Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Dinosaur. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

In the first paragraph we are told that the word "dinosaur" derives from the Greek word δεινόσαυρος (deinosauros). (Does this word actually exist in Greek?) Two paragraphs further on we are told that the word derives from the two separate Greek words δεινός (deinos) and σαῦρος (sauros). Two paragraphs further on again (under Etymology) we are told that it derives from two different Greek words: δεινός (deinos) and σαύρα (saura).

Does the derivation have to be given three times and, if so, shouldn't all three agree? Old Father Time (talk) 03:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Dinoguy2. Thank you for removing the reference to Greek δεινόσαυρος (deinosauros). This still leaves the matter of whether "-saur" derives from σαῦρος (sauros) (second paragraph) or σαύρα (saura) (fifth paragraph, under Etymology). Old Father Time (talk) 20:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

That I don't know, just that a single word deinosauros is obviously incorrect. It may be this is a modern Greek derivation of the compound Ancient Greek word Dinosaur or something. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I have adopted σαῦρος (sauros), following the etymologies given in Oxford and Webster's dictionaries. Old Father Time (talk) 12:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Read this, Sinosauropteryx is the first dinosaur ever to have its true colour found! [1] Spinodontosaurus (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, see the Sinosauropteryx article for more details and a slightly more accurate picture IMO ;) Not sure where all these news articles are getting Creamsicle orange from, the paper says chestnut to reddish brown. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

May I ask why this page is protected? You might consider adding a protection rationale at the top of the talk page to avoid this question in the future. Martinor (talk) 04:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's protected due to IP vandalism. The article gets a lot of traffic, much of it from schoolkids, who like to add their own interesting interpretations about dinosaurs. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Anybody who does not think that phrase has negative or condescending connotations is either stupid or dishonest. This is an encylopedia, not a forum on which to express your personal biases as objective information. The change that I made to the section on religious views was fine, but it was reverted to the inherently flawed older version for reasons that I am waiting to hear.

I'm failing to see what's wrong with this phrase. I hear the term "stories from the Bible" all the time, from Christian sources, without intent towards condescension or negative connotations or implications about their truthfulness. "Story" doesn't mean "false." Ever hear of movies "based on true story?" A story is a narrative, not a fiction. Scriptural refers to the fact that they're in a scripture. Creation refers to the fact that the scripture tells the story of creation. I honestly don't get it. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Dude, I'm not going to walk you through it -- any moderately intelligent person can conclude that the phrase "their scriptural creation stories," in the context in which it is used in this article, has a negative tone.

Doesn't seem biased to me. Propose an alternative perhaps. Also, please sign your comments with four tildes: ~~~~. de Bivort 06:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I did propose an alternative in the form of an edit, which was promptly reverted, and I am waiting for a reason for which it was removed besides the fact that the issue of the "religious views" section has been discussed before. That's what annoys me: when people just tear down the work of others without any explanation other than "this has been discussed already." Anybody can tell that "their scriptural creation stories" sounds like you're belittling creationism as mere "stories," and even if that is not the message that is conveyed if you break down the sentences, that is the implication. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leroyinc (talk • contribs)

I don't have a problem with your version, but I didn't have a problem with the old version, either. I don't think that "anybody could tell" that the previous version belittled creationism, or it would not have remained in the article for a year or more, considering the number of viewers this article gets. I think you are perceiving bias in a paragraph which does not contain any. The wording was chosen to be neutral. and the text does not say "mere stories"; that is your own extrapolation. If the text said "myths", or "mere stories", or "gobbledygook", that would be biased, but it does not. Also, I have signed your post for you. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 14:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Firsfron. My only concern is that your version matches the references given for the previous version, which it probably does. de Bivort 21:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, to give known falsehoods like creationism any mention in an article like this is to unfairly bias the article in their favor as it implies they might be true when it is certain they are false. The section, quite frankly should be removed. It adds nothing to the article anyway, being only two sentences and a link to an irrelevant article. Abyssal (talk) 00:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Creationism is not a known falsehood: intelligent design is a known falsehood because it is not scientific and yet it claims to be scientific, but the idea that God created the world is not a known falsehood at all and your belief that it is such is irrelevant to this project. Regardless, I agree that the section on religious views would be best left out altogether.

66.189.204.238 (talk) 21:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Anon IP, While it is true that the idea that God created the world is not a known falsehood, Creationism is far more than just that. What you are thinking of is just Creation. Creationism is an actual religious movement that many people wanted taught in science classes, and when that was no longer allowed, they literally changed the name to Intelligent Design.Farsight001 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The recent edit to the "Religious views" section makes it read much smoother; the question in my mind now is if Genesis should be singled out by the wikilink, or if a more general article would be more appropriate. J. Spencer (talk) 22:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why single out Genesis? Or are we changing the section header to Judeo-Christian views? Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Check out the wikilink: in either version (and in my opinion the modified version read much smoother), it goes to Creation according to Genesis. J. Spencer (talk) 23:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

After some thought I've deleted the section. It was a mere two sentences long. It only discussed a seriously fringe view from a religious standpoint and non-existent view from a scientific standpoint. After looking through the page history it seems like it's more of a controversy magnet than anything else. This is an article on dinosaurs. Seriously, it didn't belong here. Ben (talk) 14:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ben, I was about to do it myself. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 15:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I support removal of the section. Few things could possibly be less relevant to the article.....Doc Tropics 05:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

As of March the 5th, 2010, a panel of international scientists have now endorsed the impact theory of an asteroid as the cause of the extinction of Dinosaurs. They have stated that this is due to a global winter caused by ash and dust being thrown up into the air and blocking out the sun. However, it is thought that the Dinosaurs were already on the decline due to global volcanism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NiCk14AlPhA (talk • contribs) 23:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

According to recent news reports e.g. here, here and here (but there are other reports as well), dinosaurs and many other species\organisms were wiped out by an asteroid, an international group have concluded after m,any years research. Simply south (talk) 17:34, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The line in the introduction of the article goes like this: "As a result, the word "dinosaur" has entered the vernacular to describe anything that is impractically large, slow-moving, obsolete, or bound for extinction.". While I agree with all that, it has been left out that it can also be use to describe something very fierce and powerful. This is of course due to the some of the most voracious carnivores, such as the tyrannosaurus rex and the velociraptor(or rather utahraptor, thanks jurassic park). Because what is written now about the vernacular word gives it a rather negative tone, whereas that is almost the opposite of what I've grown up with. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZyaX (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm of the old school I guess as I rarely, if ever, hear people use the term as fierce and powerful. Man that football player is great... he's a dinosaur! Nope. As opposed to...I need a new computer because my old one is a dinosaur. Yep. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Shouldnt it be titeled Dinosauria? Taht is the proper name for it, imo rather like the Tyrannosaurus article is called Tyrannosaurus, not T rex. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.135.168 (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nah, the convention is for articles to be title in the vernacular (Dinosaur, not Dinosauria; Bird not Aves). Not that I prefer it that way, it's just the consensus on how things are done around here. Abyssal (talk) 19:27, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, and I'll note that many of the dino articles are pretty slack on this. It should be "Dromaeosaurid" not "Dromaeosauridae", etc. Tyrannosaurus vs. T. rex is different as those are different taxa. One's a genus and one's a species, not a case of vernacular vs. scientific. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:18, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, but all the articles on modern mammal families I could think of off the top of my head also use the complete suffix instead of the vernacular. Abyssal (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's the relevant guideline: Wikipedia:Article titles. I guess whether Tyrannosaurid is more common than Tyrannosauridae can be debatable. In some instances you can argue that superfamily and family can justifiably be merged into one article using a common name without substantially increasing the article length. For example, there really isn't much to the Therizinosauridae article that isn't already covered (or would only take a few extra lines of text) in Therizinosaur, which is effectively a 'common name' for the whole group. MMartyniuk (talk) 03:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

I heard on many sites and books (including this page from Enchanted Learning and this book called New Dinos: The Latest Finds! The Coolest Dinosaur Discoveries!) that New Madagascan prosauropods have been found, yet these prosauropods are older than Eoraptor, the oldest described dinosaur by at least two million years. Is this worth a mention in the the Dinosaur article?

~~DeinonychusDinosaur999~~ (talk) 7 June 2010 (UTC)

For sure. Pretty exciting, because it might mean the basal dinosaur form is not theropod-like!Gazzster (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As with many Triassic finds, those finds have been found to belong to dinosaur imitators, in this case a new species of Azendohsaurus (blogs here and here), one of a bunch of former dinosaurs. J. Spencer (talk) 00:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Bugger! Still, Eoraptor does seem very advanced for a basal dinosaur, so I reckon earlier dinos r to be found.Gazzster (talk)

Under Extinction, the article states that "herbivorous turtles and crocodiles" were made extinct with reference. I haven't been able to verify the "herbivorous crocodiles (or turtles)" in the reference, but it sounds irregular that they ate purely vegitation. Niluop (talk) 02:12, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Chimaerasuchus paradoxus and Simosuchus clarki. I only becam aware of it myself recently. A fasinating, medium ized, short-snouted crocodile with blunt teeth.Gazzster (talk) 01:45, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I really enjoyed this article but there were a couple of things I was confused about. In the section on dinosaur extinction in this article, it says that "at the peak of the Mesozoic," the poles were "50 °C (90 °F) warmer than today." Is that possibly a misprint? I thought I had read elsewhere that the poles were, not cold, but still cool. Also, it says that "oxygen formed 32 to 35% of the atmosphere," higher than today's levels. However, in the Wikipedia article on the "Mesozoic" it says that oxygen levels were much *lower,* about 15%. Are these describing two different time periods within the Mesozoic, or are they just two competing theories without conclusive evidence either way? If the latter, then probably one or the other should be edited to weaken the claim. Thanks very much! JohnDziak (talk) 15:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The fossil range given in the infobox states Late Triassic to Late Cretaceous. However since birds are dinosaurs, and bird fossils are known up to the present day, this is perhaps an inaccurate representation: surely the range should continue up to the present. Sure this might lead to a "huh, what?" kind of reaction, but there's nothing particularly wrong with doing so. In fact I think there would be a good case for putting an image of some species of bird in the main infobox picture: most of the other articles we have on various groups of species preferentially use extant species rather than extinct ones for the infobox illustration. In any case, it is rather disappointing that there are no pictures of birds in this article at present. Icalanise (talk) 10:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the taxobox clearly states this article is dealing with the Linnaean Superorder Dinosauria, not the PhyloCode Clade Dinosauria. That's why the range is listed to LK with a note about the direct descendant taxa surviving to present. MMartyniuk (talk) 03:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

In which case either the taxobox is inappropriate for the article, or the article is inappropriate for the taxobox. The article refers to birds as being dinosaurs in several points, only getting to the point 'this article will use "dinosaur" as a synonym for "non-avian dinosaur"' in the Modern Definition part, where it is pretty much stated that the modern definition of the term includes birds. It is also slightly weird to see the very first usage of the term "dinosaur" after this statement is made is qualified by "aside from birds" - we should make up our minds what it is we are talking about here. If this article is dealing with the Linnaean system, the point about the 9,000 species of birds which appears in the lead section as an example of dinosaur diversity is irrelevant. Icalanise (talk) 17:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Linnaean Taxonomy is not a representation of real life, it's an arbitrary system of grouping like animals together that is fun for children, I suppose, but isn't helpful when trying to explain what the word "Dinosaur" means. What that word means, of course, is "Iguanadon + Megalosaurus," meaning those two animals, their last common ancestor, and all descendents of that ancestor. It's wonderful that wikipedia has chosen to not leave out the outdated Linnaean system, but I'm fairly certain there should already be a page for that. For the article about Dinosaurs, the article should be about Dinosaurs, all Dinosaurs, and only Dinosaurs. I really don't think this is a very fringe view. The article title is "Dinosaur" and not "Dinosaur (Linnaean)" or "Dinosaur (but only some of the extinct ones)," after all. Now, a nicer guy who maybe doesn't care all that much about a fairly trusted database being dead wrong might just shrug this off. Me? I only have this account because I want this article fixed. The taxobox needs to be fixed first. Dinosaurs are not extinct, as a matter of fact, I see large numbers of crows and passers every day. Hence, the data on the page is incorrect and needs to be fixed. Now, as per the response above mine, the issue of treating the article as if it's about two different things ruins the style wikipedia, to my understanding, is going for. It breaks the nuetral point of view by asserting that some Dinosaurs shouldn't be mentioned, and the "one-author" rule by going back and forth on this viewpoint throughout the article. If there is some guy out there who really thinks it is important to preserve a page retaining information only relevant to the tiny subset of information Linnaean taxonomy covers, then I fully support that person's wish to have that page, but it needs to go under the name "Dinosaur (Linnaean)," and should be split from this page in order to continue the article that covers the actual subject at hand. You can't have it both ways, but if we only get one page, it needs to be accurate. As I am so new here, and this is a pretty high profile page, I'm hoping that the more experienced editors can help fixing this problem. I would hate to try and tackle all these inconsistencies and mistakes on my own. I'll be checking back here occasionally, and I'm ready to get rolling.Cultistofvertigo (talk) 03:20, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on dinosaurs. The changes I have made are not supposed to change the meaning in any way but just make it less jarring and confusing to someone like me who is not an expert on dinosaurs.

I note that Reptile#Linnaean and phylogenetic classification says "Around the end of the 19th century, the class Reptilia had come to include all the amniotes except birds and mammals ... This is still the usual definition of the term." (my italics). Using the word "reptile" in this usual sense, I have edited the opening paragraph to insert the following sentence:

Although dinosaurs are often described as "reptiles", they are not the ancestors of modern reptiles: instead it is modern birds that are descended from dinosaurs.

I have also made some other changes:

• I have combined the first two sentences and changed the tense of the opening statement - dinosaurs were rather then dinosaurs are. This isn't a statement about whether modern birds are dinosaurs, it is simply to match the tense of the rest of the sentence, and to avoid confusing the uninitiated reader at the outset.
• I changed the word "reptiles" in the opening sentence to "amniote animals", again to avoid misleading or confusing the reader at the outset. I think my new sentence above covers the question of whether dinosaurs are reptiles. Once we are past that sentence I think it is OK to call them reptiles, but not before.
• I have removed some excessive or inappropriate linkifying (the repeatedly linked article period (geology) doesn't even exist!).
• I have made some further changes to break the news that "birds are dinosaurs" gently, as it were. Previously the first inkling the reader had of this was when it said that all the dinosaurs went extinct "apart from some birds". (If you didn't know birds were considered to be dinosaurs, your reaction to that would be "eh?").
• Finally, the document cited at the end of the paragraph doesn't as far as I can see support the assertion that most paleontologists regard modern birds as dinosaurs, so I've modified that to some paleontologists.

I hope this all meets with everybody's approval. GrahamN (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your logic. You changed this to avoid calling dinosaur reptiles, by by your own definition, many of them are. Some dinosaurs are birds, and some are reptiles, under the definition you posted. Whether or not they're the ancestors of modern reptiles is irrelevant. Plesiosaurs, aetosaurs and Deinosuchus are also not the ancestors of any living reptiles. Also, even Larry Martin now believes birds are dinosaurs (see his letter in the current online first edition of PNAS regarding Microraptor), so it may well be that all paleontologists agree at this point in time. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't change it to avoid calling dinosaurs reptiles, I changed it to make the opening of the article less confusing to a general reader who has preconceptions (which may be wrong) about what reptiles are. As I have said, I'm not an expert. I don't have any axe to grind except the axe of making the article clearer to the non-expert. GrahamN (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the current version is fine, and may be improved by the changes GrahamN has introduced. de Bivort 14:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Honestly I'm disatisfied with the article as a whole. I've been thinking it needs a revamp for a while, but people have not received my changes favorably, so I've been laying low and seeing what the community wants to do with it. Things don't seem to be progressing much. :( Abyssal (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a major problem with the article is that it seems to be written by experts for experts, with precious little regard for the needs of the general reader. GrahamN (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there really any disagreement that, in terms of cladistics, birds are dinosaurs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.119.95 (talk) 02:03, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

There are possibly one or two scientists who believe they're not. I don't know if Alan Feduccia still believes this or not. But those that didn't believe it historically also didn't accept cladistics as a valid method of analysis. There has never been a cladistic analysis in history showing birds are anything other than dinosaurs, AFAIK. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I've got this wrong, but it seems to me that you experts aren't recognising that to the general reader there is a big difference between saying that birds are descended from dinosaurs and saying that birds are dinosaurs. GrahamN (talk) 14:13, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

It's not the job of we Wikipedia editors to call the experts on a subject wrong, or misleading. We're here to report what they say, not improve it. Or at least educate people that the way things are classified has changed. When whales were no longer classified as fish, people didn't keep calling them fish just to appease the laymen who thought they were obviously more fish-like than mammal-like. Now, after 100 years or so, "everybody knows" whales are not fish. Maybe in 100 years, birds are dinosaurs will be something "everybody knows" too. MMartyniuk (talk) 02:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, and therefore the best way to put it is unambiguously stating that they are.--MWAK (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. If the earliest life was tiny little bacteria, and we evolved from that, then we are also bacteria. That's fine cladisticly speaking, but we are not bacteria in the general sense just as birds are not dinosaurs. Fyunck(click) (talk) 17:58, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Bacteria isn't a monophyletic group, just a term for anything that isn't a eukaryote. Dinosaur is a monophyletic group, it's Passer/Megalosaurus, Triceratops/Iguanodon, their latest common ancestor, and all descendants thereof. All birds fit that definition, so they are dinosaurs. 219.87.82.162 (talk) 01:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Mgiganteus1 deleted the sentence "Although dinosaurs are often described as reptiles, they are not the ancestors of any modern reptiles", saying "no agreement on talk to include this". However nobody has said on this talk page what they think is wrong with it. Please explain. GrahamN (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah .. I'm fine with it either way. Guess I prefer it included. It helps to clarify terms from the beginning. de Bivort 22:55, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the relevance. It also implies that in order to be a reptile, an animal must be the ancestor of a modern reptile, or be closer to modern reptiles than birds or mammals, which is utterly false. The fact is that dinosaurs aren't "often described as reptiles", they are reptiles. Period. (So are birds). The clarification seems to be based on using the wiki Reptile page as a source, which frankly is a really bad article using numerous conflicting definitions and in need of a lot of work. This statement needs a proper source. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the clarification is based on using the word reptile (not Reptilia) i.e. the non cladistic usage. see the new comment above. de Bivort 20:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I too am puzzled about the logical flow of the statement. It implies, 'if dinosaurs are reptiles , they must be ancestors of modern reptiles', or at least 'they are popularly thought to be ancestors of modern reptiles'. It's also problematic because it could be interpreted to mean that dinosaurs have no living descendents. Gazzster (talk) 21:37, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

The first line states that dinosaurs are an extinct group of "reptiles".

Considering that reptiles are a polyphyletic group (crocodiles are more closely related to birds than they are to turtles), should this be changed to the undeniable "dinosaurs are an extinct group of animals"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonDaMon (talk • contribs) 03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Why are "reptiles" necessarily a polyphyletic group? Some definitions of reptile are monophyletic and include birds. No definitions are currently governed by an official body. And no convention exists saying non-monophyletic groups are automatically invalid in all taxonomic systems. The PhyloCode isn't in effect yet so it remains to be seen if Reptile will get an official definition, and what it will be. MMartyniuk (talk) 04:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Reptiles says that reptiles are necessarily cold-blooded. So dinosaurs can't be called reptiles. I think the line should be removed. Erikmartin (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is wrong. Even some sea turtles are warm blooded. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:25, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

From what I know, scientists think that some dinosaurs were warm blooded, such as the ones that evolved into birds. Can you provide me with information about those sea turtles Mmartyniuk? I've never heard that before!Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:41, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

See the leatherback turtle. Albertonykus (talk) 05:08, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

This was changed a long time ago by some editor. The definition used to say reptile like with a footnote explaining what the problem was calling them reptiles. I support removing the word reptile and using something more precise. JPotter (talk) 03:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I support removing this line. I see nothing that relates this article to specifically non avian species. Also, this is contradicted in the very next paragraph "Dinosaurs are a diverse and varied group of animals; birds, at over 9,000 species, are the most diverse group of vertebrate besides perciform fish.[2] Paleontologists have identified over 500 distinct genera[3] and more than 1,000 different species of non-avian dinosaurs."

That said, it is arguable that dinosaurs are extinct; that depends on whether you consider birds a different group of animals or the same group. But I do feel that the extinct definition is the most common. For discussion, I propose replacing it with "Dinosaurs were a diverse group extinct animals. Exact definitions vary, with some specifying only avian dinosaurs and some including avian dinosaurs and prehistoric reptiles." --Mech Aaron (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No one has explained why it's incorrect to include them as reptiles. Reptilia has been phylogenetically defined, just as dinosaur has. There is also nothing incorrect about calling birds reptiles. Birds are a sub-group of reptiles just as mammals are a sub-group of synapsids. Also, the taxobox lists Class Reptilia. Perhaps it should be Reptilia & Aves? MMartyniuk (talk) 02:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Well this article is about non-avian dinosaurs, which is a polyphyletic group anyway, so worrying about the polyphyletic nature of reptiles is probably not a major issue here. Icalanise (talk) 22:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

"Reptile" currently doesn't really mean anything. It used to be used as the group containing the last common ancestor of turtles, lepidosaurs, crocodilians, and a whole host of extinct forms. This was broken down into Anapsids (very basal reptiles and turtles), Diapsids (archosaurs, lepidosaurs, and relatives), Synapsids (mammals and extinct forms), and Euryapsids (polyphyletic grouping of marine diapsids). What this means is that, last time Reptile meant something, it meant the last common ancestor of humans and hummingbirds, as well as turtles and tuataras. However, apparently somebody decided he didn't like the connotation of "mammal-like reptiles" and came up with this word "Amniote," which is synonomous with the only possible definition of a monophyletic Reptilia, which, of course, no longer exists.

In light of this, then, Reptile only has the definition given to it by Linaean taxonomy and popular usage. As in it really does mean just snakes and turtle and crocs. I mean, sure, it's a ridiculous definition, but no one really uses it as a clade because they don't like the idea of saying humans are reptiles, even though it IS just a word, but my feelings are irrelevant here. Point is that only some dinosaurs are reptiles, so saying "dinosaurs are reptiles" is technically incorrect. I don't have a problem with it, because I use reptile as if it were amniote just so people can understand me, but, again, my opinion does not change the fact that reptile's only defintion is a non-monophyletic one, and feels out of place when right below this editing window I can see the line "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable."

Fun fact, the same thing happened to fish. Because humans don't want to say they are fish for some reason, no version of "fish" or "Ichthians" or anything appears as a real name in any cladogram. Furthermore, it doesn't even appear in Linnaean taxonomy, so this word is completely subjective, not just paraphyletic. But, thats something for ichthyologists to figure out.Cultistofvertigo (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Pisces was historically used for fish in Linnaean taxonomy. And I'm almost certain at least one author has defined Repitilia as a clade nearly synonymous with Sauropsida, but I'd have to dig around for the cite. Reptilia is still used often in scientific literature, for example this paper from only a few months ago.[2] MMartyniuk (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I support removing the bald statement that dinosaurs are/were "reptiles". As a casual reader of this article with no specialist knowledge, I found the opening to the article most confusing. It seems to be logically inconsistent. (If the only surviving descendants of dinosaurs are the birds, then the ancestors of reptiles cannot have been dinosaurs, so, logically, dinosaurs cannot have been reptiles.) Having read through the above comments, (and understood a small proportion of them), I see that things are not that simple. But it is surely bad form to start an encyclopaedia article with paragraph that throws the casual reader into confusion. GrahamN (talk) 15:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are reptiles, though. Abyssal (talk) 15:46, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you say that birds are reptiles? GrahamN (talk) 15:59, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

In a phylogenetic sense, yes they are. See [3]. de Bivort 16:18, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, so if I have understood this correctly, dinosaurs are reptiles only in the same sense that birds are reptiles. I think that makes the point. Try changing the opening sentence of the Bird article to "Birds are a diverse group of reptiles", and see what the reaction is! The word 'reptile' has a general meaning in the English language that evidently doesn't correspond to the taxonomic term Reptilia. This is an English language encyclopaedia, aimed at a general readership - it's not a specialist taxonomists' website. GrahamN (talk) 19:30, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It's fine to use "reptile" here because dinosaurs are reptiles in both the technical and colloquial meanings. It would be problematic at Bird because birds are only reptiles in the technical, not colloquial meaning. de Bivort 20:41, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

But the first paragraph makes it clear that dinosaurs aren't reptiles in the colloquial sense. It says that they are the ancestors only of birds, which means that what I think of as reptiles - snakes, lizards, turtles and such - must belong to some completely separate group (or groups) of animals. That is exactly the contradiction that confused me whan I read the article, and what prompted me to come to this talk page. If you are only aware of the colloquial meaning, as I was, the paragraph firstly states that dinosaurs are reptiles (colloquial) and immediately goes on to say (indirectly) that they are unrelated to reptiles (colloquial). As it stands the paragraph is extremely confusing to the lay reader. It needs fixing somehow. GrahamN (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I am not opposed to trying to clarify it, but you should realize that "being the ancestor of birds" does not imply that they are not "reptiles in the colloquial sense." So I don't think there is any contradiction. Can you propose a clarification? de Bivort 21:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Being the ancestor only of birds (and not of any colloquial reptiles) means that they cannot be in the same group as colloquial reptiles. So in my book that means they aren't colloquial reptiles! But I can see I'm not going to win this argument. GrahamN (talk) 01:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

That's not how classification works. 99.99% of extinct animals are not the direct ancestors of something modern. Modern reptiles don't share a common ancestor exclusive of dinosaurs, pterosaurs, ichthyosaurs, mosasaurs, aetosaurs, or even Deinosuchus. Your proposal would place all living forms and every extinct species in individual, independent groups. This is equivalent to abandoning the idea of classification altogether. A "reptile" is either an animal that possesses certain defined traits (egg-laying, scales, four limbs, etc.) or falls within a defined group (all animals closer to crocodiles, lizards and turtles than to mammals). Most dinosaurs are reptiles under the first definition, all are under the second. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:21, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

You do realize that your argument is equivalent to saying that my aunt cannot be part of my family because she is the ancestor of my cousin? --Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

This section seems a bit weird and overly semantic: "From the point of view of cladistics, birds are dinosaurs, but in ordinary speech the word "dinosaur" does not include birds. Additionally, referring to dinosaurs that are not birds as "non-avian dinosaurs" is cumbersome. For clarity, this article will use "dinosaur" as a synonym for "non-avian dinosaur". The term "non-avian dinosaur" will be used for emphasis as needed." The whole point of cladistics is that there isn't anything that can be said about dinosaurs as a whole that can't also be said about birds. The next sentence goes into a general description, the only bit of which that doesn't apply to birds is where it says they're extinct (which contradicts the intro). Is it really important to waste a paragraph explaining the way the article sets up this distinction, which smacks a bit of OR anyway? Yes, many sources use non-avian dinosaur, but in which specific instances in this article is it useful? MMartyniuk (talk) 07:23, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

It would indeed be highly preferable if the text would treat the dinosaurs as a whole, that is: including birds. Of course, that would mean that every statement had to be carefully checked whether it would still be correct when referring to all dinosaurs. Often, by the way, the real distinction to be made is not "avian" versus "non-avian" but "Cenozoic" versus "Mesozoic" or even "extant" versus "extinct".--MWAK (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is true whether or not birds are included. Dinosaurs are so diverse even excluding birds, it would be easy to overlook a generalization that actually excludes some forms. Talking about the number of digits, for example, could ignore the fact that some dinosaurs lack digits. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi all - many people are responding to what seems to be a single issue spread across many sections, so I would propose we use this section to discuss the topic above. To me it boils down as follows:

• In a cladistic interpretation, Dinosaurs (like birds) are reptiles because they are part of Reptilia.
• In a colloquial interpretation, Dinosaurs (unlike birds) are reptiles because they are scaly (or whatever).

To what extent should both of these interpretations be represented in the lede?

• My personal opinion is that both definitions should be acknowledged. de Bivort 22:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
• Both should be discussed, but only the cladistic one represents real science, and it should be treated as the correct one. Abyssal (talk) 03:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree both should be discussed, but FYI, it's totally legitimate in science to refer to groups of organisms that aren't clades. Invertebrates have a retinal light current, vertebrates a dark current. Flying animals have adaptations to lighten their bones. etc.. de Bivort 04:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

It's legitimate, but is it actually done? If not, it's OR. What source defines dinosaurs as something other than a clade? Here's Webster's definition [4] which also specifically includes non-dinosaurs as they're spoken of colloquially. But this is a science article, and any popular, vernacular definitions, should they deviate from scientific use (which this obviously does), should be relegated to the culture section. MMartyniuk (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes it's done, an exceedingly common example is to speak of the common selective pressures on organisms that occupy the same ecological niche, regardless of their phylogenetic relationships. Anyways, no one is saying that dinosaurs aren't a clade! Reptiles, in a colloquial sense, are not. Importantly, this is not a science article - it is not peer-reviewed. It is a collation of secondary sources [5] intended for the widest possible audience [6]. de Bivort 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaurs in a colloquial sense aren't either. In a phylogenetic sense, Reptilia is also a clade, since it has been given (several) cladistic definitions over the years, just like Dinosauria. Why are we preferring the colloquial use of Reptile but not Dinosaur? MMartyniuk (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Invertebrate and flying animal are never considered clades in science, but dinosaurs are. 219.87.82.162 (talk) 05:19, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

See above. de Bivort 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

A severe problem is also that there is not a single colloquial "definition". In the vernacular, the concept has a very vague denotation. To many, any large and prehistoric animal is a dinosaur, including mammoths. Therefore to them it is a contradictio in terminis to call birds dinosaurs — they are small and living. Such prescientific notions have to be distinguished from the scientific concept of a paraphyletic Dinosauria: dinosaurs without birds. This last concept has no legitimate place in the lead section as it is too irrelevant, being out-dated science.--MWAK (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's not overcomplicate the issue. We don't have to go into it much. Something like, 'birds are regarded as part of the dinosaur clade, but this article will not treat of them'.Gazzster (talk) 20:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned in the section above, such a distinction is useless. Anything that can be said about "dinosaurs" can also be said about birds (or sauropods, or heterodontosaurids, or abelisaurs). If it can't, it shouldn't be in this article, but rather at some more specific level. Statements like "there are no flying dinosaurs or marine dinosaurs" is just as false as "no flying or marine mammals". Actually, that one WAS true in the Mesozoic... Alos, keep in mind that many people define Aves as the crown group, so it's still not true of dinosaurs, since according to many authorities, Hesperornis and Ichthyornis etc. are also non-avian dinosaurs. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you deliberately choose from the outset to make the article misleading? Abyssal (talk) 21:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree that, as written, the sentence you propose there is misleading. Birds are part of the dinosaur clade. No qualification needed. de Bivort 22:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Stephen et al. (2010) Footprints pull origin and diversification of dinosaur stem lineage deep into Early Triassic. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1746--Diucón (talk) 18:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Dinosaur stem lineage, not dinosaurs themselves. This is covered at Dinosauromorpha. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a conversion error at this location in the article at this sentence: "The planet's temperature was also much more uniform, with only 25 °C (45 °F) separating average polar temperatures from those at the equator." Assuming that 25 C is correct, the temperature in Fahrenheit is 77 not 45.

I would change it myself but seem to be unable to edit this article

Aatkin (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The 25 °C (45 °F) is correct. This is not a listing of an actual temperature, but a DIFFERENCE in temperatures between two places. A difference of 25 Celsius degrees is the same as a difference of 45 Fahrenheit degrees. --Khajidha (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Prior to 1842 the English word "dragon" used instead of dinosaur. (This statement should be in the Etymology section.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.65.82.66 (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Got a source? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:28, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

They didn't have dinosaurs until the group was named. Between 1820 and 1842 known dinosaurs were either called by whatever genus they'd been named (Megalosaurus, Iguanodon, etc.), or under the general term "saurians". (and yes, I know what you're *really* getting at, but I'm not going to comment on that). J. Spencer (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There's one thing missing from many, or maybe all the Dinosaur pages: Distribution Maps. DMs are VERY helpful at giving a lot of information at a glance and I think we should begin incorporating them. The Natural History Museum may be a good place to start. --Kurtle (talk) 15:45, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I can think of a few obstacles here. One, we'd need some good, CC licensed world map type images for a large number of different time periods. Second, most dinosaurs would only be represented by a single point, or series of points. Any filling in of a broader "range" could be OR. Also, many (most) species will lack specific enough location data. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:14, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

The Paleobiology Database has countless maps that are generated by its large database. Putting together present-day range maps from these is doable, though the extensions of ranges would need to be estimated. As far as prehistoric maps go, however, we don't have very many to work with.

• Present-day map: Useful for paleontology.
• Prehistoric map: Useful for paleobiology.

Both have their benefits. Present-day maps would be easiest to generate and I wouldn't mind working on these on a per-request basis. If someone can provide me with the prehistoric map relevant to the species (and this changes drastically and quickly within a couple million years), I can build those as well. But like I said, I'm not "jumping" to work on them; I'll do them by request provided the world map exists for the requested time period and the data exists for the specimen. You can see examples of my maps at brown recluse spider and desert recluse. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I looked up the reference for this sentence: "Under phylogenetic taxonomy, dinosaurs are usually defined as the group consisting of "Triceratops, Neornithes [modern birds], their most recent common ancestor, and all descendants."[12] " And while it's a faithful quote (except for the "usually" part), I'm struck by the fact that it seems extremely out of context and, well, just odd. No explanation is given in the reference for why this is the definition, or why Triceratops is the base dinosaur upon which to base all others and the definition. Neither is there any explanation for this in the article. I don't exactly know how to improve it, but I do know that it shouldn't be like this. Hires an editor (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I think ceratopsians and birds are generally considered the most "advanced" groups in each major dinosaurian lineage, which is why they're often used. But I agree that Iguanodon/Megalosaurus is better. It reflects the original usage (required by PhyloCode) and doesn't force birds to be dinosaurs by definition, only by discovery. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

You mean "advanced" just by time, not some other characteristic? I hope. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:44, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Most derived, with gross body form being different from the basal state. And yeah, I'm sure time plays a role as well, as both groups diversified in the LK. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I'd use the definition "Iguanodon, Megalosaurus and the descendants of their most recent common ancestor." It's the same set of animals, been used by professionals, and makes more intuitive sense since Megalosaurus and Iguanodon were the first dinosaurs formally named. I think the ugly Triceratops one is more commonly used for whatever reason. The set of animals is still the same, but Megalosaurus and Iguanodon are much less arbitrary anchors. Abyssal (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Ornithischians and birds have their earliest common ancestor in the Triassic period. Of the ornithischians, the ceratopsians and ankylosaurs reverted back to fully dedicated quadrupedal posture and developed armor. That much makes sense to me, anyway. For me, Triceratops or Ankylosaurus would both serve purposefully at the reptilian end of the spectrum (has anyone got evidence of what sets Triceratops further than Ankylosaurus?). And typically, the definition I hear is more specific, citing the pigeon as the avian end of the spectrum. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:07, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Really? I always saw Passer domesticus listed as the bird anchor. Abyssal (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

My source was informal conversation; I imagine the house sparrow is more accurate, though I find that an interesting spectrum end; it seems so ordinary. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:28, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Edit: You've got me curious...I'm doing reserach now Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Sibley and Alquist went for the albatross (another anchor I recall hearing before), Johansson went for the tyrant flycatcher, and Pereira, Baker, Mayr, Clarke, Cracraft, Slack, Delsuc, McLenachan, Arnason, Penny, and Butler all went for the sparrow. Sounds nearly unanimous to me, and I'd say my friends were mistaken. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

OK. Not that it matters, since I still think we should go with Megalosaurus + Iguanodon. Abyssal (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "go with Megalosaurus + Iguanodon"? We're here to report what reliable sources say, not choose our personal preferences. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

I've seen that formulation used by reliable sources. Abyssal (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, both would point to MRCA of Ornithischia and Saurischia. Therefore, it doesn't really matter whether we use Triceratops + Passer or Megalosaurus + Iguanodon or even Eocursor + Eoparsor. Does it? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In fact since both formulations denote the same group under all current phylogenies, there's really no reason not to note that both are in wide current use (at least until PC makes one somewhat more "official"). MMartyniuk (talk) 13:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. If more than one definition is used in reliable sources then let's note that fact. We don't have to choose between them. mgiganteus1 (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

None of this answers the question of why Triceratops (or other creature, per the above discussion) is the "default" definitional dinosaur. Hires an editor (talk) 19:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

It's an arbitrary ornithischian that's regarded as a "safe" anchor. No one's going to suddenly declare Triceratops an invalid name. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so what about the seeming "out of context" part of the sentence. There should still be some explanation of that, so it doesn't seem so odd. The way it reads right now makes it look like vandalism. Hires an editor (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Perhaps we can squeeze a source out of them. I'll go ask them. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:03, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a reference that triceratops in particular is used. But I reverted "arbitrary" because on its own this word implies that any dinosaur could be used. If the issue is a lack of citation, then add a cn template to the sentence, rather than the word arbitrary. de Bivort 18:59, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, that was in the middle of a quote, so an addition of the word "arbitrarily" wasn't quite appropriate there. The paragraph seems to have a sentence now that clarifies that both definitions presented include the same group, anyway. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Hah, I hadn't even seen that it was in a quote - how about that. Well, that constrains it! de Bivort 22:08, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so I'm reading the modern definition, and I'm not expecting to see "Triceratops..." etc as the definition. I did I quick Google search, and see that the definition here leaves something to be desired. In addition, I looked at the source cited for the definition, and it doesn't offer an explanation, either. It doesn't matter what the reference is or the accuracy of the quote, but some explanation is needed to say why this is the reference point. Hires an editor (talk) 22:45, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Sereno has this to say on the selection of anchors:

In formulation of definitions, recommendations regarding specifiers have favored (1) nested rather than basal specifiers; (2) multiple internal or external specifiers to combat uncertain relationships; (3) specifiers that are well known or readily available; (4) specifiers that accommodate alternative phylogenetic arrangements; and (5) specifiers that were originally included in traditional paraphyletic groups rather than more deeply nested members now included on the basis of monophyly (e.g., the theropod Megalosaurus bucklandi rather than the bird Passer domesticus as an internal specifier for Dinosauria)......Anchoring well-supported, widely recognized, and/or traditional dichotomies with [node-stem triplets] helps to sustain the narrative function of taxonomy.

Going on these excerpts from his work, it seems apparent that Triceratops horridus was selected for its unquestionable status as a well-known, unchallenged Ornithischian and a non-dubious taxon. Megalosaurus would have been ideal, since it has always been recognized as a dinosaur from the get-go of things, but using a well-known bird such as Passer domesticus forces anyone accepting that definition to include birds in their definition. This isn't really necessary to use P. domesticus, but it can't hurt to remind folks that birds are dinosaurs, and what better place to do so than in a definition of Dinosauria?

Sereno goes on to throw us a curveball:

...a few taxonomists have considered Sauropodomorpha (normally within Saurischia) to be more closely related to Ornithischia. Should this prove to be the case, sauropodomorphs would be relegated to Ornithischia using the aforementioned definition. This could be prevented by including a derived sauropodomorph (e.g., Saltasaurus loricatus) as an additional external specifier: Ornithischia = (>Triceratops horridus but not Passer domesticus or Saltasaurus loricatus). Given this definition, the equivalence statement "Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Saurischia" will not hold when sauropodomorphs are more closely related to ornithischians. In that case, Dinosauria = Ornithischia + Sauropodomorpha + Theropoda.

In other words, a more sauropod-friendly definition would recognize that the placement of Sauropodomorpha is unstable, redefining Dinosauria as "Triceratops, Passer, Saltasaurus, their most recent common ancestor, and all descendents".

Source: Sereno, P. (2005). "The logical basis of phylogenetic taxonomy". Systematic Biology. 54 (4): 595-619.

Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this! I probably could have got there, but didn't really know the research well enough to look it up in a short period. Anyway, so my thought is to summarize what the source material says. Before the first sentence, we might put some discussion that says, "To get to the definition of dinosaur, we have to take an example that we all agree is a dinosaur that is from the saurosopids and neornithes groups, and their most common ancestor..." - something like that, but much better put together. I also find that another definition is hinted at in the article (and among the searches I did) - dinosaurs aren't archosaurs, because dinosaurs really start at the beginning of the Triassic... Hires an editor (talk) 12:42, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Your statement about dinosaurs not being archosaurs is untrue; the first dinosaur in the fossil record appeared approximately midway through the Triassic. Also-- not the sauropsids, but the animals classically recognized as dinosaurs since their discovery. It's shaky wording, but really, Dinosauria is strongly based upon that (it happens that very few creatures, such as Dimetrodon and the pterodactyls, had to be ruled out of Dinosauria when the phylogenetic definition was finally established). Since Sereno 2005 has a very sound definition, I'm adding his definition to the article. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:14, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

this page is wong some dinsaur flow and some wham and aome walkked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.171.96 (talk) 18:36, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Where do you see the incorrect claim in the article? Offhand, ducks come to mind as exhibiting all three modes you just mentioned. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Dinosaurs only lived in missouri under water in caves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaursarereal (talk • contribs) 01:56, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Got a source? Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Look my teacher said that wiki is unrelialbesource and that someone could say "dinosaurs only lived in missori under water in caves", can you put this up for like a day -please lol, shes a good source —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaursarereal (talk • contribs) 02:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Tell your teacher Wiki is actually as reliable for science topics as 'real' encyclopedias like Brittannica. Fact! It's those biography and political articles you should watch out for. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:01, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

This obvious misinformation (as well as this) prove you and your teacher are not credible resources and therefore less reliable than Wikipedia. Have her take a look at this article; if she finds anything incorrect, she should remove it or correct it and cite reliable sources. That's how we roll here at Wikipedia. We don't just add whatever misinformation we feel like adding, even if it would be funny. However, if you enjoy fun misinformation, I suggest you check out an encyclopedia designed just for that-- it's called Uncyclopedia. It has an article on dinosaurs, too. Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Anybody of the regular editors mind if I re-arrange the refs? They are now spears out "at first call", which makes editing a bit of a bother. I'd place them all in the References section, alphabetically sorted. You'd have to edit two sections to add or remove a ref, but it makes double entries extremely easy to avoid, and makes finding the ref data very easy. Also, it is much easier to edit the text because you do not get several lines of ref data mixed in with a sentence. It also helps for formatting refs properly, because the next example is just above and below the new ref you add.

An example of what I intend to do can be found in the article Plateosaurus.

If nobody yells NO I'll put this article on in use in a few days and change things over. Discussions - please use my talk page --HMallison (talk) 12:55, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me. Abyssal (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Doing this now. HMallison (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I kind of find this a pain for editing. You have to jump between sections to get the reference right. But I see where it can be easier. I'd have to say it's a wash. Also, Plateosaurus, the citations are really poorly done in that they don't use the citation templates. Hope they don't get messed up here. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I see your concern. Yes, it is annoying to edit two sections. OTOH, this way it is so much easier to edit and remove refs...... It matters less in good and stable articles. However, if there are major edits to do, including total re-writes of sections, having them bundled makes live much easier. And this article certainly needs a thorough clean-up and update.

As for "poorly done" - the refs in Plateosaurus come c&p from my papers, mostly. You should be glad that people who do real research on the stuff bother to write really up to date articles. Don't whine if we can't be bothered to re-format refs to suit sorry templates. They are, for the reader, equally good either way.

If it bothers you, please go ahead and re-format, or, better yet, write me a zotero style that outputs them properly formatted! That'd be a real blast, and greatly appreciated :D

That aside, you can trust me not to fuck up anything here: each ref stays formatted as it is, except for typos (get removed), and except for those that have no name (they get one). HMallison (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm kind of obsessive about citations. I want them easily clickable, so I've got Plateosaurus on my list of things to do. It takes a lot of focus, and two computer screens going to do it right! Hey, sorry, I really didn't mean to screw up your editing, which I don't think I did. Again, you're doing some dirty work that would drive me crazy. I'm actually kind of warming up to this new thing. I'm going to practice using it on your Plateosaurus article (I know it's not yours, but you know what I mean). I'll probably try to clean up some other articles. My only real concern, is new edits. Inexperienced editors tend to mess up citations. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Guilty: Plateosaurus is mine (90%). After all, I wrote the papers..... and equally true: well-formatted citations, properly using the template, are a nice thing. Which (the template) I tend to fuck up, being new. So if you'd have a go at P., well, what can I say? That is really dirty work! I am, as you may have guessed, currently setting Dinosaur up for a major edit of the content here ;)

And no, you did not screw anything up :P HMallison (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Where in this article does it mention that dinosaurs are reptiles? This should be added ASAP. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

If the taxobox on the right margin isn't enough, the article mentions it under "General description". Bob the WikipediaN ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:03, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind.. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, technically, it is the Cretaceous/Paleogene boundary (or Palaeogene for the "civilized" ;p ). But I do not know very many people in science who use an abbreviation other than K/T. The K is "wrong", so it the T, but the short has become a fixed term in itself, one that is perfectly understandable and well memorable. So why change to K/Pg on wikipedia? HMallison (talk) 08:18, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Why is the K wrong...? Standard abb. for Cretaceous. For the record, a search for k/pg boundary on Google Scholar turns up over 2000 articles. If it's not in more widespread use, surely it's just because the Paleogene is relatively new designation. But the fact is, whatever you call it, "Cretaceous-Tertiary Extinction Event" is an outdated term that has already been abandoned in the literature for several years. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:12, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Do you spell it Kretaceous? The K was used so that nobody would mix it up with other ages starting with a C, and because in German it is Kreide, with the K.

And did you do a search for K/T boundary, too? Over a million hits..... And that aside, it may well be that palaeomagnetics people etc. use K/Pg, but this is the page Dinosaur, and I can tell you that my coleagues do not use that term. We're too lazy, maybe. And as the other reply said: the general audience is better served with K/T. The US still used miles, too, despite officially using kilometers. HMallison (talk) 21:30, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

If the abbrevitation is to be changed, it would have to be to a full, non-abbrevitated expressein (eg "End of Mesozoic extinction, End of Cretacious extinction, Cretacious-Paleocene extinction etc). The K/T abbrevitation is kind of marginal as it is, using another less known expression would confuse all but the people most intimately familiar with the concept, and WP is supposed to be for a general audience. Petter Bøckman (talk) 10:16, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Though I haven't seen a lot of the K-Pg usage, I think we should start using it. It won't hurt to write Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event (also known as the K-Pr event, and previously known as the Cretaceous-Tertiary, or K-T, extinction event). Probably should rename the K-T extinction event article, but with all of the links and redirects, it might not be worth the trouble. When we were doing the FA Review, there were a lot of complaints that even K-T should be renamed to the dinosaur extinction because it's what the common reader would be trying to search. That didn't fly. We also discussed the K-Pg terminology, but we were concerned about the lack of common use as of this time.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:54, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Inspired by some discussions over at Human about deciding exactly what an article is trying to cover, I'm going to be bold and implement what seems to have been the result of the scope discussions here and here. Neither discussions seem to have generated many comments so I'm linking them here for the record and for reference if any more debate on these topics opens up. The upshot is that the article titled "Dinosaur" should cover all dinosaurs as defined in the intro and in the Modern definition section. That means birds would have to be taken into account in how things are worded (which really doesn't require much change at all, just some slight tweaks and the removal of unnecessary disclaimers that the article is only about non-avian dinosaurs). MMartyniuk (talk) 19:54, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The entire "oh, we stick with Linné" line is ridiculous, stupid, and prone to cause misunderstandings. Why oh why did you undue your edits? HMallison (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I immediately realized this is a bigger job than I thought... the entire article deals with the biology, ecology, metabolism etc. of non-avian dinosaurs. i'm not quite ue how to siphon it all into a broader context without basically putting 80% the article under a heading like "Biology and ecology of non-avialan dinosaurs" :/ It almost would be better simply to re-title the bulk away from Dinosaur, but obviously that is very far from ideal. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I understand.... I recently moved the refs, preparing for a major re-write. maybe we do that together and re-structure the entire thing? Moving a lot of stuff off onto separate pages may be a good idea, in fact: lumping even all non-avian dinosaurs is a baaad idea! HMallison (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good. I wonder how systemic this problem is. If most of this page can't be applied to birds, what makes anyone think it can apply to all groups of non-avian dinosaurs? It seems Dinosauria is *too* diverse to even be that useful a term... there's not really much you can say about dinosaurs in general other than its definition. MMartyniuk (talk) 22:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh, no worries, there is a bunch of things, some plesiomorphic (so yes, lotsa non-dinosaurian archosaurs will have it as well), some actually apomorphic. But yes, overall, the Dinosauria are a chance product of taxonomy, and they are a huge group. We'll end up having to have section on major groups for everything that's not surely known to be plesiomorphic. That's not nice, but then, wikipedia is not for nice articles only ;) HMallison (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I created a dummy page with my last, reverted edit on my userspace, at User:Dinoguy2/Test/Dinosaur. I figure anybody who wants to help work on this re-write can do so there and not disrupt an FA. MMartyniuk (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Covering birds and dinosaurs in one go will make for unclear reading and a very long article, and it is not making Wikipedia more accessible. To anyone other than the die-heart phylogenetic nomenclaturist, shoehorning birds into any aspects of dinosaur anatomy and physiology will look very artificial and "forced". The article is abundantly clear on how the phylogenetic tree looks, and it is also clear on being a description on the non-avian grade. Give "phylogenetic correctness" a rest already! Petter Bøckman (talk) 13:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Unlike basal tetrapods, even popular works on dinosaur paleontology can't be used to justify such a position. Birds are being included as dinosaurs even in children's books nowadays. Tell it to the paleontological community, not editors who are meant to report on the consensus usage. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting hiding that birds evolved from dinosaurs. As you said, it's even in childrens books these days. I'm saying that writing devoting a large section on e.g. dinosaur physiology to "adaptions for flight" is a bit over the top. We all know where birds came from, we don't need it repeted for every section through the article. Petter Bøckman (talk) 15:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Of course, repeating sections like those specifically for birds is not a good idea. We're simply saying anything on this page should be about all dinosaurs in general. Adaptations for flight, being specific to a single subset of dinosaurs, should be kept to the sub-pages. Similarly, we wouldn't want to include a section on the biomechanics of sauropods--leave that for Sauropoda. We should treat this page like we do Tetrapod--a general overview of the entire group, including such disparate forms as humans and frogs, but nothing specific to either. MMartyniuk (talk) 17:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Petter, let's get one thing clear: nobody wants to cover birds (as in extant passerines) in the same go as Mesozoic dinosaurs. However, it is very difficult where to draw the line, and there may well have been a bunch of flying animals that do not make Aves - where to treat the adaptations leading to them? Also, just because it makes life easier and is commonly done, there is no reason for an encyclopaedia to be wrong. Among experts, it is starting to become normal not to write "birds", but "extant dinosaurs". It is time that the public doesn't get mushroomed (kept in the dark and fed shit) any more. Being exact and still retain a readable article is possible. Let's do it! HMallison (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, drawing the line is rather simple. The first published phylogenetic definition of Aves happens to coincide nicely with the Linnaean one, with old Aunty Archy as the cut off point (Padian & Chiappe, 1997). Even though PhyloCode isn't implemented, using the priority approach is prudent. That a small, but very vocal group argue for the restriction of Aves to the crown group does not mean they have got any traction in the rest of the life science community. Unless you want to argue the "birds came first" position (which is a very small minority, I'd go so far as to suggest fringe), the flying bunch you mention are birds. Birds should be mentioned. Their phylogenetic position as surviving dinosaurs should be explored in all it's feathery detail. Avian traits should be discussed when relevant etc. However, if we really are to include birds, the task would be to merge this article with Birds. The use of "extant dinosaurs" for birds among experts is no more no more relevant to this discussion than some anthropologists using "ulotrichous" when referring to curly haired people. Should it be mentioned? Yes. Should we substitute all instances of "bird" in Wikipedia with extant dinosaur? Not quite.

Not so fast! "First" means nothing, "right" is the magic word for wikipedia. If there is a current consensus, wiki should follow it. If not, wiki must describe the possible positions.

Also, please quit the strawman arguments. Nobody suggested repalcing ALL instances of "bird" with "extant dinosaur".

The problem with the phylogenetic position of disallowing grades is that we sometimes need to discuss them. This is a very good example. When I want to read about social signals on dinosaurs, I want to read about the head crest in hadrosaurs and the funny tail-feather in Caudipteryx, I do not want a discussion on the tails of peacocks or the evolutionary significance of song in tits. When discussing dinosaur reproduction, I don't want to read about the hallux and the evolution of nesting in trees. Still, perching birds constitute by far the largest number of known dinosaurs, so the hallux discussion should take up a sizeable portion of such a section if we are to be serious of including birds. The need for discussing grades even in phylogenetic nomenclature has lead to a sort of double communication, where "amniote" is a code word for reptiles and "tetrapod" for labyrinthodonts. Likewise, what you are suggesting is using dinosaurs for birds and some of their ancestors, only you don't really mean birds. Treating this subtlety as implicit is not doing anyone a favour. Both the lede and the section "Modern definition" amply covers the phylogenetic position. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Wait, what exactly is the Linnaean definition of Aves? And how does Archaeopteryx fit it but not Microraptor or Rahonavis? Most recent research has concluded that neither could fly, but to what limited extent they could, Micro and certainly Rahon did it better. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, nobody who participated in the discussion here wants purely Aves stuff in here. You're constant use of strawman arguments gets rather boring and old. If you don't cut it out we will ignore you. HMallison (talk) 09:34, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please remember that there's a decent article Origin of birds, which should be the "main article" for that topic. Then both Dinosaur and Birds can summarise the relevant parts. If I were trying to work out that, I'd make a table in a subpage somewhere with: columns "Dinosaur", "Origin of birds" and "Birds"; a row for each aspect, e.g. inherited theropod anatomy, flight, when the "parson's nose" tail (pygostyle) appeared, possible non-bird flying or gliding dinosaurs, etc.; and in each cell a comment or code, e.g. "main", "important", "minor". Hopeful it won't take long to reach a good enough consensus - otherwise it would be more productive to something else, as paleontology is all about transitions. --Philcha (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I do remember! As Dinoguy2 said above: "We're simply saying anything on this page should be about all dinosaurs in general." And "in general" means that the page should not cover a specific sub-group in details, nor an anatomic transition to a new mode of life in it. So here, they should be a three-sentence summary of how small theropods turned into birds, with the key anatomic features listed and linked to the appropriate sections of the other existieng articles. :) HMallison (talk) 11:50, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Pilcha's suggestion seems sensible to me. I think we really do agree on most topics, this discussion is on details.

The initial suggestion for this thread is to move the article to "non-avian dinosaurs", and that "birds would have to be taken into account in how things are worded". As far as I can see, this means putting "in birds, this ..." a lot of places. Neither are conductive to a good article as far as I can see. The article "Dinosaur" should cover the normal meaning of the word. It should absolutely be mentioned that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but we have the article Evolution of birds for a reason. I think it will be better if we stop debating and try to find a way to formulate things to make the article better. Petter Bøckman (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that anything that has to begin "in birds..." or even "in sauropods..." or "in T. rex..." should not be included at all in a general overview of an entire, massively diverse group. We don't have an enormous amount of text in Archosaur which begins "in crocodilians..." but, on the other hand, Archosaur is a pretty skimpy article, simply because there is not much to say about a group so diverse it's almost pointless to consider it. That's why I feared Dinosaur might have to go the same way. The best solution is to present an overview of how major groups differ and compare in each section, including birds. Under Physiology, we can give a brief overview of bird physiology, a brief overview of sauropod physiology, etc., to kind of present a general sum of the physiology of dinosaurs, which is by no means monolithic even if you exclude birds. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Put another way, wouldn't it be a bit silly to have a "Behavior" section for Vertebrate? Clearly behavior varies so much between groups, both living and those for which it must be inferred from fossil evidence, that such a section is overly simplistic and broad. Even if we kept birds out of the equation, it's simply misleading to have a "Behavior" section here, as if "dinosaur behavior" is a single thing that can be studied. Either brake it down by major group or remove it, I say. MMartyniuk (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition of dinosaurs includes birds. Birds make up the vast bulk a dinosaur biodiversity, and are the only kinds of dinosaurs to exist for a 65 million year stretch. Consequently, it's really no contest; a great deal of this article should focus on birds and the NAD-bird connection. I'm sorry that dinosaurs weren't the distinct group of reptiles the coloring books we had in kindergarten portrayed them as, but that's how it is. Abyssal (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The reason this article is a lot longer than the Archosaur article is not that there's less things to say about archosaurs, it is that dinosaurs is a topic of great common interest, while archosaurs are not. It is the same way Winston Churchill is a lot longer than Benjamin Disraeli. At one point the Churchill article was so long it exceeded Wikipedia limits and had to be spilt. Now, bout have sub articles, but Churchill's ones are by far the largest number. The reason is naturally that Churchill garner a lot more public interest than old Disraeli. Considering the the public interest in (non-avian) dinosaurs, this really should be the main article, and a long one with good examples too.

Abyssal, you seem to be under the impression that phylogeny is the only criterium by which to decide article length and content. I think you will find that if we really did make this article mainly about birds, there would be a storm of protests for the general reader who no doubt would want Bird for that subject. Petter Bøckman (talk) 09:15, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

I suggest:

• Please be much less technical in at least the earlier sections and paragraphs - WP is mainly for general and often younger readers.
• Please use diagrams more to explain features. You can label or colour-code parts of a body or feature, see e.g. Portia fimbriata (body structure).
• Consider using tables. I asked 2 friends to look at the table at Portia fimbriata (hunting tactics), and both understood the point(s) in seconds, despite knowing nothing about jumping spiders.
• How solid is the base of the phylogenic tree, e.g. Lagosuchus, Lewisuchus', Lagerpeton, Staurikosaurus and Herrerasaurus?
• If the base of the tree is reasonably solid, it's easy to explain phylogeny with a simple cladogram and metaphors like "tree of life" or "family tree"
  • Where Linnean taxomony breaks down, you can highlight paraphyletic and/or polyphyletic groups as at Nemertea#Within_Nemertea.
  • I suggest you use at most 3 or 4 level in cladograms in this article, and you can continue cladograms (using consistent clade names) in subordinate articles. --Philcha (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Random thought I had a while back; why can't we have an article called "Non-avian dinosaur" that discusses the dinosaurs of tradition, while the dinosaur article proper takes a more modern phylogenetic approach? We could move the content of Dinosaur to Non-avian dinosaur, and then rewrite it to more closely follow the phylogenetic view. Abyssal (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's my random thought. It's ok for us to have an article about the paraphyletic group "Fish" even though the amniotes are an ingroup to the Teleosti. So, by analogy, it should be fine to have an article on the paraphyletic group Dinosaurs even though aves is an ingroup to dinosauria. At the very least there is no reason to get riled up or emotional about this issue. de Bivort 18:49, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this is that fish has never been used by scientists to include their descendants the tetrapods in the same way that scientists use Dinosauria to include their descendants, the birds, as a matter of course these days. Using the Dinosaur article in a way that doesn't include Aves is factually misleading. I'm okay with a separate article specifically about non-avian dinosaurs, but only if that article is up front about the fact that it's discussing an incoherent and obsolete subject matter and the main dinosaur article takes a more accurate approach. Abyssal (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "dinosaur" is no more obsolete and incoherent than "fish." I think what you should be advocating is a technical cladistic article Dinosauria (rather than a redirect) to accompany Dinosaur the way that Osteichthyes accompanies Fish. de Bivort 21:04, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Abyssal has a point here: if I, as vertebrate palaeontologist, say "dinosaur" in the presence of a peer, it ALWAYS means "Dinosauria", not "non-avian dinosaur". If I want to exclude birds, I say so. OTOH, if my colleagues say "fish" they still means "vertebrate that lives in water", not "Osteichthyes". Wiki isn't an experts' conference, but there is a distinct difference in actual use by experts.

and, while we are at it: Fish covers way too much territory for my liking. HMallison (talk) 23:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

There is also another issue, which makes the comparison to "fish" rather lame: because there are so many theropods physically so highly similar to birds, and because it has in recent years been shown that most of their really important characteristics (avian lung, e.g.) are shared even by basal Saurischia, "dinosaurs" is a term that (though not knowingly for most people) describes a group of animals that are, in may respects, highly SIMILAR (while "fish" are diverse). Simply stated, a basal bird is so similar to a NAD from the right lineage, and even in basic important stuff like lung physiology, locomotory pattern and metabolism to ALL dinosaurs, that distinguishing them would be difficult for lay people if both animals were placed in front of the alive - birds ARE dinosaurs, and most dinosaurs are best though of as "giant bird-ish" that separating them because one group is extant while the rest is not is really absurd! HMallison (talk) 23:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually, fish is a quite good comparison. There were a whole bunch of very tetrapod-like fish foundering around in the Devonian shallows (the Elpistostegalia) who moved like a tetrapod, breathed with their lungs rather than gills and used their fins rather than tails for propulsion. On the amphibian side of the divide you have the Ichthyostegalia who for all practical pruposes were fish with feet. The only real difference in the fish/dinosaur comparrison is that fish are very much alive and kicking, we even have lungfish around so taht we can see for our selves. Had the sauropods pulled through the K/T extinction, our perspective might have looked a bit different. As for dinosaurs best be seen as "giant bird-ish", I find e.g. Diplodocus not quite filling the "birdish" stereotype, just as I fail to see dinosaurs as "perch-ish". Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:20, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

I really have to wonder whether the specific mention of the definition of "dinosaur" as "non-avian dinosaur" in the "Modern definition" section and the general exclusion of birds from the article (for starters, there are more images in the article of clearly non-dinosaurian humans than there are of extant dinosaur species) is really consistent with WP:NPOV. I therefore question whether this article still meets the criteria for being a WP:FA. Any thoughts? Icalanise (talk) 21:23, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

"Dinosaur" has a greater meaning than the clade dinosauria. This article mostly reflects the definition of dinosaur found in dictionaries. de Bivort 22:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

...to its detriment. Abyssal (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I've published multiple new cladistic methods, so you don't need to argue the value (to scientists) of cladistic reasoning, but even I can see that having a general article on the big, plentiful, extinct reptiles that were predominant until the end of the cretaceous is completely reasonable. de Bivort 07:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Then again, this article uses for its most part a lesser definition than the clade, and furthermore the definition used is becoming increasingly antiquated. In any case, an article that starts off indicating a wide range of definitions in the lede that then goes and narrows in on one specific definition (and not necessarily the most current one) seems to me to be doing something wrong. Icalanise (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree, in part. See my post above.[7] MMartyniuk (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

When a word has multiple meanings they should all be mentioned. de Bivort 07:38, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, all meanings of a term should be discussed, and in this case there's a whole chapter devoted to it. As long as the phylogeny as currently understood is explained clearly (which it is, abundantly), there should be no problem with this article in it's current format. It is always room for improvements though. Petter Bøckman (talk) 16:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Icalanise, what does the (reasonable, for reasons detailed here a billion times) limitation of the article to non-avian dinosaurs (there's a gazillion artciles on birds, you know?) have to do with a neutral point of view? Also, why are you against giving a history of research with information on the researchers? Hey, if you really worry about this, split that off into a separate page.... or wait a minute, that'd mean that much stuff would have to be here twice, on two pages.....

I am a bit confused, I have to say, about your reasoning.

Furthermore, I agree that the arrogance of ornithologists needs to end, and that they need to finally call themselves "extant dinosaur-ologists". But I must say that having a tiny and largely irrelevant group of volant theropods dominate this article would throw an entirely wrong light on Dinosauria. Also, as mentioned, there is a bunch of stuff on birds all over wikipedia anyways, thus a summary is sufficient. Why should birds get any more treatment than any other minor group?

So in summary, I hazard the guess that if someone did include the amount of material on birds you wish for, someone'd come running with the "thisarticleneedstobesplititistoolongsoitdoesn'tmeetFAcriteriaanymore" whine.

In fact, there is much to criticize about this article, and I am quite sure that it doesn't meet FA criteria. But that's related to the content, not the coverage or structure. A re-write is in (arduous and very slow) progress. HMallison (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

A limitation to non-avian dinosaurs would be reasonable on a non-avian dinosaurs article. This article on the other hand is about dinosaurs. It seems to me that by doing this, this article is taking a "birds are not dinosaurs" POV, or at least seeming to attempt to artificially minimise the importance and relevance of the extant members of this group. (It then proceeds to go all over the place with whether it is actually considering birds as dinosaurs or not, which is probably not FA class writing!). And how does including birds "throw entirely the wrong light" on this group of organisms? I find this suggestion bizarre... Icalanise (talk) 21:32, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Reading is difficult, isn't it? ;)

To quote from the article: Consequently, in modern classification systems, birds are considered a type of dinosaur—the only group of which that has survived to the present day., Dinosaurs are a diverse and varied group of animals; birds, at over 9,000 species, are the most diverse group of vertebrate besides perciform fish., Many dinosaurs, including birds, have been bipedal, Avian dinosaurs have been the planet's dominant flying vertebrate since the extinction of the pterosaurs. - and that's only in the lede.

Now, I as mentioned think some thing in the article in need of improvement, but suggesting that the current version is taking a "birds are not dinosaurs" POV is beyond surreal.

Maybe you can stop complaining and HELP? Please? Here? User:Dinoguy2/Test/Dinosaur We've been addressing this issue, making it clearer than the old article already does, that birds are dinosaurs. Still, given the size of material on birds that would have to be included, as mentioned this small and in the grand scheme of dinosaur evolution rather aberrant group of theropods doesn't warrant much data in the article that's supposed to cover ALL Dinosauria. Why don't you go through the draft and simply find places where you think more data on birds is appropriate, and then either add it or at least leave a notice on what you would like to find there? HMallison (talk) 09:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Look, whether anyone likes it or not, so-called "birds" are full-fledged dinosaurs. Dinosaurs are not by any means extinct. In fact, I would go as far as merging the bird article with the dinosaur article. The class Aves shouldn't even exist anymore, birds belong to the class Reptilia in the order Dinosauria, they are not any less dinosaurian than Tyrannosaurus, Velociraptor, Apatosaurus etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Woah, there. Birds are dinosaurs but not all dinosaurs are birds. Would you also get rid of/merge the article Sauropoda with dinosaur, because sauropods are a type of dinosaur? MMartyniuk (talk) 19:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point, but both articles should at least give a bit more information on the topic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 20:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Also, someone removed the statement in the info-box that dinosaurs are from 230 million years ago to the present, when it was perfectly accurate. People don't seem to realize that while many species are extinct, dinosaurs as a whole are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 00:24, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Once again,another dinosaur has been discovered in Coahuila de Zaragoza,the only mexican place where dinosaur fossils are found.It was a hadrosaur and may have been very big.Of course we must write about it when more details come up.Here's the link [[8]]Dino-Mario (talk) 21:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

In response to "What?", I have a question: Are you sure that dinosaurs are reptiles? This review of Walking with Dinosaurs says otherwise. I doubt he's correct, I just want to confirm it. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

That person has no idea what they're talking about. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There is one relevant question in that review: How "hot-blooded" were the various critters really? He seem to object to the use of "reptile" as the dinosaurs (and a synapsid) weren't "cold-blooded enough" to be reptiles. While the position is kind of moronic, it begs the interesting question is how "warm-blooded" the creatures in Walking With Dinosaurs really were. At what state of temperature control do we semantically draw the line between cold-blooded (in it's various forms) and homeothermy/endothermy? If we assume some form of temperature control was the original state of affairs in Archosauria and at least in the more advanced Pelycosauria, how did that control "work". How was temperature regulated, and what were their optimal temperature? To what degree were they bradymetabolic, or were any of them obligate homeothermic? This article (Dinosaur) seem to rely on a somewhat simplistic dichotomous understanding of the cold/warm-bloodednes continuum, perhaps we should detail it a bit. Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed 100%. 70.80.215.121 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Adam70.80.215.121 (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow, that guy is a true moron, not one thing he said in that review was correct. Plus, much of it was criticizing pure speculation rather than facts that are evidently inaccurate. Walking with Dinosaurs was created specifically to portray dinosaurs as living, breathing creatures. They looked at the behaviours of animals living in the modern era and used them as a basis for their speculations of how dinosaurs may have lived. In other words, it wasn't meant to be an educational program regarding what we know from fossil evidence. As far as I'm concerned, it is pure entertainment that creates the illusion of being one of those African wildlife documentaries that have Attenborough's voice somehow escaping from between the acacia trees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 00:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I recently stumbled upon a fascinating article regarding dinosaur feathers trapped in amber and unearthed in the Alberta badlands. Certainly this is a relevant scientific discovery that may be notable enough to have at least a sentence or two in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 00:44, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

And birds are dinosaurs, then wouldn't that mean birds must be reptiles? 209.86.226.25 (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Correct, in the cladistic system (but not the Linnaean system used in the info boxes), birds are reptiles. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

dinosaurs are not extinct, they have been spotted in numerous backyards, jungles and forestrial and industrial parks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.35.112 (talk) 12:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Birds are dinosaurs, but the African cryptids are likely to be a myth. Crimsonraptor (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Birds are not reptiles. When you say "are" you imply their current status. Birds, as the contemporary theory goes, descended from reptillian ancestors. Just as man descended from the earliest forms of mammalian life. That does not mean our current status is small mammalian rodents. Birds have reptillian ancestry, they are not currently reptiles. 204.65.34.169 (talk) 14:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong, birds are reptiles. Abyssal (talk) 16:20, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

From Biology, 8th Edition by Campbell and Reece (and many other junior authors): "The reptile clade includes tuataras, lizards, snakes, turtles, crocodilians and birds, along with a number of extinct groups, such as plesiosaurs and ichthyosaurs." This is the text used in the BIO 111 course I teach. It is representative of many new texts in that birds are no longer afforded separate treatment as they were under non-cladistic classifications. --Khajidha (talk) 00:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree that the two are one, it's just that it's a lot easier to treat them seperately!...But I try to include them. The classification system's so messed up that I try to make it simpler...Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 00:42, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

'Birds' and 'reptiles' are just terms we have invented.Western science has long had a mania for attaching labels to living things and putting them in their proper boxes. The truth is, life varies along a broad and colourful spectrum. When can we say a reptile becomes a bird, or vice versa, unless we create artificial criteria for separating them? Science at last acknowledges this. It may be that the terms Reptilia, Aves, Mammalia, etc, will become popular terms and have no scientific value whatsoever. A bit of a nominalist perspective here.Gazzster (talk) 10:56, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. We've completely messed up the measuring system by introducing our own "better" thing (I'm trying hard to convert back to metric). Now the classification system has fallen too. Might need a redesign someday...Crimsonraptor | (Contact me) Dumpster dive if you must 13:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Just because a type of animal evolved from another doesn't mean that it is. Amphibians evolved from fish but are not fish. If birds are considered reptiles then so should mammals. Mammals evolved from reptiles as well. I think birds are to diffirent from modern day reptiles. When I check the bird page they are not listed as reptiles or archosauria but as a seperate class (aves). There is still a debate whether birds evolved from Dinosaurs or an ealier reptile species but if they evolved from a species of dinosaurs that doesn't mean that they are Dinosaurs or Reptiles. An Eagle is something totally diffirent then a Triceratops, Apatosaurus or a snake. I think birds could be considered their own order. There were some bird-like Dinosaurs just as there were mammal-like reptiles. In both cases there will be animals that are on the edge of both classes which will be difficult to be put in either class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.105.181.214 (talk) 18:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! Why is it that people always re-define terms any way they like, then blabber exhaustively about them, instead of just accepting that there are already valid scientific definitions in existence? And why is it that these people are those who can't spell? rediculous, diffirent, seperate.......HMallison (talk) 04:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! Why do phylogentic nomenclaturists allways assume that phylogeny is the only criterum for classification? And why do they re-define terms any way they like instead of inventing new ones to cover what they mean? Birds are not reptiles in the common understanding of the words. Forcing phyologentic taxonomy without explaing what is going on is not doing anyone a favour. Petter Bøckman (talk) 05:36, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Sigh! I do biomechanics, and dislike taxonomy and cladistics. The point is, however, that wikipedia as an encyclopedic work should not use arbitrary terms (e.g., "reptile" in the sense of "snakes+turtles+crocodiles", at least in a palaeontological context, but it is not helpful, but rather confusing to the reader, especially if the use varies (due to necessity) across several articles. If we use proper clades, readers will be able to understand even complex concepts and evolutionary lines, if we use "everyday terms", things will be as confusing as school biology class content shows itself to be each and every time someone with an interest in the subject encounters fossils. I have found that people can understand nested hierarchies easily, and get a much better grasp of evolutionary processes if you use them.

Just because "commonly", people in Europe assign crocodiles to reptiles, but not birds, doesn't mean that this is helpful, sensible, or the case in other cultures - would you like to vary based on local conventions? And how to treat terms that have, like the term "reptile" varied in their meaning historically? Maybe we should go back to the scala naturae?

btw, yo risk sounding very much like a BANDit apologist, with your continued fight against correctness and clarity. HMallison (talk) 07:56, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, bandit apologist, haven't heard that one before (had to look it up). I am not entirely sure we want to go down that road.

I'm a zoologist and work as a public educator in a natural history museum (I'm typically the guy to tour school classes). To me taxonomy is an essential tool to keep track of the various critters of this planet, I'm supposed to be able to say something intelligent about eartworms, insects, fish and (of course) dinosaurs. You may say I'm a typical end user in that I need taxonomy as a filing system. I don't use cladistics myself (I'm more of an ecologist), but I would be a fool if I did not recognise it's value. I have no problem with fylogentically defined taxons (eg Tetanura, Maniraptora, Dinosauriformes) they are needed to explore the nooks and crannies of phylogeny, but I do have a problem with changing content of a well established unit. As an end user, I depend on taxonomic stability. New units are perfectly fine by me, I think the taxon you are looking for is Sauropsida, not Reptilia. The two are not interchangeable units, and we should take care to say when we mean one or the other. Dinosaurs of course are both.

As for local convention, I hope you are aware that dinosaur palaeontology is kind of unique in it's wholesale embracement of phylogenetic nomenclature. Petter Bøckman (talk) 11:30, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I do see the use of established names has it's use - don't get me wrong! The issue about dinosaurs is that keeping up the old-fashioned use of the term, in my experience (and I have quite some, although likely not as much as you) CONFUSES both laypeople and journalists MORE than if I take the extra two minutes to explain what MRCA (LCA in normal parlance) is, give one example (typically: "imagine we want to study hereditary diseases. We have a family from Dresden names 'Schmitz', in which the disease is prevalent. Now we add Mr. Mugundu from Zaire - is that going to be helpful? No, we want to study a related group"), and then use "Dinosaur" to include birds as well. Obviously, I'll slip back into the old use when the context is clear, but I'll often use "non-avian" or "non-bird" or "mesozoic". And people remember - some come back over a year later and still remember!

Additionally, while many zoologists and botanists do not, the best zoologists I know embrace phylogenetic taxa wholeheartedly, because they force people to think in proper relationship terms, pushing old bias aside.

In sum, I think we are on a very good way with how the article (more: the version on dinoguy2's userpage) is developing. I am a bit radical one way, you are the brake that keeps me in check. This will end up well :) HMallison (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Under that logic Humans would be Fish, and we'd all be bacteria (or whatever the equivilent term is) --Kurtle (talk) 15:42, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

This is wrong on multiple levels. First, we are not fish because we do not share enough genetic and anatomical similarities to fit under the criteria of "fish". Secondly, we did not evolve from bacteria. We evolved from a eukaryotic single cell organism, and we are called eukaryotes because we have the necessary requirements to fit this clade we made. The reason why birds are currently melded with reptiles is because there are not nearly enough genetic and anatomical differences between them and theropods to warrant separation, so birds are considered theropods. And since theropods are dinosaurs, then birds are dinosaurs. And since dinosaurs are archosaurs, birds are archosaurs. And finally, since archosaurs are reptiles, birds are reptiles. There, I gave you the overly simplified thought process of this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.206.235.155 (talk) 01:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't go to List of misconceptions. There's an ongoing war about the fact that only non-Avian dinosaurs went extinct at the K-T boundary, which is my preferred edit. Some non-scientific types that say that's silly. War ensues. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, we are fish. Lobe-finned fish specifically. See Sarcopterygii. As for bacteria, the tree structure is a bit more muddled that deep in our ancestry. We are really both bacteria and archaea. de Bivort 05:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

According to Cavalier-Smith, we are indeed bacteria in this sense, but not archaea, although I wouldn't be surprised if the eucaryotes themselves eventually turned out to form just a low branch derived from within the Archaea, and indeed there are indications that this could the case, see Archaea#Relation to eucaryotes.

Anyway, you can't have it both ways. Either you don't give a damn about both cladistics and morphology – then you may keep using, without qualification and without batting a lash, the popular classification schemes which treat whales and dolphins as "fish", classify all sorts of superficially similar land (and marine?) invertebrates – possibly including even some vertebrates, such as snakes (or even eels?) – as "worms", all sorts of insects, arachnids, crustaceans, and bacteria as well as viruses as "bugs" and either plus a couple of other broad groups as "critters" (basically pests, nuisances and repulsive little creatures you consider entirely unfit for eating), primates except humans as "monkeys" and possibly even bats as "birds", in veritable redneck fashion. But if you want to reserve your right to be a smart-aleck and point out that whales are not really fish, which refers mainly to ancestry and morphological arguments, you should be correct in other areas too lest you come across as an inconsistent, arbitrary jerk; which means that humans are, in the same sense, probably bacteria, quite possibly also archaea, lobe-finned fish, reptiles, monkeys, and of course, apes, unintuitive as it may seem. That's the fascinating and worthwhile thing about science: It challenges our most dearly held preconceptions and forces us to reconsider our view of the world. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Not quite Florian. Old Linnaeus, knowing nothing about cladistics put whales in Mammalia. You can indeed have it both ways, it's just a matter of language. Saying we are fish, or saying we have evolved from fish is just two ways of expressing exactly the same phylogeny, only the latter allows you to also say your are not a fish. Don't go and make the mistake and mix up cladistics with phylogenetic nomenclature, they are not the same. Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Why in the world would you want to say you are not a fish? :D MMartyniuk (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Because I'm a bit short on gills and fins. Not too fond of swimming either ;-) Petter Bøckman (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Please give back your lung, liver, intestines, cervicalisation, etc., too ;) HMallison (talk) 23:56, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Damit, I knew this cranium thing was too good to last. Can I at least keep the liver, if I promise to phagocytize in it? Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:15, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

41.139.100.199 (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC) 66667junbnm,

Not a request--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)