Talk:Kayentavenator

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Odd...

From the description, I thought that this might be the "Shake-N-Bake" theropod, but that one is all MCZ/TMM specimens and this is UCMP. J. Spencer (talk) 01:42, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, far as I know, "Shake-N-Bake" has still never been published. PageRob (talk) 01:55, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of the name

Is Notes on Early Mesozoic Theropods a valid publication under ICZN rules? I understand from this: www.lulu.com/product/item/notes-on-early-mesozoic-theropods/11028233 that the "book" has not actually been printed? Not that I (as an inclusionist ;o), object against the article as such or deny the value of the study, but can it be established that the name is still just a nomen ex dissertatione?--MWAK (talk) 14:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is in fact published, if by published your mean that the book is physically printed and physical copies exist. I know that I have a physical copy in my library. A little thinner than some volumes from other presses, though. PageRob (talk) 05:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But how was that copy created? You downloaded the file and then printed it yourself? Or can you actually order the book and get it delivered by mail?--MWAK (talk) 07:34, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Order the book and it comes via mail. The download is something you can opt for, but is not how the book is designed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by PageRob (talk • contribs) 13:22, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But Lulu Press has no copies in stock? It simply produces each book one at a time, whenever there is demand for it? If so, this would not meet the ICZN 8.1.3 criteria of an "edition" and of "simultaneously obtainable copies". You see, the last requirement was instated precisely for cases like that, to prevent someone from validly claiming: "I have published because whenever you want one, I can have a new copy made for you". So, punctuated production does not suffice, otherwise anyone willing to print out, bind in hard-cover and send you his paper would have published. After all, whether some external manufacturer and/or publisher is involved, is completely immaterial to the ICZN. What matters is, whether at any one time numerous copies are simultaneously present and available.--MWAK (talk) 07:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is tricky. Where's the line between something like this and a subscription-only journal that produces enough copies to satisfy only the subscriber base and then prints back issues on demand? Gay has stated on the DML that he distributed copies to libraries as required under the ICZN article on electronic publishing. However, he didn't list them in the paper itself, so it just falls short of being considered valid as a PDF (think PloSONE with on-demand printing services). MMartyniuk (talk) 07:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting question :o). Perhaps the answer might be that the availability criterion is satisfied by the possibility to subscribe. I wonder, apart from the omission to identify them, how we could ascertain the fact that the copies were send to the libraries and that they were included in their collections — otherwise they cannot be said to have been "deposited" — and whether they were in the form of electronic data files — you cannot deposit an electronic publication by using a printed copy.--MWAK (talk) 07:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"you cannot deposit an electronic publication by using a printed copy." Huh? I thought that's exactly what the ICZN required. It's certainly what PloS ONE does (sends print copies of the electronic files to libraries to satisfy the criteria). MMartyniuk (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, article 8.6 states: Works produced after 1999 by a method that does not employ printing on paper. For a work produced after 1999 by a method other than printing on paper to be accepted as published within the meaning of the Code, it must contain a statement that copies (in the form in which it is published) have been deposited in at least 5 major publicly accessible libraries which are identified by name in the work itself.

An electronic publication is not published in the form of a printed publication, therefore it cannot be deposited in the form of one. Maybe I'm interpreting this too strictly?--MWAK (talk) 08:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]