Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 5

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 1

←

Archive 3

→

Microsoft Ad

There exist more image-worthy examples of dinosaurs featuring in popular culture than the attention-grabbing image of the very recent Microsoft advertisement which has managed to slip in. Hmmm.. - edit, which I see now has been moved to the 'Dinosaurs in Popular Culture' seperate article, where it's relevance and presence is still debatable, setting aside any issues regarding Microsoft specifically - surely an image from television/film etc. would be more relevant and interesting than one from an advertisement?

A clean slate

Once again, as this page was getting rather long, I have archived the older discussion here to Archive 4 above. Killdevil 20:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy. Logic

Beefart is a geochemist, not a palaeontologist and here treads cautiously (normally he rushes in with all the subtlety of a Muttaburrasaurus). Why is a remark about the habitat of dinosaurs included under the heading "anatomy"? This is illogical. Either the heading ought to be changed slightly or the bit about habitat ought to be shifted elsewhere. Captainbeefart 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent point. I have moved the habitat bit up a little, which has the side effect of highlighting it a bit more. I think this is fine, as the fact that dinosaurs were land animals is pretty fundamental to any definition of Dinosauria... Killdevil 14:22, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Dates wrong?

---Never mind JBogdan 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Since creationism is religion, and this page is about science, nothing needs to be done to the page. It belong in the entry for Christianity.Dinoguy2 01:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

His arguments ONLY APPEAR scientific and valid. They have the same scientific validity as Erich von Daniken's theory that human race became what it is now thanks to aliens. Daniken used in his books similar (or the same) methods as creationists - taking quotes out of context, misinterpreting facts, telling lies and half lies and all well mixed up in an easy to read text. --Dudo2 06:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

---Never Mind JBogdan 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

JBogdan, the place for discussing any single book on any subject is a local book club, not here. You say you're doing your research; that's good, please do it and come back when you're finished. The research you need to do, however, does not consist of reading one book. There are dozens of books on creationism, dozens more that debunk attempts to scientifically justify creationism, hundreds of books on the scientific study of dinosaurs, thousands more on geology and paleontology in general, and hundreds of thousands of articles on dinosaurs, geology and paleontology. You don't need to read all of these, but you do need to read a representative sample of them, so you have at least a rough understanding of the body of knowledge that they represent. KarlBunker 00:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

In general, JBogdan, Wikipedia isn't a good place to push a Christian POV where it's not appropriate -- there are lots of ruthless empiricists who hang out here, and we tend to look askance at that. The geologic age of the Earth and the time period in which dinosaurs lived are so well-established scientifically as to be wholly incontestable. I would encourage you to consider adding to the Religious perspectives on dinosaurs article, which was added to Wikipedia in order to provide a good spot for coverage of dinosaurs as understood by various faith traditions. Killdevil 13:47, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

--Never Mind JBogdan 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

One book doesn't change anything. Wikipedia reflects the current scientific consensus - not the opinions of a single author. And not an author who doesn't publish peer-reviewed scientific papers; simply a religious propaganda text meant for a layman (non-scientific) audience. Certainly not an author who doesn't even work in the life sciences (his doctorate is in mechanical engineering). Creation science is a joke - give it up. That book only seems persuasive to you because it's based on lies, omissions, misrepresentations and misconceptions specifically designed to appeal to religious people with little scientific knowledge but a desire to believe. People like him are crazies on the fringe of science - the vast, vast, vast majority of real scientists (and almost every scientist involved in the life sciences) regards that young-earth nonsense as religious extremist pseudoscience. JF Mephisto 14:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi everyone! I'm back from my wikibreak to see that some things just haven't changed. I participated in numerous arguments with numerous editors to oppose creationism & any type of religion in the dinosaur article. I suggested an idea many moons ago & eventually it was completed. I suggested to put any religious views on a page such as "religion & dinosaurs". Now there is a page, Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, where all creationists can blather on about how people grew up with dinosaurs & how million year old bones are really only a few days old etc etc. Put your rubbish on that page. Some mythology stuff is scientific & some scientific stuff is just plain mythical. It doesn't matter what it sounds like, if it says dinosaurs are anything other than what carbon dating tells us, it goes on the linked page provided. Start another article such as Scientist guy who has mental problems, & put his findings there, because it has no relevance here. Read the book over 100 time for all I care, it doesn't go here. Spawn Man 01:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! But, carbon dating doesn't tell much about dinos. :-) Vsmith 01:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Hah Spawn Man, if you really want a dose of creationist POV, spend some time over at the main Evolution article. There's at least ten times as much biblical literalist silliness going on there at any given time. Killdevil 02:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Further more, I believe we should have a vote to determine the general consensus of the subject. If anything, a vote usually shuts up the wierdo's, Spawn Man 01:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC):

For the findings of the book to be included in the dinosaur article:

Against the findings of the book to be included in the dinosaur article:

---Never Mind JBogdan 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, JBogdan. However, this really is not the place to debate the validity of scientific theories. Anyone can write a book; a mechanical engineer's essays are not quite good enough references for a science article. We aren't the judges of a science—the scientific community is (though in practice, it is relatively clear to make some distinctions). For scientific articles, the best sources would be peer-reviewed journals. Please see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for more information. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

--Never Mind JBogdan 00:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the author used reliable references, it is that I do not believe the site itself is a reliable reference. As for suggestions on the author's desire to refute theories you thought were well-established, it's really up to you. It is not my place to tell you what to believe or what not to believe. I personally prefer the scientific method to explain the mechanics of the world, but you may choose your own philosophy following science, religion, some combination of the two, or even other philosophies. I believe this conversation would be better suited on our talk pages, if you wish to continue it. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. Maybe you ought to soberly consider the source of the information you're getting. It's from someone who doesn't have a degree in the life or earth sciences, but in mechanical engineering. It's from someone who doesn't publish scientific papers, only easy-to-read books designed to convince non-scientific laymen. He disagrees with the aging of the earth and plate tectonics - but he's not a geologist. He disagrees with evolution, but he's not a biologist. And 99.99% of the real geologists and biologists deride the stuff he peddles as ignorant pseudoscience. Isn't this kind of telling you somethinG? He's a religious fundamentalist and propagandist. Just because he formulates his propaganda in a way that mimicks science does not mean it is is scientific. Do yourself a favour and get your science from science textbooks, not from ignorant fundamentalists with an agenda to push. JF Mephisto 10:09, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I really don't want to become sucked into this vortex, worthwhile tho' it may be, because I simply don't have the time but I will say that I don't believe that evolution and faith are incompatible. Extinction appears to be fact. Evolution theory explains some of the facts. Plate Tectonics theory fits in very well with probability/likelihood, based on simple observations. Havelock's Gaia Hypothesis also has logic. Why does any of that have to be counter-Christian in itself? I do believe that faith/belief can be separate from dogma, which latter appears to be the stuff of 'organised religion' and might, in the wrong hands, lead to intolerance and strife. To be peaceful we must first find inner peace. Struggling with theory versus faith is a route to inner turmoil. To pitch faith or a belief system against logic is like trying to organise a meeting of penguins and polar bears, each in their natural environment. We cannot 'argue' with belief and nor should we. We should have our beliefs - they are precious. We should explore theory and logic in a dispassionate mood. - Ballista 11:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to see Wikipedia trying to enforce the principles of rational discourse. The evidence for evolution includes dinosaur fossils and remains which have been catalogued and studied for many years. If a creationist wishes to dispute this evidence, it should be on a factual and scientific basis, not a philosophical or dogmatic one. Without such a rational base, debate is useless.Landroo 04:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Inclusion of a picture gallery

user:Petaholmes has removed the picture gallery from the article a couple of times, for reasons that are unclear to me. Please use this section to discuss this issue. KarlBunker 10:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think her reasons were expressed quite clearly in her edit summaries: picture galleries belong on Commons, not on Wikipedia; most featured articles don't use them; and they increase loading time. I agree that the gallery should be removed. — Knowledge Seeker দ 10:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see "picture galleries belong on Commons" or "most featured articles don't use them" as being convincing rationales for not having a gallery. Without some further elaboration, those reasons are on a level with saying "Because." Increased loading time may be a valid concern, however. KarlBunker 10:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I sort of a gree with removing the gallery. It seems to me that any pictures really worth including could be incorporated into the text.Dinoguy2 13:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

From my perspective, the gallery didn't add anything to the article. I didn't find it to be enough of a problem to remove it myself, though. Perhaps if the included images were less of a mish-mash, the gallery would be a much better addition to the article. Killdevil 18:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree most of the gallery pictures are not very good, so not much would be lost by removing the gallery. There was some excited talk of getting better ones into Commons when the gallery was first discussed, but I guess that didn't pan out. KarlBunker 18:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the gallery has a place on the Dinosaur article. Compared to the pics in the main text, the gallery gives the lay reader a clue of the dinosaur diversity and thus can motivate him to learn more about dinosaurs. Well, getting better ones into Commons, thats not that easy. But I think we can be happy with the current situation, because there are like 2 or 3 times more dino pics than before. --Dudo2 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The article is well illustrated, all the gallery does is take up space and increase loading time, Wikipedia is not an image gallery, see WP:NOT.The images in the gallery do not significantly improve the readers understanding of the article, which is what images in an encyclopedia shuold do. The article would be better served by someone improving the organisation of the gallery on the commons, which is clearly accessable via the sisterlinks.--Peta 23:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Basically I agree with Peta. I oppose the gallery firstly on principle, because it seems there for its own sake rather than to illustrate the text, secondly because it's already so long anyway and finally because it's a poor selection of illustrations. :-D RupertMillard (Talk) 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Peta also, ditch the gallery. The article has enough photos & most of the photos in the gallery can be found on their respective article pages. Spawn Man 00:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to make sure though, my favourite, I think we should have yet another vote:

Those for keeping the gallery:

--Dudo2 16:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Those for deleting the gallery:

Warm-bloodedness

Caption on warm-bloodedness. I rather think something like "Mounted dinosaur skeleton casts at ]said museum[" would be better than "Dinosaur models" as that generally presupposes a fleshed-up and scaled (usually miniaturized) reconstruction of the animals, which obviously isn't the case.

The following corrections were made:

I deleted the word "homeotherm" which was in parentheses after either the word warm-blooded or endothermy. Homeothermy and endothermy are not the same. Some ectotherms achieve homeothermy (for example, through thermal inertia).

I changed "bulk endotherms" to "bulk ectotherms|inertial homeotherms". Suzanne

Thanks for your edits, Suzanne. Killdevil 22:49, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Ornithischia

I know that Saurischia are sometimes found with hair- og feather like structures on their body, but what about Ornithischia? Is there ever found anything that looks like hair or some other structures on their body?

No, the only structures similar to hair or feathers found on an ornithischian are the "quills" of Psittacosaurus, but these are not generally considered to be related to feathers or pterosaur fuzz by most scientists (they're probably a different sort of structure derived from scales, like the square ridges along the backs of some hadrosaurs or the spines along the back of some diplodocids).Dinoguy2 18:48, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

wat kind of frog?

what kind of frog do you need in order to make a dinosaur cloned?Peter cotton tail 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

how do you find the amber? isn't it hard to find? do they ever find cavemen and dinosaurs burried together? could you clone both?Peter cotton tail 20:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuanately, you can't clone dinosaurs, frog or not. Finding dino blood in amber wouldn't work, since stuff in amber is all turned to carbon. The best place to find dinosaur DNA is inside bone (that's what it was in the Jurassic Park book), but while they have found preserved blood vessels inside dino bone, there's not nearly enough that hasn't deteriorated to the point where it's useless for cloning. They never find cavemen and dinosaurs buried together, though they do find cavemen with mammoths, and stuff like that. Amber's not very hard to find (no harder than diaomonds and other precious stones), but most is from long after the time of the dinosaurs.Dinoguy2 00:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The possibility is remote. However, gemologically encysted insects have not "all turned to carbon" and indeed some have yielded entomological DNA. The specific problem with mosquito stomach content is digestion: the preserved mosquitos would need to be entombed immediately after feeding to halt the process of nuclease conversion. Additionally, amber is a feature of the original novel. John Hammond acquires every scrap of it he can. While this has been disputed on the grounds of age and location, certain samples would indeed coincide with Dinosaurial epochs. And other sources for dinosaur DNA may exist, such as soft tissue stores or even amber encysted primary tissue.

(Renyseneb 14:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC))

Just out of interest...

Are there any estimates as to how many dinosaurs were killed in the extintion event of 65mya? --Jawr256 09:23, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has hazarded an estimate of numbers of individuals: there are estimates of numbers of species only. --Wetman 11:18, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks anyway --Jawr256 08:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

We can analyse a bit and make some very rough orders of magnitude estimates. Reasonable species number estimates range between about 50 and 500. Reasonable average population number per species estimates range between 100,000 and 10,000,000. So somewhere between 5 million and 5 billion individuals if the event was near-instantaneous, flying avian species not included ;o).--MWAK 13:34, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Anatomy: sprawling crocodylians

"Dinosaur legs extend directly beneath the body, whereas the legs of lizards and crocodylians sprawl out to either side."

This seems to me a bit misleading. Isn't the sprawling gait of crocodiles derived from an earlier erect posture? In that case it would be better to speak of "modern crocodylians", in order to prevent confusion. --Iblardi 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

"Evidence for Cenozoic dinosaurs" section needs a fix

"In 2002, paleontologists Zielinski and Budahn reported the discovery of a single hadrosaur leg bone fossil from El Ojo, South America." -- I wanted to ask somebody knowledgeable to clarify just where in South America, but I see that the cite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur#_note-26) reads: "Dinosaurs that did not die; evidence for Paleocene dinosaurs in the Ojo Alamo Sandstone, San Juan Basin, New Mexico", which would seem to mean that South America isn't in the picture at all. Can somebody familiar with the find and/or article please straighten this out? Thanks. -- 201.78.233.162 18:34, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Since the cite note has more information, it's presumably the correct location. I've modified the article accordingly. KarlBunker 19:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

links to amazing finds

killdevil please stop erasing this very relevant section

when people are arguing "dinosaurs are warm-blooded" and "dinosaurs are related to birds", it makes PEFECT sense to specify external links to discoveries that led them to these beliefs:

Discoveries related to warm-bloodedness/bird relations

- Some remarkable discoveries have changed scientists' view of dinosaur life. These include: - * Dinosaur heart[1] - * Dinosaurs with feathers[2] - * Dinosaur nests and hatchlings[3] - * Pregnant dinosaur[4] - * Dinosaurs locked in battle[5]

It is great that you would like to add external links to the article. You should do so in the External Links section of the article that is already extant, though, rather than add external links to the body of the article in a spot where they disrupt the "flow" of the article text. Optionally, you could find places where the linked discoveries are already referenced in the text, then add your links as references. Take a read through the article -- you'll find that most of this stuff is already in there. If the article doesn't already mention one of your linked discoveries, consider adding a sentence about it where appropriate, then adding your link as a reference. Killdevil 09:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Museums?

Make a list of biggest world wide museums. It would be nice. --Comanche cph 21:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

While it doesn't list by size, there's already a List of museums.Dinoguy2 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Need detail

For this part of the article It says somthing about that there was recent T-rex finding. It didn't give really any detail on where it was or if there is another article about it--Scott3 00:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

semi protection

There's an I.P. that keeps on vandalising this article and saying [6](I just don't want to say it) I think this article needs semi-protection for a few days(maybe weeks)--Scott3 01:01, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Fine. You blasphemous liars will ROT IN HELL!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.93.21.33 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 12 July 2006 195.93.21.33

do we get a badge for that ? --Peripitus (Talk) 01:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Look I belevie in god but you sometimes need expect in fact that in a way there both ture. BTW the Bible says not to break rule.--Scott3 01:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... both can't be true, in all fairness. Genesis is simply incorrect, and even contradicts itself. A few examples...

In Genesis 1, humans are created after the other animals; in Genesis 2, they're created before them.

Genesis 1:27 says that the first man and woman were created at the same time; yet Genesis 2:18-22 says man was created first, then the animals, then woman, from Adam's rib.

In Genesis, God creates light on the first day, but doesn't make the sun until the forth day.

Plants are created on the third day, before there is any sun to provide photo-synthesis.

Birds are created before reptiles and insects (their food), and flowering plants before any other animals (needed to pollenate them).

I might go and post that on the Genesis talk page, actually. That'll give the fundamentalist loon something else to have a heart-attack about...-Neural 01:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand what I mean but lets get on topic Should this topic be semi-protected to prevent vandalisms.--Scott3 01:40, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I vote yes - it should be semi-protected for a while. If he's motivated by the voice of the Lord, he will probably be back.-Neural 01:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Could some admin please semi-protect this article? I'm tired of being damned to hell. :-) KarlBunker 02:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The ol' birds thing again

I've modified a sentence of the intro to read "Taxonomists consider modern birds to be the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs." I also removed the "citation needed" tag from this sentence. It's my guess that the tag was added because the previous wording was more blunt ("Modern birds are the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs."), and that wording just sounds weird to many readers, inspiring a "hey, wait a minute..." response. The present wording should make it clear that this is the current, widely-accepted textbook science, and as such doesn't require a citation. If anyone has any improvements to this wording, or thinks the citation tag should still be there -- well, heck, you shouldn't need my encouragement to go ahead and edit.--KarlBunker 16:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I added the the fact tag. You're basically correct as to my reason. There had been a couple of reverts going back and forth. I thought the "Modern birds are the direct descendants of theropod dinosaurs." version was a bit too 'primary source'. To make a statement of absolute fact without any sort of attribution didn't seem right. In any case, it seemed to stop the back-and-forth.

The present wording is excellent. It makes it clear that there is scientific backing - not just some Wikipedian throwing around information. --Elliskev 18:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done, chaps! - Ballista 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

dino external linkage request

Due to a growing quantity of dinosaur news, features and pictures, livescience recently created a main dinosaur page, http://www.livescience.com/dinosaurs/ that has relevant and interesting information as an external link. I am with the company and felt like this would be a good fit on the external links area of the Dinosaurs page. thanks in advance Starexplorer 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Remove Semi-Protection

I suggest that enough time has passed that we should unprotect the Dinosaur article. It has been several days since the Jesus vandal last made an appearance...

It's sort of contrary to Wikipedia philosophy to keep the page off-limits (especially as many new users may be tempted to become involved in Wikipedia via the Dinos article, given the popularity of the beasties). Killdevil 21:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! 70.118.115.49 04:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

To boldly go........

Wikipedia has all this stuff about 'bold' and I just did a bit in the history otherwise I felt like I was just swimming in text. Anyway I was about to revert it back but wanted feedback on whether keywords in bold through the article was feasible. Has this been discussed before?Cas Liber 11:14, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Has been done before (Frog#Evolution), but not to such an extent, and I rather think it makes the text less readable. I think general consensus is that words that are already wikified do not need to be bold as well. I think the usefulness is restricted to those readers who have a basic familiarity with the subject, and just want to pick up keywords. Perhaps it would be wiser to initiate a wikipedia-wide discussion about including keywords for articles if that is what you want; however, note that this is similar to the existing concept of categories. A boolean engine for categories is unfortunately missing, although Google can help here. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

No probs - thats fine, I'll revertCas Liber 11:29, 23 July 2006 (UTC)