Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 17

Kranar drogin brought this up in the above discussion, and I thought it might be a good idea to look into but wanted to keep discussion of it separate from Rexie. J. Spencer 02:47, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It is, it's very helpful but Kranar would know more about that kind of stuff than I tend to shy away from anything that doesn't involve writing articles. : ) IvoShandor 15:59, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, I like it cause I can keep track of whenever someone creates and article with the words like Illinois, Chicago, or Springfield. It is all flagged and then put here on like one, sometimes two searches a day they are posted up. You could have a bot search that will look for dinosaur as an example, or dino. Honestly, you would be best off going and asking the bot owner, and seeing if he would add you.--Kranar drogin 03:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

(Wow this is so exciting), now that Parasaurolophus is over the line, we have Herrerasaurus and Lambeosaurus shaping up next. It does seem that what we work on is not closely associated with what is the collaboration so do we can it for a few months? What do folk think. Allosaurus is the current collab, while Plateosaurus is still looking pretty rough.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not let Allosaurus sit for a little longer? I'm guessing that it will attract more attention than the last few, but outside of the times when tyrannosaurs come up, attendance is down right now. J. Spencer 02:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Though an Allosaurus collaboration might raise interest in the WikiProject, allowing Herrerasaurus to ride its coat-tails... Firsfron of Ronchester 17:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Screw tyrannosaurs... hell, screw tetanurans altogether! What about the mighty Majungasaurus? Yeah, kidding. while I think this article is not far away from being worthy of FA, I literally posted all 37K of text five minutes ago. Sheep81 07:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm convinced, especially as a Southern Hemisphere patriot and that the number of southern hemisphere dino FAs is currently zip...I'm on it...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's cool with me although there are a couple more sections I could add to Paleobiology. Sheep81 02:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I !vote for Herrerasaurus. But really, it doesn't matter which you submit. My ability to add valuable content in these matters is really zilch... of course, copyediting and coding I can do. David Fuchs ^(talk) 03:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

OK then - David, I found the main problem with Herrerasaurus was that its text was choppy at times (I see Justin's got stuck into it so I'll have a look too), so scanning through would be good. Sheepy I had a scan through Majungasaurus and seriously nothing jumped out as an easy fix. Let us know when yer happy with it, we can blue link a bit and if everybody can give it the once-over then it should be at FAC within days if you like.. (Kewl, a triassic AND a southern dino..) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I added two new sections to the paleobiology section... they are kind of complicated so can you read them and see if they make any sense whatsoever? Sheep81 08:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I think they read fine but I am plenty familiar with anatomy-talk. Sentence structure and flow is sound. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: This may be worth commenting on here. See first item. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That discussion seems to concern literature, rather than scinece, so the definition of a primary source is a little different. Somebody writing an article about Pericles using ancient texts as their source would be like one of us writing about T. rex using the actual bones as our reference point! Of course, that kind of research should be published in a journal first, which in the context of the linked discussion, would be a secondary source, wheras these are "primary sources" for science research. I think... it basiaclly is just a question of original research. Dinoguy2 04:22, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know (though I guess some must have seen it already), the above discussion is indeed happening right now. I personally have no opinion over the validity of the articles themselves, but the "oppose all merge" looks completely overboard to me. If that's the best they can find to get rid of in order to better help establish Wikipedia's reputation, God helps us. Circeus 17:35, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually , I hadn't spotted that Dinosaurs in popular culture was there. What are they thinking?? If one is pertinent, it's that one! Circeus 17:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notice, Circeus. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Input needed here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the notice, Sandy. I'm sure some folks here will want to weigh in. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin has just nominated this article for FAC. Judging by the comments already, he will need some editing assistance, and I'm on vacation without:

a) Any books or PDFs, and

b) Regular internet access

Can someone here please assist him? I'll return the favor, if possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that Megalosauroidea should have priority, but in actual reality nobody uses it. Sereno, Holtz, Allain, Rauhut, Benton etc. etc. use Spinosauroidea. Why don't we change to Spinosauroidea and on the page, mention that Megalosauroidea is the technically correct name, like we do with Ceratop(s)ia and Tyrannosaurus/Manospondylus. Sheep81 09:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is that, while formed with -oidea, Spinosauroidea is not a superfamily, but an unranked clade. I don't mind substituting Spinosauroidea, as long as it's clear that they're not technically the same group. Spinosauroidea has never been given a rank that I know of, and Megalosauroidea has never been given a phylogenetic definition, which creates a weird situation. Dinoguy2 05:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually... strike that. Now that I'm researching this, Spinosauroidea was erected by Olshevsky in 1995 explicitly to claim priority over Torvosauroidea. So it is originally a superfamily. I'm gonna try to clarify with the person(s) who told me the above... Dinoguy2 05:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

All right cool, let us know. Sheep81 06:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, they're both superfamilies, as far as anybody I've talked to knows... I agree with your original suggestion, Sheep--use Spinosauroidea since it's more prevelent in the text, with a note somewhere (actually, in that case a note should be added that, technically, Podokesauridae has priority over Coelophysidae...) Dinoguy2 01:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some other examples too. Sheep81 05:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's another one I was wondering about. How come in Benton's classification Tetanurae is an infraorder and here it's unranked? Sheep81 05:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Benton is the only one to have ranked Tetanurae, which was erected as a clade and has always been treated as such. I suggested (can't remember where...) that we should use traditional infraorders for the theropods, i.e., those that were originally published as such. I don't think we ever came to any resolution on that issue, didn't get much of a response... That was a long while ago, too, which is why Tetanurae never got switched over to infraorder. I think Coelurosauria was one for a while, and it was originally named as one I believe, though it would be paraphyletic with respect to the several infraorders erected in the '70s and '80s. Dinoguy2 05:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All right, makes sense. Sheep81 06:02, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

On a similar note, I brought up the same thing regarding Cerapoda vs. traditional suborders... maybe we should do the same with ornithischians and stick to Ornithopoda and Ceratopsia? Dinoguy2 06:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's both a pity and somewhat illogical that we have no animal WikiProject despite the fact that there are over 20 projects that are basically its daughters. There are also other projects that could emerge from it in the future, such as one on animal behavior. The project would provide a central place for people from all animal projects to talk, a central set of guidelines for articles on animals and zoology, and an assessment system for articles related to animals. If you are interested in creating such a project please visit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of life#Animals project to discuss. Richard001 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The following projects would come under the parentage of this project:

• WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles
  • WikiProject Dinosaurs
  • WikiProject Pterosaurs
  • WikiProject Sea Monsters
• WikiProject Arthropods
  • WikiProject Lepidoptera
  • WikiProject Phasmatodea
  • WikiProject Spiders
• WikiProject Birds
• WikiProject Cephalopods
• WikiProject Fishes
  • WikiProject Aquarium Fishes
  • WikiProject Sharks
• WikiProject Gastropods
• WikiProject Mammals
  • WikiProject Monotremes and Marsupials
  • WikiProject Cetaceans
  • WikiProject Primates
  • WikiProject Cats
  • WikiProject Dogs
    • WikiProject dog breeds
  • WikiProject horse breeds
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights

I think the subheading you linked to has actually been archived. Sheep81 08:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Noticed that somebody has deleted this article. Anybody knew about it? ArthurWeasley 20:49, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The AfD ended with the closing admin deleting four dino-related pop culture articles. Mgiganteus1 20:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what the Pop culture kaboom thing above was about. The pages are in user:AndyJones's userspace now. See Special:Prefixindex/User:AndyJones. Circeus 22:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I removed the link from the dinosaur articles.Circeus 23:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• • • • this......Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 9 - listed the article here. If we should keep any one article its this one....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if it's not restored we are going to have to be extra vigilant to keep that stuff out of the main article. Sheep81 05:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the pop culture articles myself, but we should probably be vigilant to keep this stuff out of the main articles either way. The reason these get deleted is because 90% of their content is useless cruft. Having a wastebasket page to catch the useless stuff just creates useless articles, which is even more unencyclopedic than having trivia in an otherwise good article. Dinoguy2 06:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The best course is not to get the article restored, but to restart it properly from scratch. In its state, it begged for deletion, and even after I did warn the project, practically nothing was done to save it. I agree an article is appropriate, but merely restoring the listcruft that was there will not help making it a good article. Circeus 17:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It can't be written in a good format if the page is deleted though, and still does not address the fact it was deleted when there was no consensus to do so and on the basis of article quality. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not having any source, being an inappropriate list and not establishing notability are all valid deletion arguments, even if not anybody actually invoked them. As it is, the content is preserved in userspace and this arguing is honestly not doing a single thing to improve it... Circeus 21:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

True....I just get a bit sick of deletionist mania that's all. All the people arguing know about T rex and its popularity in pop culture - its not like some obscure entry people aren't genuinely aware of..(ok I'll drop it now) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:17, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with you (and God knows I'm myself involved with a topic that attracts cruft), but I can't deny there were valid arguments to delete. If anything, take it as a reason to show them wrong. Circeus 22:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

While were on this topic, would somebody please be so kind as to pitch on this? Circeus 23:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's bordering on time for an RfC on this...I have reverted and I guess he's aware of 3RR.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:29, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

here we go.....(sigh). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone take a look at the recent contributions of User:Superraptor, particularly the creation of Dinosauriformes and expansion of Aachenosaurus? Mgiganteus1 21:25, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've edited here--could someone remind me how long an article has to be before it no longer qualifies as too short? Thanks!Devotchka 00:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey Devotchka!

You removed the stub tag from Caudipteryx. Seems wise to me: it's 7K now. This indicates we should be bold in removing stub tags from longer articles, and WP:DABS indicates the article is near the top 100 longest dinosaur articles: clearly not a stub anymore. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I generally remove stubs from article that are reasonably rounded (e.g. not all content is about a specific aspect of the topic) and take roughly a full page of screen space at 1080x800 resolution. Such articles are generally closer in definition to Start-class. Circeus 18:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This appeared on the new articles list; its unreferenced, isn't on the dinosaur list and has no taxobox. The genus appears to exist though, a Google search turned up a lot of results in Chinese. Have fun! Cheers Kare Kare 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be a very very informal name for a Japanese theropod; there are a few of these floating around that may or may not even be real, or intended as serious names (per WP:BEANS, I'm not naming them here, but they can be found with a little hunting). J. Spencer 15:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

1) Any support for renaming Dinosaurs in popular culture and/or Stegosaurus in popular culture to Cultural depictions of _____?

Yes - I prefer them but others haven't. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer this--the name alone may discourage some of the 'transformo-cruft' that these pages attract. Dinoguy2 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Spawn Man 10:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

2) We've had a Category:Fabrosaurs and a Category:Heterodontosaurs for a little while now, and I think Fabrosaurs is too small and the term not used widely enough (a handful of researchers using pre-cladistics methods in China) to be useful. Heterdontosaurs are certainly distinct, but again it's a small group, and it has limited expansion prospects.

No strong opinions. I'm not too fussed if a cat is small cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A while back we agreed on a certain lower size limit for cats. I can't find it on the project page, but I believe it was something like, categories should have at least 15 entries or the prospect of 15 in the near future. Heterodontosaurs only has 6, and I don't think 9 new taxa are currently in press, so it should be merged back into Cat:Ornithischians. Dinoguy2 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

3) Category:Dinosaurs of Eastern North America: aside from perhaps renaming to Dinosaurs of eastern North America, is this one useful? It's kind of nice to have, but it may not be a pressing need. J. Spencer 14:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I thought two cats Eastern US and Western US may be a good idea as there was a sea between them in the cretaceous so they are a natural grouping; I like the idea as it highlights the geography at the time.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I prefer using modern geography for these cats, because of the chronology problem. Yes, a seaway divided NA for a while, but only for a fairly small and specific part of the Mesozoic. If the cat were named "mid-Late Cretaceous Dinosaurs of Eastern North America, that would be different, but it still seems like an awfully specific thing to create an entire category for. In my opinioon, a less complicated solution would simply be to expand the Western Interior Seaway article to discuss faunal differences between east and west during that time. Right now, I think the only "paleo-geographic" distinction we should make is the India and Madagascar cat, since the fauna was so different from the rest of Asia, and India was faunally distinct for most of the era. Dinoguy2 01:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - I couldn't recall how lon the seaway had been there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Categories cannot be renamed (new categories have to be made), and I think the Eastern North America category is superfluous, in addition to going against Wikipedia naming conventions. The agreement about the size of categories was made in archive 1 of this page, I believe. Since then, we've stuck to mostly major categories that had at least 10-15 genera in them, as it could quickly get ridiculous (with monotypic categories, or categories filled with wastebasket taxa, which happens anyway to some extent, such as in Category:Theropods, with all the indeterminate theropods). Shall we send these to WP:CFD? Firsfron of Ronchester 10:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Certainly! Sheep81 10:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to get around to it shortly, then. J. Spencer 15:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the cat is too specific; the rationale for the cat name (the prehistoric divide of E & W America) either needs to be explained or merged back into the main cat, but I see no point in keeping it. Spawn Man 10:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

All three are now up: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_19#Category:Dinosaurs_of_Eastern_North_America, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_19#Category:Heterodontosaurs, and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_19#Category:Fabrosaurs. J. Spencer 19:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, how's this: we rename Dinosaurs in popular culture to Cultural depictions of dinosaurs, and replace the article with this? (ignore the sandbox stuff above) J. Spencer 20:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well done! I did add a little to the current article but can fish that out agian.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It's done. I checked and actually, I kept your recent references. :) J. Spencer 21:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Great job JS, as per usual - I have only one objection: The subheading titles. "The Great Depression to the Dinosaur Renaissance" should be changed, as it is not globally inclusive, I.E. Some parts of the world didn't have a depression at all. In addition to that, the way the titles go from "Early depictions" to "1900s" to "The Great Depression to the Dinosaur Renaissance" etc seems a bit disjointed, I.E. going from words to numbers to words again. I think there should be some joining feature, such as "X Date - Title", for example "1990s - The Slow Era". This way people would get the date and desciptive title at the same time. Anyway, good job regardless... :) Spawn Man 00:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea - I'll see if I can think up anything before Mythbusters starts. :) J. Spencer 00:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Mah, I only liked the first seasons of that show, before all those suck-up, wannabe sidekicks took over. Spawn Man 02:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

They need some dinosaur myths. Maybe they could build a full-scale Brachiosaurus and see at what depth under water its lungs implode. J. Spencer 02:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone has some issues..... ;) Spawn Man 05:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

The deletion of Tyrannosaurus in popular culture was overturned and there is currently a discussion to keep or delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tyrannosaurus_in_popular_culture. Any input would be appreciated. --Pixelface 06:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we have to put a lot of work into this article - even if we do manage to squeek by this AfD, there'll undoubtedly be more to come if we don't get the article into top shape. If Cas and others could do the same with Lions in pop culture, then I'm sure this can be done. Maybe we can set a standard that'll help for the rest of this only just beginning war on "in pop culture" articles. It's silly in a way though, that people are arguing delete T rex in pop culture as it's "Not notable", but said keep stegosaurus in pop culture?! Anyway, I'm busy on other things so can't help out right now. Cheers, :) Spawn Man 07:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Question: Why in all the dinosaur scale diagrams is the guy always waving? Is he happy he's gonna get eaten by a dinosaur? Spawn Man 04:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

He's greeting the aliens. Debivort 04:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

When I update my personal web site, I'll be using the CZJ versions, if you like those better ;) Dinoguy2 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of... can we get one for Majungasaurus? :) Sheep81 16:23, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello all... after talking it over with Cas (sort of), I have sent Majungasaurus to FAC here. Please feel free to let rip with any comments and suggestions you can come up with. I'll be in and out today so I'll do my best to take care of the ones that I can. Sheep81 16:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Ya know, I really think that we should be given some sort of medal or something. We've mananged to pump out huge amounts of the best written FA's in the quickest time I've ever seen. We work well together most of the time. We create great pictures. I think we all deserve a pat on the back. You've all done well and I'm pretty proud of how far we've come. Excellent work and remember to keep it up. Now my pep talk is over, I've got some edits to make. :) Cheers, Spawn Man 08:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I've come across something I'd like to ask your opinion on. I've noticed that most articles seem to start off with the generic "Said Dinosaur is a genus of dinosaur that existed approximately X million years ago." However, isn't "is" meant for things in the present? Since dinosaurs no longer exist per say, wouldn't "was" be more appropriate? (IE, "Said Dinosaur was a genus of dinosaur that existed approximately X million years ago.") I think I came across this discussion before, but I don't we reached an outcome. Thoguhts? Spawn Man 08:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a good question; I'm not sure we ever came to a consensus on it. I think it's fine to say "is" as long as you mention it is an extinct genus. Otherwise, I personally think it should be was, even though it's obviously still (technically) a genus. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah - my take was "is a genus" or "was a dinosaur"..thus use past tense when talking about individual or groups of critters stomping about the mesozoic landscape but present for any secondary interpretation or appraisal (I guess...). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I have thought about it a bit as well. I eventually decided on present tense. It sounds like kind of a ticky-tack reason, but a genus is a human construct and therefore something that exists today to help us categorize the animals, not something that had any sort of real biological meaning back in the Mesozoic. So yeah, the dinosaurs no longer exist, but the genera still do (in fact they have only recently started to exist). Sheep81 08:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Basically, what Cas said. Sheep81 08:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it still sounds weird. Anyway just thought I'd ask around. :) Spawn Man 10:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is kind of odd. I guess our consensus is that there really isn't a consensus and people have been doing whatever they personally feel sounds the best, which is okay with me. Sheep81 10:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)