User talk:Dinoguy2

Welcome!

Hello, Dinoguy2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --JAranda | watz sup 05:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the classification of New World vultures with Ciconiiformes. this is not general practice outside the USA, nor is it the current Wikipedia standard

jimfbleak 16:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Early Tetrapods

We discussed about WWM in Talk:Hynerpeton. You said it was not a scientific source. Is Hynerpeton classified in any group? In articles refering to the early tetrapod Ichthyostega, they call the animal an "amphibian". Is this true? Is Hynerpeton just a missing link? GBA 21:47, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Amphibian" is sometimes used to refer to any kind of tetrapod that's not an amniote, but most of these are not true amphibians. Hynerpeton is not a member of any particular class or family (in Linnean classification this is called a "plesion"), and it is more primitive than true amphibians (the class that includes frogs and salamanders). I guess calling it "just a missing link" is not that far off, actually.Dinoguy2 00:08, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rank-Juggling

Sheesh, Benton sure uses a lot of ranks. How many and which ones do you think we should generally include in dinosaur and pterosaur taxaboxes? John.Conway 00:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the discussions on one of the taxobox entries - all those ranks are confusing and unnecessary. I'm all for using only the main ranks (Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species) and the Sub- and Super- prefixes. Anything else should be unranked ("norank" in the taxobox code).

So for dinos and pteros, use Class Repitilia, orders Pterosauria, Saurischia, Ornithiscia. Suborders Pterodactyloidea, Theropoda, Sauropodomorpha, Thyreophora, Cerapoda. Not sure what to do about Ramphorhynchoids. Either use the paraphyletic suborder or leave them suborderless I guess. Dinoguy2 01:15, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't Benton use Sauropsida in favour of Reptilia? John.Conway 02:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and there were at least a few people advocating this for wiki as well (see Talk:Sauropsida). I personally think that Reptilia should be used, since it's already universal across extant reptile pages and since it's far and away the more well-known and understood name. It's also essentially the same clade and, as a name, has a few years priority over Sauropsida. Pretty much for the same reasons I'm advocating Reptilia/Aves over Archosauria. (Benton also puts Oviraptorosauria in Aves, but I think we should keep that one where it is for now...)Dinoguy2 14:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that's sort of the reason I'd prefer Sauropsida, people think they know what reptile means (insert bakkerian arguments here). I always feel silly describing pterosaurs as "flying reptiles". John.Conway 17:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I think we should unilaterally start using Class Pterosauria and see if anybody calls us on it... Anyway, I wouldn't mind Sauropsida since it is more technically correct, I just didn't want to start an edit war with anyone who works on turtles, snakes, etc, since I strongly feel we should have standardized taxonomy over all pages. If you want to try changing the extant reptile pages to Sauropsida, I won't object, but, I bet others might. If you get their support, I'll back Sauropsida too. Dinoguy2 22:27, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use Sauropsida for fossil reptiles, and leave living reptiles alone. John.Conway 19:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree--I think having a standard classification is important. Why seperate fossil animals from living ones? Reptiles used to be thought of as slow, sluggish, etc, but I can almost assure you dinosaurs (and by extension other dino-like fossil reptiles) haven't been thought of that way since Jurassic Park. Why use a new, unfamiliar name in place of a widely known name just to accomodate a few decades-old misconceptions? Or, as an alternative, if it's that important to distinguish Reptilia from "reptiles", why not just use an apomorphy based Aves? Nobody's gonna think T.rex was sluggish if it was a bird... ;)Dinoguy2 23:17, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vertebrate Palaeontology and Zoology are seperate in terms of scientific culture, subject matter, and naturally enough, approaches to classification. If our job really is to reflect scientific consensus, then maybe we should drop the ranks. Otherwise, the standard textbook for Vertebrate Palaeontology uses Sauropsida. I'm not too worried about the sluggish dinosaurs thing here. I just don't think it conveys useful information to refer to dinosaurs and pterosaurs as "reptiles" - the word means different things in general and scientific usage.

My philosophy is, the entries in wikipedia should be written with your average 8th grader in mind. Do ranks and Reptilia and what have you contain any information useful to a paleontologist? No, but what paleontologist uses Wikipedia as a reference source? IMHO this thing should conform to the standards of a high school text book, or college text book at best (hence Benton). I do understand other people's milage may vary here. I won't complain if nayone starts changing Reptilia to Sauropsida, and you do make a good point about Zoology and Paleontology being (regretably, imho) very different fields. But maybe something should be taken up with Wikiproject TOL about using a seperate set of taxoboxes all together for fossil species, just to make that difference clear.Dinoguy2 14:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Helping Hand:

I'm thanking everyone who helped me majorly in getting Dinosaur to the main page, especially on New Year's Day! It was not a one man job & I really appreciate the help you guys have done. Happy New Year! Spawn Man 02:56, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missing dinosaurs

To answer your query on Dracontes' page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/missing may be just what you're looking for. I purge the blues every so often, so it's a good way to see how we're progressing (very well by the look of things!). And you're right about Archosauria. I tend to just copy and paste the taxobox from the nearest clade, so if my articles use Archosauria it's just because the other ones do. Not that that's an excuse, but it shows we need to standardise across all the articles. When the debate ends, I recommend calling in a bot to do the required changes, if there are a large number of them. Soo 22:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you SOOOOOOOOOOOOO MUCH!!!!!

Thank you so much for footnoting in the Dinosaur article. I can do them, but I've been trying to get another user to do it as he has no idea how. I've been warring with him for a while & he's making the article worse. Any way, I don't want to drag you into it, so thank you for footnoting, even though I can do it myself, it was a big help. I'll send a barnstar your way soon... Spawn Man 22:14, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments?

Fedor says "I think the current content of the article strikes the balance quite nicely, really, without obfuscating the fact that, strictly speaking, birds are dinosaurs." I agree. But part of how we got there was my adding a sourced quote saying what is now this paragraph:

There is an almost universal consensus among paleontologists that birds are the descendants of theropod dinosaurs. Using the strict cladistical definition that all descendants of a single common ancestor are related, modern birds are dinosaurs and dinosaurs are, therefore, not extinct. Modern birds are classified by most paleontologists as belonging to the subgroup Maniraptora, which are coelurosaurs, which are theropods, which are saurischians, which are dinosaurs.

And other adding and insisting on a paragraph that now reads:

However, birds are morphologically distinct from their reptilian ancestors, and referring to birds as "avian dinosaurs" and to all other dinosaurs as "non-avian dinosaurs" is clumsy. Birds are still birds, at least in popular usage and among ornithologists. It is also technically correct to refer to birds as a distinct group under the older Linnaean classification system, which accepts taxa that exclude some descendants of a single common ancestor (paraphyletic taxa). Paleontologists mostly use cladistics, which classifies birds as dinosaurs, to construct their taxonomies, but many other scientists do not. As a result, this article will use "dinosaur" as a synonym for "non-avian dinosaur", and "bird" as a synonym for "avian dinosaur".

It has always bothered me that the problem of the inbetween category (missing link category) of so-called "feathered dinosours" [sic] (meaning feathered non-avian dinosaurs) is inadequately addresed.

You said:

in common usage a bird is an animal with feathers and wings. Therefore things like Velociraptor and Oviraptor (maybe even T.rex) are really birds, not dinosaurs.

Maybe something along those lines would be a useful addition to the dinosaur article. Care to either make suggestions or be bold and make additions? WAS 4.250 20:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how we should go about something like this. It's really an issue of common usage vs. scientific usage. Maybe a subsection on the definition of what is/is not a dinosaur, where we could also discuss animals commonly (incorrectly) thought of as dinsaurs like plesiosaurs and pterosaurs. I'll get started on this after work, maybe others can help add/edit from there.Dinoguy2 20:28, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never asked you to mop up

First, thanks for all the help with the dinosaur article. Second, I'm sorry you feel hostile towards me just because we differ on footnote style useage in a continually edited, never finished, collaberative wiki article.

Wetmans said to Spawn Man:

I saw your recent edit at Dinosaurs and I felt you might need a reference from Wikipedia:Footnotes concerning the embedded links that seemed to offend you: "The policy page regarding source citation is Wikipedia:Verifiability and the style guide is Wikipedia:Cite sources. Using footnotes is not mandatory or even preferred. Those editing the article may select other citation styles: for example, embedded links or Harvard referencing. See Wikipedia:Cite_sources#How_to_cite_sources for a list of options. It is important to discuss the matter with other editors on the page." Hope this helps. --Wetman 04:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Sorry you feel I don't have a right to my own opinion in the matter of footnotes. WAS 4.250 16:48, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Embedded references are easier for a continually edited, never finished, collaberative wiki article. For a settled article or rarely edited article puting it all at the bottom is a nice FINISHING touch. But if it will NEVER be finished, if it's a target for every newbie; it becomes an unjustifyable pain in the butt to keep it all one put-it-at-the-botton referencing style. I have NEVER reverted a change from in line to at the bottom, so "mop up" or don't, I don't care. But I don't have to jump through anyone's stylistic-preferences hoop in order to CONTRIBUTE (I do my thing, you do yours; some are good at one thing others good at other stuff; you know .. teamwork?). WAS 4.250 16:56, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point you're overlooking in that quote from Wetman is "it is important to discuss the matter with other editors on the page." I guess whether you want to listen to the advice of others or just ignore it is up to you, but after a few seconds looking through the Dinosaur talk section, I turned up several posts complaining about the sloppiness of two different notaion systems for the same article. For what it's worth, the only reason I think footnotes are preferable is that not all references in Dinosaur are to internet sources. The most important references in any science article, as you know, are citations of primary literature. Harvard style is another option, but nobody seems to want to go through the entire article and replace footnotes with Harvard style citations to every print and internet source (simply placing a link at the end of a quote is not proper style, an author and date must be listed). Using a combination of footnoes, Harvard notes, and linked sources is so sloppy I would nominate the article be revoked of its featured status. Take all this as you will, but I would prefer people take a little extra time for internal consistancy rather than mess up a well put together entry.Dinoguy2 18:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of attaining featured status is different from maintaining the article. I stayed away from the article while others polished it into shape for featured status as I don't give hoot about featured status or looking pretty, but I also do care about the fact that these are important to other people. So I stayed away. Now the featured thing is in the past and contributors can strive to freeze it in place or open it up to a new round of everyone contributing what they can and we'll clean it up at some future date to arrive again at a prettied up version once again. This is my preference. You wish to carefully maintain a featured article spic and span appearance and stiffle contributions that will have to be cleaned up later. These competing stategies are to be found all over Wikipedia. As I am free to make my choices, so are you. Experience is the best teacher. I will not interfere with you striving to keep the article in pristine shape. I will stay away (mostly) from the article (again) and not be disruptive. Only one of the two mentioned stategies can be followed at any one time on any one article without causing emotionl grief; so have at it and don't think this is an emotional thing for me as it is not. I'm sure you will do a good job improving the article, as did Spawn Man. I'm sure you will find it increasingly annoying to keep the sea plowed, as did Spawn Man. Sometimes it makes more sense not to pick up every bit of dirt as it hits the floor, but to let it accumulate then deal with it all at once at periodic intervals. I'd like to quote from myslf, a paragraph in my talk page archive at [1]:

About repeating the source in the article and at the bottom: The BEST way is using a referencing system as the best (e.g RECENTLY featured articles) articles in wikipedia do. The worst way omits sources altogether. Putting the source in only the text is not as good because it is useful to put them altogether in one place; sometimes one source is used for more than one fact, and it's less likely to be deleted in a source section in the bottom. Putting the source only at the bottom doesn't let someone connect a specific fact to a specific source for the purpose of verification. Putting the source in both places is the lazy man's (my) solution and not as good as using one of the referencing systems available at wikipedia.

This was before I met you or Spawn Man, and I haven't changed. I'm happy. You be happy. Cheers. WAS 4.250 19:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unenlagia

There is a Unenlagia dinosaur? I was wondering if such a thing existed. Moving now, sir *salutes* -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 02:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been moved, and all Zoids specific references have been redirected to the new page. Feel free to undo the redirect and move in at any time. :P -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 03:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I hope to get at least a stub up for the dino Unenlagia soon.Dinoguy2 06:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus rex

Hi Dinoguy - saw your note on User talk:72.64.76.161 dated 18 Jan; just to let you know that 72.64.76.161 repeated his/her vandalism on 22 Jan. I've reverted it, but suspect this won't be the last time given the user's past history. I'd support any action you deem should be taken - MPF 09:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.199.27.84's edit (25 Jan) also needs to be double-checked, I don't have accurate info to hand to check myself - MPF 09:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomimus

I've nominated this article for deletion because I could find no mentions of it anywhere outside of Wikipedia despite trying Google, Altavista, Amazon, my library's catalog, and Google Print. I noted that you removed the term from Ornithomimidae so I'm asking for you to vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anatomimus. Thanks. Superm401 - Talk 02:29, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After deleting it from Ornithomimidae I also searched around and found no reference to it. Thinknig it might be a new species I overlooked (since I usually keep on top of new theropods) I searched the dinosaur Mailing List Archives--nothing. User John.Conway is more an expert than I am and he agrees-there's o such dinosaur. I voted for deletion on the discussion page.--Dinoguy2The Thagomizer 20:45, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Wiki Should Require

"Proof that all editors have at least completed High School, so we can avoid the butchering of the English language."

Hey, I never completed High School, and I've never not been undone! - John.Conway 06:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Benton and Sauropsida

Matt, do you know whether class aves could be said to be part of class sauropsida according to Benton's taxonomy? I can't decide. John.Conway 08:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFAIK he uses a clean break making Sauropsida consciously paraphyletic, but I'm mainly going by the figures and supplements available on his web site. The actual text may say something else.Dinoguy2 13:33, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurs and naming conventions

Saw your note on Talk:Guanlong.
Tyrannosaurus currently redirects to Tyrannosaurus rex. I assume that naming conventions would mandate that we should reverse this? -- Writtenonsand 23:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would reccomend yes, but currently Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs lists T.rex as an exception under article titles. Now, I understand why Dilong paradoxus is there (there's already an article titled just Dilong), but seeing as how the T.rex article discusses species of Tyrannosaurus other than t.rex, I think using Tyrannosaurus would be preferable. Might want to take this up on the WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page first though.Dinoguy2 03:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page Blanking

On 10-Feb, you blanked Nemegtosauridae with the summary "rm inappropriate redirect". Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I've reverted it to the previous version. If you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you believe different content should go there, please create a stub. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 01:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bird rv

Hi Dinoguy - saw you'd reverted some uncited stuff at bird; following links, I found more that you might want to check out at furcula and Longisquama. A look at the cited refs on the Longisquama page shows one (the first) to be a decidedly odd, probably POV website, and a quick google search suggests that the presence of a furcula in Longisquama is dubious. I don't know the subject well enough to edit safely, could you check it out please? - MPF 16:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up. I've been working to clarify and add citations to the Longisquama page (User:Kazvorpal, responsible for most of the changes on bird, seems highly predisposed to using dubious and generalized newspaper and web sources in articles). I agree that the presence of a furcula is highly dubious, but I can't find a published source that I can read enough of to determine if this has been published, so I'd rather not change that in the article, since published sources there claim the furcula is real. I've added a few links and cites to critiques just in case.Dinoguy2 16:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some say the supposed furcula is an interclavicle. While this idea is so logical that it should probably go into the Wikipedia articles anyway, there are no citable references on this, IIRC.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:19 CEST | 2006/5/9

Dino article formatting

I was wondering if you had perused the information I have added to many of the dinosaur articles here (see for instance Acrocanthosaurus). Spawn Man has a lot of issues with my edits (see my talk page). Was wondering what you thought, as you seem to be another very frequent dinosaur editor. I am open to change if a lot of people disagree with me. I will not stop italicizing genus or species names though. They are italicized anywhere and everywhere they appear. That is just science. I'd rather just stop editing altogether than see incorrect information proliferate. Sheep81 04:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review of tuatara

Hi, I've noticed you have some expertise on reptiles, and I would feel honoured if you commented on my peer review request of Tuatara, found here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Tuatara. Many thanks! - Samsara _contrib ^talk 16:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Attempt:

Since Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs is becoming a bit dormant of late, I've decided to get it reactivated. I've started putting the following templates all over the show, & I'd appreciate if someone would try putting them on too. Remember, they only go on Dinosaur orientated artcle's TALK pages. Not the articles themselves.

Dinosaurs NA‑class

	Dinosaurs portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

So, finally, while I work on the project with a designer, in order to get more people, thus more pages, I would appreciate if you didn't move or shift (or stuff up for that matter) any of the work I'll be doing, like adding templates, protocols to the project page, etc etc. I'm hoping to get it up to the standard of The military history project. So, tell your friends to join up, or spam unknowing people & continue to do great articles. I no time, we'll have an awesome, professional project page! Spawn Man 03:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You got it. I'll try to add the banner to nay pages I edit in the future.Dinoguy2 13:42, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New improvement

As per step three (on the dinosaur project talk page), I promised to ask a general consensus about any new improvements made. So, I'd like everyone to give comments on the new talk page banner:

Dinosaurs NA‑class

	Dinosaurs portal This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
NA	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

What does everyone think of it? It's meant to be placed on the talk page of dinosaur related articles, so everytime you edit an article, placing this there would make our job easier. So a few questions I'd like everyone to answer:

1)Does everyone like the picture? 2)Is the wording adequate? 3)Any other queries/problems?

I'll let you know when a new improvement arises... Spawn Man 00:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Improvement 2

As per step three (on the dinosaur project talk page), I promised to ask a general consensus about any new improvements made. So, I'd like everyone to give comments on the new talk page banner:

This user is a part of WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.

What does everyone think of it? It's meant to be placed on the user talk page or user page of members of the Dinosaur wikiproject, so placing this there would make our job easier. So a few questions I'd like everyone to answer:

1)Does everyone like the picture? 2)Is the wording adequate? 3)Any other queries/problems?

I'll let you know when a new improvement arises... Spawn Man 00:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC). BTW, I changed the template you put on your user page to be the new template above.[reply]

New photos proposed for templates?

Well, above are a few photos that could replace the exsisting template photo. Please feel free to suggest more photos on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page. Spawn Man 19:01, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New improvement 3

As per step three, I'm informing you that... A new userbox has been created!! Please give comments and feedback (not including the picture, which may be due to change).

This user participates in
WikiProject Dinosaurs.

I will inform on arrival of more improvements. Spawn Man 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

paleobox editing

I started fixing the info in the paleoboxes, but I only got through the first three (Ammosaurus, Anchisaurus, and Bactrosaurus). This is largely because I rewrote the entire Ammosaurus article from scratch and now I need to go to sleep. It's also because I just went ahead and fixed the template myself... it's still crap, but less steamy now. Anyway good luck doing the rest, I will help out if I have time tomorrow. Hopefully he doesn't add too many more. Sheep81 11:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - If you ever need any pdf files of dinosaur papers, I have a ton of recent ones and many more easily accessible. Older papers are harder because I have to convert them to PDF from the hard copies. But just ask and I'll see what I can do. G'nite.

Im reply to your post on Sheepy's talk: Gosh Dinoguy, stop being such a whiner, (in good jest of course my friend). Plus, how does he get the title of "an editor I respect" when he has under 500 edits? No one appreciates me... Honestly...... P.S. You say his information is outdated? Didn't Sheepy say his primary source was a book from the 1920's? I don't care how many papers it's had based off it, that's out dated by my count.... P.P.S. Why the heck did you rewrite Ammosaurus from scrath sheepy? that's mean, it seems like your targeting my articles to rewrite....... I'll get you eventually.... :) Spawn Man 02:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC). BTW, Sheepy, remember to write for the masses, not for dino nerds like ourselves......[reply]

New Task bar

I've successfully created an open list of tasks on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs main page for those who would actually like to know what to do with their time on the project. Add tasks as you wish, no too long though! Add your name to tasks you wish to be part of & that's as complicated as it gets... Thanks, Spawn Man 23:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Preondactylus

Sorry to bother u mate, but you are a dino man can u check out my article and improve if possible? If its ok can I submit future articles to u late? Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 05:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please help!!!!

I know I haven't spoken to you in a while, but I really need your help. One of my subpages (User:Spawn Man/Reviews) has been picked out by a big time editor & is now up for deletion here, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Spawn Man/Reviews. I know it may sound like I only come around when I need something, but this is really important to me. I only did this as a last resort. Please vote to keep the page & I'll do anything, eat your shoes, clean your toilets for a year, even wear one of those t shirts that say I'm stupid! I just want my page which I've spent so much time on to be left alone. Thanks, Spawn Man 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC). P.S. I hope that my working with the project dinos has some sway with you?[reply]

Eotitanosuchus olsoni

Thanks for your help, if it doesnt annoy you I don an article on a Therapsid reptile and was wondering if u could do the same. Enlil Ninlil 07:18, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject:Amphibians and Reptiles

Just wondering would you be interested in collaborating on this project. It includes fossil and living forms except Dinosaurs. Thankyou Enlil Ninlil 01:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there are others working on fossil amphibians i'd like to pitch in. The whole tetrapods vs amphibians vs reptiliomorphs thing is kind of a mess I'd be interested in cleaning up.Dinoguy2 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeopteryx

HI, Jurassic or cretaceous? 68.20.221.52 tagged it as creataceous, but the info box says Jurassic. CHeers, Dlohcierekim 20:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's late Jurassic. User:Elmo12456 has been going around adding the wrong caegories to dozens of paleo articles, and I've already had to revert his edits to Archaeopteryx several times.Dinoguy2 20:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard of the 2002 discussion about Archie's holotype (the feather vs the London skeleton)? I have referenced the Bühler/Bock paper that kicked it off on Archaeopteryx and read IZCN Opinion 607, which argued about Archaeopteryx vs Griphowhatever for the London specimen, but not whether the skeleton and the feather is the holotype. There circulates a Net rumour of some ICZN opinion in 1964 that was supposed to designate London as (neo)type, but there is no reference. There is no reference in 2001-2005. I have read the Bühler/Bock paper and agree that Meyer consistently talks about the feather in his Archie descriptions and just mentions that he "has heard" of the newlyfound London skeleton. Dysmorodrepanis 21:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but the whole sentence – the last sentence of the paper – is like "oh, and there's a recently discovered skeleton which could be called Archaeopteryx". The name sticks to the London specimen, not to the isolated feather. The feather is a referred specimen. Check the Dinosaur Mailing List archives for more precise information.

David Marjanović | david.marjanovic_at_gmx.at | 14:14 CEST | 2006/5/8

"Paraves"

A big hello and many thanks for starting Mancalla and Chendytes! It may well be that we'll one day sort of butt head - figuratively, since I have tasked myself with getting the extinct birds set up nicely, working back in time from the present, while you seem to do the same with the lineage of their ancestors and relatives in the opposite temporal sequence. So the taxa in Fossil Birds are of interest to both of us, especially as the Late Quaternary prehistorics list is essentially done. You're welcome to start any article you like, and especially help with the taxa I listes as "unresolved or basal". I have not found a consistent and comprehensive taxonomy and while I tried to stick to known fact and the current state of knowledge, but some taxa may be nomina dubia or have been moved elsewhere; I know why I set up the list as I did, but the references i used usually refer to specific genera or species and therefore do not belong in a simple but comprehensive list. I (mainly) want to restrict myself to getting the lists up and up-to-date rather than creating articles to the taxa. I have pondered whether it would be wise to list, as a hidden comment, the species of the genera in the fossil birds list; that would definitely help with editing their proper articles, and with setting the time frame of existence in the list, but the list is already very long. Please take no offense with me killing the Waimanu species in the list; as it stands, prehistoric genera don't have a species listing (that would make it entirely too long).

Oh, and speaking of Waimanu: if you want to give the prehistoric penguins in general a shot, let it fly! I fear the day I finally decide nobody's gonna do it and have to do it myself until all those -dyptes have my head spinning like a Sorvall centrifuge rotor... (indeed, the prehistory of penguins should be worthy of a full article) Dysmorodrepanis 21:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see somebody else worknig on prehistoric birds! I'll help where I can, though my knowledge of everything but Mesozoic birds is very limited, so I'll bow to your judgement on most issues. The main area I've been working on lately has just been trying to integrate extinct birds from extant orders into the current articles, which is sometimes a little messy with all the redlinks. See Penguin... as it stands, it covers Sphenisciformes down to spheniscidae, but if some other penguin family is identified, we're in trouble, or at least in for potentially unpopular re-writing and re-structuring. If you have any suggestions for this type of thing, let me know.Dinoguy2 21:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your concern on the "feathered dinosaur" classification - suffice to say that I would do it the same way as you proposed, only I was confused by the avian taxa that were already categorized as feathered dinos. I removed the "bird" classifications from the Epidendrosaurus and Alvarezsauridae assuming that's OK with you? If there are remaining uncertainties or equivocal taxa, let me know - I have taken Fossil birds under my wings, so to speak, from an early draft that was both inexact and very inclusive (basically uncritically listing everything with feathers, hence the "proto-birds" section). Most of the confusion stems from cleaning up the mess the transitional taxa originally were. I also added/expanded explanatory notes to Category:Prehistoric birds and Category:Feathered dinosaurs, because Fossil birds was listed under the last category and IMHO it definitely should not! Dysmorodrepanis 17:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The bird classification on Epidendro and the alvarezsaurs was mainly due to uncertainty--alvarezsaurs were thought to be avain for a lnog time and a few scientists still think they are. Epidendro is very close to the base of aves, so which side of the line it falls on changes with every analysis at the moment. Things like Shenzouraptor and Yanornis (definately more derived than Archaeopteryx) and Archie itself (which is avian by definition) should definately be excluded.Dinoguy2 22:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dinosaurs

Hi Dinoguy!

There's currently less than 100 dinosaurs left on the Missing dinosaur page. We've come a long way! I was thinking that since there's just under 100 dinosaurs left, and since there are 25 of us signed on for the project, if we each wrote about four articles, we'd be done! Well, not "done", obviously, as many of the articles are in need of expansion. But then we could focus on expansion and other things.

You could take, say, Scaphonyx, Shanxia, Shanyangosaurus, and Shixinggia.

It's just an idea, of course, and you're of course not obligated and can do whatever you like; I just figured I'd mention the idea, and see if you were interested. No harm, right?

Take care, --Firsfron 07:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC) :)[reply]

Sounds like a great idea. I'll get started, though most of those will only warrent a stub at best.Dinoguy2 17:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Naturally. I'm looking forward to the articles/stubs. Your articles always look good. And thanks.--Firsfron 17:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the effort, guys! Fossil Birds does benefit from it, too. If I happen across some early birds on the main dinosaur list that are not marked as such, I will do so (and have done so in some cases).Dysmorodrepanis 19:34, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I would like to apologize for not checking the sources thoroughly before nominating Trigonosaurus for deletion. I have come to rely on google as a reliable source for checking if an article is real or a hoax. Guess google does not get new updates so quickly after all.

Cheers

Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 17:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Google is usually reliable, and actually I googled Trigonosaurus and did find a reference for it, so I was probably too hasty in declaring only literature valid :) Dinoguy2 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dimorphodon

Hello Dinoguy2,

About the supposed bipedal stance of Dimorphodon, I read that in a book and since your sources disproved it I suppose it has become outdated. But could it still be added as an 'debunked theory', could it not? Jerkov 09:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose, but it really applies to all pterosaurs, not just Dimorphodon. There might still be one or two people who think they were bipedal (maybe David Peters?), and if there's a source for it it could even go back in as a possible non-debunked theory.Dinoguy2 12:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]