Talk:Pycnonemosaurus

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.

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Detalhe de cabeça de reconstrução de dinossauro II.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are head restorations helpful?

Does it make sense to show two restorations of the animal's head alone, if the skull is not known ((Grillo & Delcourt 2017) and the only material we have from the head are some teeth?

Based on other abelisaurs we can infer how the head might have looked, but then what we're seeing is a general brachyrostran abelisaurid head, with no depiction of the material that was actually found from Pycnonemosaurus. Cephal-odd (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though I might have been the one who added the images haha. These restorations have the distinctions of being either from published papers or from museums, so they're at least a bit more trustworthy than random, user made restorations. I think full body restorations would make most sense, and we have this one:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]