olson's publication."[2] And according to Markus Moser, "If the later author had erected Archaeoraptor explicitely as new name (Art. 16) the name would have become available from this later publication, but this did not happen. So Archaeoraptor is unavailable and not a senior objective synonym of Microraptor."[3][4] Olshevsky's current list shows it as nomen rejectum (pending). Firsfron of Ronchester 03:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me - a few of those should be modified. As far as I know, Atlantosaurus and (definitely) Procheneosaurus aren't chimeric - they just had species that were referred to multiple genera later on (i.e. a couple of Procheneosaurus species were juvie Lambeosaurus, a couple were juvie Corythosaurus, and one is actually an unnamed Asian taxon), and Ponerosteus is Olshevsky's name for the ?dinosaurian species of Procerosaurus. I think someone may have looked at Arstanosaurus again, too. Anyway, Firsfron, do you think an umbrella category as discussed above would be useful, or are we just splitting categoric hairs? Maybe it's just my taxonomic OCD talking, but I like the idea of some sort of categorization that would alert people that a name is not in scientific use. J. Spencer 03:17, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think an umbrella category like you two are discussing could be very useful. I'm not sure what the same should be ("Disused dinosaur names" actually works; at the same time, it doesn't sound entirely scientific, though I don't have a better suggestion, and am not actually objecting to this name). I'll go along with anything the group decides on. Catgories which are very small occasionally get purged, so whatever category is decided on, it should be large enough for at least a half-dozen articles (one reason there's no Category:Nomina oblita). If there's evidence supporting the validity of any of these, please do feel free to update the articles in question, and if Category:Invalid dinosaurs is no longer needed, it can be deleted. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:55, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K. I'll sleep on it, and see if I come up with anything more scientific. J. Spencer 05:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about it, and I can't think of anything better and more concise than "Disused dinosaur names", unless we want to go longer, like "Dinosaur names not in scientific usage." J. Spencer 16:37, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anything? J. Spencer 01:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind "Dinosaur names not in scientific usage" or "Disused dinosaur names", but at the same time, the fact we can get google hits from them indicates someone is using them, even if by only a small number of people. Also, it seems to me likely that some Wikipedia editor will come along and say, "Oh, these names aren't even being used, let's delete the whole lot." As I spent some time on several of these articles (not to mention all the other nice folks who helped build them up, including you), I'd hate to see that happen. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:42, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. J. Spencer 03:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Diplodocus featured

No one had mentioned it yet, so I thought I'd point it out: Diplodocus has been named a Featured Article. J. Spencer 05:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Pats on the back all around, fellows. One more proof how great this group really is; thanks to all. I see you already added it to the list of project achievements; thanks for keeping it up to date! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 06:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triceratops next....

Hi, I've done a few edits and feel the gulf between this article and FAC has diminished a bit, so anyone who wants to get involved is most welcome. cheers Cas Liber 07:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will work on it tomorrow. but for now, it's past my bedtime! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now there's a choice between Triceratops and Iguanadon........race to FAC (though our 3-horned friend has a BIG head start....) Cas Liber 04:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plesiosaurs etc

Hiya everone, I'm not a member of this project, but I'd be interested in helping out though. I've noticed that most of the pliosaur and plesiosaur pages seem to be in a mess, lots of dead links, stubs, and so on. I know they're not dinosaurs, but I can't seem to find any general palaeontology project so I suppose this project is pretty close. I've created and expanded some articles already (created Thililua, Dolichorhynchops & Dolichorhynchops herschelensis, edited Polycotylidae- feel free to chop and change at will), but there's an awful lot more... Anybody want to help? Andrewharrington2003 16:22 18 January 2007

Pronounciation

I must still understand why pronounciation hints of dinoasurs names are provided, when they give simply the way a normal anglophone would pronounce it. Instead, I think, if they are written in Latin, Latin form should be given. Or not? I think that these are words in a foreign language for them, so they should learn to pronounce them correctly. When we in Italy pronounce foreign word we at least TRY pronounce them in (hopefully) the correct way. Let me know and good work. --Attilios 19:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"they give simply the way a normal anglophone would pronounce it" Becasue this is the English Wikipedia? English speakers tend to pronounce Latin and Greek anmes a certain way, and whether or not this is correct, that's the way it is. For example, -saurus is almost universally pronounced "SORE-us" by English speakers, whereas the technically correct pronunciation is "sour-OOS". Dinoguy2 22:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Junior synonym policy?

Would anyone be interested in creating some kind of policy on the creation and/or retention of articles on junior subjective synonyms? Obviously they're, er, subjective, and there is something to be said for treating them on a case by case basis. But for articles like Brontosaurus, which pretty much 99% of paleontologists consider synonymous with Apatosaurus, is there any really good argument for keeping these articles seperate? Brontosaurus, aside from the bits on history, seems like it's starting to become a dumping ground for pop culture eferences akin to the old Pterodactyl. I'm thinking that if a genus has been considered a junior synonym in two or three recent papers to the point that it looks like this is scientific consensus, it should be merged with the article with the senior name. If the old genus is still used by one or two scientits, a note on that could always be included in the taxonomy sections. If a genus was heavily chimeric, like some of the old Victorian tooth taxa, little taxonomic DAB pages could be used, as in Zanclodon. Any other ideas? Or support for the status quo? Dinoguy2 22:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty close to the status quo, I think. Chimeric, or had numerous species referred to it that were later redistributed: definite yes. I'd include Zanclodon, Procheneosaurus, and Palaeo\Paleo\saurus\sauriscus in that group. Historically important: yes, but not as strong. This includes Brontosaurus, Seismosaurus, and Ultrasauros, but except for Bronto, each of those could be dealt with just as well on the host genus page, and if we wanted them back, we could just resurrect the pre-redirect page. Otherwise, things like Chassternbergia and a half-dozen Struthiosaurus synonyms should just be dealt with on the host genus page, if at all, as no one is arguing seriously for any of them (except extreme splitters). As for potential junior synonyms, the worst offenders are prosauropods, which we should just leave alone until all the rumors have been published and evaluated. If people are divided, as with Suchomimus and Baryonyx, definitely leave them split. We're pretty good right now, I think. The only good candidate for a merge besides Ultrasauros and Seismosaurus is Angaturama into Irritator. When going through the list, I found ten current redirects (with three other marginal cases for geeks) that have good arguments for separating out, but they're all pretty dubious names except for Anoplosaurus and Zigongosaurus (Claorhynchus in particular bugs me, because it's from the Judith River Formation, and there's no way in Hell Creek that it's Triceratops). I think they'd originally been synonymized by review writers in the spirit of "this is dubious and I don't want to deal with it", like the mob of Pelorosaurus "species". I guess, if in doubt, split it out. I personally get really annoyed when I see that Romer or Steel stuck thirty things into Pelorosaurus without explanation and for no reason, even though Pelorosaurus is and always has been crap from the Cretaceous and everything they added was either non-comparable or crap from the Jurassic. That's just lazy, and that's what I want to avoid here. The main issue is additional articles for dubious genera.

By the way, there's both a Brontosaurus in popular culture article and a Brontosaurus article, so I'm adding a link from the first to the second, which might help. J. Spencer 01:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the articles were created, I had been using Lambert (1993) to establish synonymy. I realized it was dated, and that there would be plenty of newer papers which invalidated some claims of synonomy, but I didn't have anything at hand that was newer at the time. As the articles were expanded, I fixed some of these, and other WP:Dinosaur folks fixed others, based on more recent sources. I agree that the mass referrals to Pelorosaurus were sloppy, and resulted in a complete wastebin taxon (at one time, Wikipedia's article on the genus had a dozen redirects pointing to it, I believe). User:Sheep81 worked very hard on Palaeosaurus, so I'd hate to see that get made into a DAB page. I would prefer to have an article explaining the history of these genera, and why they've been assigned elsewhere. I think potential junior synonyms should have seperate articles until it's pretty well established they really are junior synonyms, or it's clear (nearly) everyone accepts their junior synonomy (Bakker notwithstanding). Leave seperate articles for disputed cases. I saw Scrotum humanum was redirected to Megalosaurus, but I thought the partial bone wasn't diagnostic; I don't mind the merge, but Dinoguy's right: let's try to be consistent. A guideline would help, but a case-by-case basis might be unavoidable. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I wasn't getting after your choice of sources (I don't have that particular book, but I have a few others where a lot of the wholesale synonymizations were used: A Field Guide to Dinosaurs throwing Melanorosaurus into Euskelosaurus, etc.), but on the decisions of the sources' authors. I definitely agree to err on the side of having articles for the potentials. J. Spencer 03:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't think you were, but I thought I'd better explain why I redirected in certain instances but not others. If Dinoguy and the rest agree, feel free to make additional articles where needed. I feel like over the last year or so, the ball's finally rolling, although merging, unmerging, remerging, etc, will occur as new papers come out and new consensus in the paleontological community is reached. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Redirects into Articles (was: RE: Junior synonym policy)

Since we're drifting now...

The ones I had in mind, and why, were (and granted, this is scraping the bottom of the barrel, so we've done very well):

~~Anoplosaurus: distinct but poorly known ankylosaur with a bunch of chimeric species; redirects to Acanthopholis~~
~~Basutodon: list says a nondinosaur, but redirects to Euskelosaurus~~
Calamosaurus: redirects to Calamospondylus, but is not "that" Calamospondylus (not that I want to get into Aristosuchus-Calamosaurus-Calamospondylus with anyone)
"Carnosaurus": the same deal as "Coelurosaurus" and "Tyreophorus", but redirects to Carnotaurus
~~Chiayusaurus: borderline; could be from the Jurassic, in which case it probably isn't Asiatosaurus~~
Claorhynchus: explained above
Orthogoniosaurus: tooth taxon from India; there is no particular reason to assign it to any one of the multiple valid Lameta theropods
Phaedrolosaurus: because the whole reason Xinjiangovenator was named was because Phaedrolosaurus was indeterminate
Polyonax: there's no way to tell it from Triceratops, Torosaurus, or "Diceratops"
Zigongosaurus: because no one can agree if it is Omeisaurus, Mamenchisaurus, or its own genus, and it comes from a formation intermediate in age to the two.

There are a couple others ("Coelosaurus", Hierosaurus, Marmarospondylus, and Parrosaurus) that could be added on the grounds that there is no overwhelming morphological reason to refer them to what they've been referred to, but they're all exceedingly dubious and no one really cares, except for Parrosaurus, which as Hypsibema missouriensis is somehow the state dinosaur of Missouri. J. Spencer 04:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As Carnosaurus and Coelurosaurus were probably mispellings of Carnosaurs and Coelurosaurs, maybe they should redirect to those groups? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dinoguy2 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I don't mind that idea, since nobody has ever taken the names seriously. How about a little paragraph at the bottom of the relevant articles, i.e. "The informal name "Coelurosaurus", coined by von Huene in whatever year, appears to have been a typo, as he was really intending to refer indeterminate remains to Coelurosauria per this DML message" (you get the idea)? J. Spencer 19:21, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Dinoguy2 15:06, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I did this with "Coelurosaurus" at Coelurosauria, so have a look and see if you like it. If so, the paragraph can more or less just be copied and pasted to the other articles, with the names changed, and the same link. J. Spencer 19:47, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Triceratops

...has been nominated as a Featured Article by the hard-working Cas. If any folks here have ideas on how to incorporate further information or fixes for the article, now would perhaps be the time. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 14:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray -nom successful Cas Liber 06:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive 9

It was getting big, so I hope no one minds I took off the last stuff from 2006. J. Spencer 05:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. In fact, thanks. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Microformat

Please be aware of the proposed Species microformat, particularly in relation to taxoboxes. Comments welcome on the wiki at that link. Andy Mabbett 15:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied this over from the front page, as I figured we'd pay more attention to it here. J. Spencer 15:47, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unenlagia

I have been over that critter's article, albeit briefly. It reeked heavily of the probably obsolete concept of "bird" monophyly (compare the better discussion in Buitreraptor to a blunt statement like "The shoulder girdle of Unenlagia also shows adaptations for flapping and, since at 2 meters (6 feet) long Unenlagia was probably too big to fly, this provides further evidence [sic!] that it evolved from flying ancestors."). But there are some points I don't feel ready to write about or can't source properly; see the article source for annotations. Dysmorodrepanis 10:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"probably obsolete concept of "bird" monophyly" So birds are paraphyletic if they include dromaeosaurs, unenlagiines, etc.? If so, why exclude those forms? Anyway, if flight evolved numerous times within maniraptora, then a whole lot of articles are going to smell this way until the published literature catches up with such a revolutionary idea, since most flight related characters have been interpreted as having to do with Avian flight until extremely recently. Dinoguy2 23:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dead links and Dinodata

I've taken the liberty of removing dead JP Institute, Dodson\Paleoecology, and Dinosauricon links (including page caches). As far as I can tell, the current Dinosauricon is probably only good for image links at this point.

Also, we have a lot of links to Dinodata, which, although it isn't dead, does not permit users to go to the links without being signed in. Should we remove its links, too? J. Spencer 16:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I saw all your work on the links, J. Almost sickening how much work you're doing. When these links were placed, they were still presumably functioning (I myself had added quite a few JP Institute links on short stub articles with no other external links). I don't think there's any need for dead links (or cached links). Thanks for the clean-up.

We may also want to remove Enchanted Learning links. I had originally added a few when I was first editing dinosaur articles last February, but I've come to feel the site is rather amateurish, and the images they use are rather undesirable. I don't know how anyone else feels.

Darren Naish's blog is used as an external link in eight or ten articles, and, as you know, these were removed yesterday. Although I replaced them and the editor who removed them has agreed not to do so again, I think it's only a matter of time before someone else cites WP:RS (which is only a guideline and subject to interpretation) and removes them again. I think we may want to come up with replacement links for this site, if suitable replacements can be found. One exception may be "Angloposeidon", where the primary researcher is Darren Naish, since there is little else on it.

The removal of all these links will probably result in several articles with few or no external links. I think Dinodata could stay, simply because I'd like for each article to have one or more useful external link, and some of these dinosaur articles have "slim pickings" in the sense that there are few reputable external links about them. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:29, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably add a note to the Dinodata links, then, saying you have to log in. J. Spencer 17:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Something like: (Requires registration) or...? Firsfron of Ronchester 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I suppose. Is that all right, though? I know a lot of newspapers ask you to register to read them.

Checked out Enchanted Learning. As a kiddie site, it should stay on the main dinosaur article, but otherwise it's not that great (although I think it was the source for a lot of our size estimates). Yahooligans is in the same boat (plus it uses a lot of plug-ins, which annoys me). J. Spencer 17:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. According to WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration, external links requiring registration or a paid subscription "should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article, or it has relevant content that is of substantially higher quality than that available from any other website." I agree Yahooligans isn't a very good external link (and I, too, hate plug-ins). The question is: what external links are we left with? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, um, the Dinosaur Encyclopaedia on DinoRuss's site (somewhat out of date), the Theropod Database (good, sometimes overly technical), mine (citations not up-front), the Dinosaur Mailing list (same problems as the blog), Dinosauria On-Line (terribly out of date, but good for etymologies), Palaeos (which I like but may be gone at some point), a few specialist sites like DinoWight, Dann's Dinosaurs for Australian species, Skeletal Drawing and The Grave Yard for skeletal reconstructions, a ton of good art at the Dinosauricon's Art Gallery, and that's about it in English. Oh, yeah, the Dinobase and Dino-Directory. The DinoDictionary is on the kiddie side. Something called Dinodex is difficult to navigate, bare-bones and opens a lot of pop-ups, and so should be removed. There's actually more than I thought. Any others? J. Spencer 20:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DinoWight and Dann's Dinosaurs are geocities-hosted sites; while their content may be great, someone will eventually point to WP:RS#Self-published_sources and remove them, I'm certain. I have found Palaeos to be very excellent, but they are changing over to a wiki format, and thus will eventually no longer be a reliable source. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:17, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, technically they're *all* self-published. :) I mean, the Theropod Database is Mickey Mortimer on a university account, mine was on a school server and is now on a free account, and so on. DinoWight and Dann's Dinosaurs are useful in their own areas (Isle of Wight dinosaurs and Australian dinosaurs; and frankly I dislike going to Geocities sites if I can avoid it). The thing that gets me is that I trust Darren's blog over everything but parts of the Dinosaur Mailing List Archives, and he includes numerous references, yet it was his that was picked on. Must have been the blog part. Honestly, I think editors should stick to their area of expertise where links are concerned. J. Spencer 22:49, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I mean is, a geocities account is obviously self-published, and any editor can decide it doesn't meet WP:RS. With most of the others, there's at least a domain name that gives the site a respectable feel (and the yahoo/geocities banners and crap doesn't help). I'm pretty sure the editor was doing automated searches for articles which contained the word "blog" or some such. I agree Naish's site is much better than almost any external link. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:42, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we want to drop either Dinodata or Zoom Dinosaurs/Enchanted Learning, then? Maybe we should have a self-imposed project link blacklist. J. Spencer 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is a blacklist really neccessary? I mean, it's mainly about six or eight of us editing. "Blacklist" sounds so formal. Though if you think it's needed, we can make one. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no cabal, mwa-ha-ha-ha! Maybe not a blacklist, per se, but a directory of recommended and non-recommended sitesJ. Spencer 01:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's the beginning of such a list at the end of this list. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, something like that, but it's not a big deal, since like you said it's just 6-8 of us doing this, and we've all got a good idea of what's out there as far as Internet sources go. What I really want to know is yea or nay on Dinodata/Enchanted Learning. If nay on one or the other, I'll remove them. J. Spencer 04:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I !vote "nay" on EnchantedLearning/ZoomDinosaurs, unless there are no other links to be had (which may be the case for some of the lesser-known dinosaurs). I know I actually added a few of these links myself at one point, but I've come to feel the illustrations are amaturish and cartoonish and would like to avoid that if possible. I don't know how anyone else feels; Dinoguy said a week or so ago that he didn't mind the cartoonish illustrations, but what about the content? And everyone else has been really quiet on this talk page lately. I'm not sure if our "consensus of three" (two?) is really a consensus. However, there's my !vote. Make of it what you will. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's no immediate need, so we can let the discussion sit for a few days and see if it attracts any more attention. J. Spencer 04:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deal. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just passing by and adding my two cents here. I would say no on EnchantedLearning/ZoomDinosaurs for all the reasons mentioned above, but I'd hate to have Dinodata go since this is really a comprehensive source of info on our favorite critters (especially when it's the only external link left). We could just add "registration required" at the end of the link. ArthurWeasley 18:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Recetting indent) I agree with Arthur. Enchanted Learning is not very encyclopeadic, and DinoData is probably the best general source covering all dinosaurs currently online. Dinoguy2 00:37, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for Wikipedia to have an account of Dinodata? That way all users connection to Dinodata from here could be able to use it. Sort of like an open chequing account... If not, I agree with the little side message - Bob the Lemming

If we do decide to go with the "free registration required" tag, we should probably change all the links at the same time so they go to the homepage; otherwise you get a 404 message, and logging in doesn't take you directly to the page you wanted in such a case. (another option, of course, is Internet Archive...) J. Spencer 03:10, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about a ref like See entry on Thescelosaurus on Dinodata (registration required)? This would go to the main page and user will just have to register and search the name of the dino (Thescelo is just used as an example ;)) ArthurWeasley 03:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's definitely better. J. Spencer 03:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like Arthur's proposal, too. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like we want to keep Dinodata (with an instructive tag), and drop Enchanted Learning. I'd like to keep Enchanted on the main page, under the kid section, but otherwise I have no qualms about removing it elsewhere. J. Spencer 04:02, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great. I won't be able to do any serious editing until Monday (I'm on sloooow dial-up at home which makes editing anything more than a few pages very laborious), but don't feel you have to do all this: I can work on the links come Monday, when I'm back at work. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give it a whirl. :) J. Spencer 19:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., I think it's pretty much taken care of. I left Enchanted Learning in a couple of places, where it seemed useful (they've got a nice Triceratops entry). J. Spencer 23:38, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right; we shouldn't blanket-remove pages if the site has a cool entry. Thanks for all the fixes. BTW, while we're on the subject, when we link to your site, how would you prefer the link to look/what do you want it to say? Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big deal, except it may be a good idea to note where to scroll to (i.e. Iguanodontia i.s.), since I don't have individual genus pages.J. Spencer 01:39, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avisaurus

I have an issue with the hypodigm of Avisaurus spp.; can't seem to find a ref. See here. Dysmorodrepanis 20:21, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Night at the Museum

Can someone confirm what dinosaurs were in Night at the Museum? Someone is adding the sentence "The movie features Two [dinosaur genus X] skeleton in Night at the Museum." to many entries. J. Spencer 15:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only dinosaur I remember seeing was T. rex. I don't recall any others. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could they have been in the background? Triceratops in popular culture, Stegosaurus in popular culture, Dimetrodon, Parasaurolophus, Corythosaurus, Pachycephalosaurus, Anatotitan, Edmontosaurus, Styracosaurus, Ankylosaurus, and Apatosaurus in Extinct animals in popular culture are the animals this user, 71.130.214.249, has added this or a variant to, which are currently still present (I see you took out Apatosaurus and Deinosuchus once before). These have got to be from something else; AMNH doesn't even have skeletons of some of these animals. J. Spencer 04:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I would have remembered all those. I just saw this movie two weeks ago. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:14, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can see around 20 screenshots on the Internet Movie Database. Even in the party scenes, with all the animals, there is exactly one dinosaur: T. rex. I'm reverting these edits. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaurus vs. Tyrannosaurus

Someone has recently created this article. What it comes down to is a brief (under 5 minutes) scene in a notable movie. This could be covered better, in my opinion, in the JP3 article. Other voices before I send this to WP:AFD? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be pretty much OR. If there's anything useful, put it in JP3. J. Spencer 04:00, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Next collaboration tied - voting extended by 7 days. Need tie-breaker

Alright folks - voting is tied at 4 apiece between Ankylosaurus and Compsognathus. I have extended voting by 7 days (well, people have only just started attacking the Iguanodon article anyways...). If it is still tied then I'll toss a coin and vote myself (I thought I'd give people a last chance to vote and I honestly couldn't decide myself) :) cheers Cas Liber 06:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Voted! Thanks for keeping us on track with these collaboration things, Cas! Firsfron of Ronchester 06:58, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GOAL! - as we move into extra time here at dino-wembley, our armoured chum makes an early lead.....(nailbiting isn't it?) cheers Cas Liber 07:01, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bwahah! You'd think a quick-moving theropod would be able to out-race a lumbering, plodding thyreophoran, though... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA candidates

We've just gotten Amphicoelias and Thescelosaurus to Good Article status, and it was a pretty simple procedure, so I was wondering if we could put together a short list of other articles that could probably make GA with minor modifications. I'm not talking the heavy effort that goes into an FA, just copy edits, maybe some refs, some section expansion where needed, etc. This could also be a good outlet for anyone's "pet" dinosaurs that don't really have enough published on them to build a full FA.
My thoughts, arranged roughly from least work needed to most:

Microraptor
Species of Psittacosaurus (only issue is P. sibiricus was recently described in the Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, so that would need to be added. I don't have that one currently)
Coelophysis
Struthiomimus
Othnielosaurus (with some pictures)
Spinosaurus (more refs, in-line)
Troodon (ditto)

J. Spencer 04:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inspired by your work on Thescelosaurus, and Dinoguy's on Amphicoelias, I've decided to give Scelidosaurus a whirl. I recently expanded it quite a bit, so the main thing I'll need to add is refs. I agree some of those others could easily become Good Articles, with only a little effort. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind putting some work into Microraptor--I believe I've got all the papers on it, so I'll do a run-through one of these days and see if anything important is left out. Dinoguy2 14:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list may help us determine the articles most ready for a collaborative FAC effort. It lists Wikipedia's dinosaur articles in order of size, and while some of the information is out of date, I hope it will be useful. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that Heterodontosauridae was that big. A little expansion on the last section, and that one's a GA, I think. Thanks for the work, Firs! J. Spencer 15:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Well, actually, I ran into many problems, but it's done now. :) This list, of course, says nothing about the overall quality of an article, but it's a place to get started. The largest articles probably don't need too much further expansion. Like you, I was surprised about several articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thagomizer may be deleted

Just a head's up: Wikipedia's Thagomizer article may be deleted, as it was recently prodded (proposed for deletion) by user:SMcCandlish, with the following reason: Silliness. Any actual material in here that is not in the proper article on dinosaurs should be moved there. Apparently, the user has not seen the length of the Dinosaur article. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with its deletion, but maybe a comprimise would be to merge it into Stegosauria? Dinoguy2 04:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind a compromise like that, either. He states on his talk page he wants it moved to the correct anatomical name. I don't think there is one. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From all I've read outside of wikipedia, the term is used in the academic literature. Can you all confirm that? If so, it seems unamibguous that it should be kept. Also, can you link the AfD? Thanks. Debivort 05:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no AFD yet; the above user has indicated on his talk page that the article needs moved to the correct name and needs to be rewritten. However, even Palaeos.com uses the term in their glossary. A brief look at the other terms used on that page ("Taenia clino-orbitalis", "Tarsometatarsus", "Telychian", "Temporomandibular joint") indicates they use all the correct paleontological terms, yet still include "Thagomizer". Firsfron of Ronchester 06:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism watchlist

Due to some sort of Wiki-glitch, I was stuck with some articles stuck on my watchlist with no way to remove them. My watchlist recently had over 10,000 pages with no way to remove many of them. They've all now been removed, unfortunately including the dinosaur pages. It may take me a while to add them all back; meanwhile, I apologize but I won't be reverting much vandalism until I can manage to add the dinosaur articles back to my watchlist. Just thought I'd alert everyone. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want, I have a special page I used to track changes before I got all the dinosaur articles added. You don't get the talk pages, but you get all the genera and all of the higher-level groups, and various other topics. It's I take this too seriously. J. Spencer 15:08, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, J. That will save me some sorting time. When you add an article to your watchlist, the talk page is added automatically (and vice versa). I really didn't want to have to manually add every page back to my watchlist, but I may have to. Before I do that, I'm going to attempt to add null edits using AWB (hopefully these won't show up on anyone's watchlist). Thanks again. Right now, I have seven pages on my watchlist, and it's just weird. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work:

I was just looking over the number of Featured Dinosaur articles & would like to say well done to all those who took part in the achievement of no less that 8 featured dinosaur articles & a few GAs too. This is a great feat & you should all be proud of your work... Keep it up... Spawn Man 00:12, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanodon

Hi, everyone. We've put in a lot of work on Iguanodon, had a third party go over it (Circeus, from the Triceratops FAC), and now I think it's getting near the point we can send it out for its own spin on FAC. Would anyone like to take out the dinosaur wax and help make sure it's buffed to perfection? J. Spencer 02:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't see too much wrong with the article at the moment. The best thing to do (especially if it's only as you say copy-editng stuff) would be to list Iguanodon as an FAC & then see what, if any, opposes there are to fix. That way, we won't just waste time doing copyediting which mightn't be needed in the first place. And besides, whatever copyediting is done prior to a FAC, there will always be a multitude of other problems found no matter how well your copyediting was. Also, who will be nominating the article, as I feel it's ready now. Someone other than myself or Cas Liber, as we've had our fair share of dino-featuring & I'd like to see another editor get the chance at being able to experience a dino FAC. That way we'll always have a good supply of credible & experienced editors on our team. Of course I, & probably others, would help out with any problems that occur at FAC. Just my 2 cents. Thoughts everyone? Spawn Man 06:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto - Go for it dude - with >3 of us backing up to deal with objecting issues it should pass easiliy. I reckon it is a killer and comes over better than the last 3 I put up. Great job. Cas Liber 06:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus I don't want Cas to over take me in number of Dino FA's. ;) Well you've got our approval (not that you needed it), so I say you should go & get a FA under your belt... Spawn Man 07:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, gang, I've nominated it (hope no one minds). The nom can be found here. You know, I never know for sure what the FAC reviewers will want; each FAC has been different. All I know is that several folks here (no need to name names, I assume) put in a heck of a lot of work on this article, and I hope it will pay off. Everyone cross your fingers! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:10, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, I thought J. Spencer was nom-ing? Never mind though, good rationale on the FAC Firs. Spawn Man 07:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no biggie, I wasn't here; I'm just glad to see it going forward. By the way, there's a fantastic specimen timeline-in-progress posted on the Archaeopteryx talk page. J. Spencer 14:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Archie timeline diagram will be great, if the final, questionable dates can be cleared up. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let Y tambe know, then, 'cause that's who made it :) . J. Spencer 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Neosauropoda" is redlink

Turiasaurus: "Phylogenetic analysis shows that Turiasaurus lies outside of the Neosauropoda division and belongs to a new clade, Turiasauria..." -- Can anybody give us a definition/article for "Neosauropoda"? Thanks. -- 201.50.251.197 17:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a brief stub. Will expand later. Thanks for your comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your hard work! :-) -- 201.50.251.197 01:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on famous specimens

Today an editor was asking about an article on "Sue" the T. rex. There are three articles on specific specimens that I know of: Jane (dinosaur), Big Al (fossil), and the recently-created Trachodon mummy (which I think could become a useful article on dinosaur "mummies" in general, as that is an interesting topic, but I don't think one specimen should be singled out). I agree that it's a bad precedent to create new articles on specimens, and as far as I can tell, the first two have their own (not particularly large) articles because of media coverage. Honestly, "Sue" is more deserving in my mind of an article than the other two theropods, which could be subsections on the pages of their genera. J. Spencer 04:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Please no more articles on individual specimens of dinosaurs. Our guidelines state "Articles should not get any more specific than genus level. Individual species should be discussed in the article about the appropriate genus." An article on an individual specimen goes even further. I don't think seperate articles for specimens -- even famous ones-- are really needed. Especially when many of our genus articles are so short. Thescelosaurus is a great example where there is a section for "Willo". Firsfron of Ronchester 04:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And one more: Homer (dinosaur). IMHO all of these (if thought necessary at all) should be incorporated as sections in the articles on their respective genera. -- 201.51.231.176 12:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the (short) Homer info to the Burpee Museum of Natural History page, as it made the most sense there. J. Spencer 17:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took care of Big Al, too. Jane I'm not sure about, because I'd guess half of the information is more pertinent to the museum article, and half to Tyrannosaurus. J. Spencer 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up of articles which are too technical

There are a few dinosaur articles that are so technical that I cannot imagine they'd be useful to mainstream readers. I've just done a bit of clean-up on Tyrannotitan, which read like a formal description (still does, really). This one needs work, and there are several ankylosaur articles which also need similar assistance. Any volunteers? Firsfron of Ronchester 03:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iggy's up!!!

Congrats to all who worked on Iggy - absolutely fantastic job. Well done! cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:16, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! Let's go to London, take the top off of the standing model, and hold a banquet. :) J. Spencer 15:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh! At least there would be more room this time! Firsfron of Ronchester 18:00, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I went there yesterday. It's quite nice really.... Spawn Man 07:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs = video game magazine ???

Started with Iguanodon, wikisurfed to The Crystal Palace Dinosaurs. There's some pretty odd text in there, for example, "Curiously the dinosaurs were reported by the media during their building in a way that a video game magazine would take interest in and report on an upcoming video game and though they failed to meet their deadline, when the models were unveiled they were subject to mass media coverage. Hawkins benefited greatly from the public's reaction to them, which was so strong it lead to what could be considered the first case of tie-in merchandising as a set of smaller versions of Hawkins' models were sold for £30 as educational products." Anybody care to take a stab at deciphering / cleanup? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 17:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I had cleaned up this article a bit a while back, and had assumed it was written by someone familiar with video games (or video game magazines). Originally, the text had many run-on sentences (20 or so) which I broke into smaller chunks for reader digestion. I really didn't know what to do with the video game reference, but the rest seems fairly clear to me. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must say though Writtenonsand, the way you discovered the text there was like the way Pacman uncovers those little small round things on the screen. Quite remarkable. ;) Spawn Man 07:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]