User talk:J. Spencer/Archive 2

Archaeopteryx

In reference to the deletion of the Destron character named Archadis. This is a usage of it in popular culture as Beast Wars was spin series of Transformers, both of which are well known US cartoon series. You shouldn't just limit the popular culture references to just English, especially in this case as Beast Wars Neo is widenly known to non-japanese Transformers and Beast Wars fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.157.87.135 (talk) 02:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Hello;

Regarding my action, I removed the appearance not because of English versus Japanese concerns, but because the fact Archadis transforms into an Archaeopteryx is connective trivia that contributes more for Archadis than it does to increasing understanding of Archaeopteryx. Personally, I'm not fond of pop culture sections in general, as they are usually little more than context-free lists of "spot the article's topic", and frankly I don't see what the Time Machine book or the Jarry play do for this article without context, as well. The Archadis citation could work, if there was some context; for example, if it could be shown as an example of "this is a big-name animal that people like to use" (in which case a couple more such examples would be nice), or if being an Archaeopteryx was critical to the plot, or if the way it was depicted illustrated a particular idea that scientists were proposing at the time, or if, best-case, the creative team for the series had said somewhere why they were using an Archaeopteryx. Otherwise, as a bullet point it just hangs there; it leaves a feeling of "So? Why is this important?"

I'll copy this to my talk page, too, in case this isn't your primary IP. J. Spencer 02:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: of course, you can always just bring it up on the Archie talk page, or you can put it back in the article and see if it sticks. J. Spencer 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anatotitan

Hi, I saw on the dinosaur size artical you were wondering were the 12m Anatotitan comes from, theres a ref for that size in the Complete Dinosaur 1997 by James Orville Farlow, M... K. Brett-Surman 1997. Although the book doesn't meantion were the size comes from, but shows GSPs skeletal reconstruction. You mention a 30 foot ref for AMNH specimin, I scaled a the GSP Anatotitan to a femur measurment (1150mm for that specimin) and got a similar result. I think the 12m size belongs to the A.longiceps specimin Marsh (1890) describes, an incomplete dentary which measures 'over 38 iches' ~965mm, complete he estimates about a meter long. Scaling GSPs reconstruction to have a dentary of that size comes out at about 12m. Is A.longiceps still considered a separate speces, do you have a copy of the Brett-Surman 1990 paper? I was going to put the ref in myself but im not shure about how to insert book refs, Amazon has two ISBN numbers for exarmple ISBN-10 and ISBN-13?? which would be used? Thanks Steveoc 86 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done, thanks. :) Steveoc 86 08:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decategorisation of images

Given that AndroidMouse has decamped, the images aren't DinoSizedBot's only issues. I've been in discussions on the bot request page for a replacement. J. Spencer 13:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are the other issues, J? Just worry that if the bot breaks down, we will have no one to fix it? Or...? It's not a great idea to keep articles and images in the same category; since there are only five images, one solution might be to add them to the category page as images. Another might be to create an image category, as has been done for other dinosaur images: Category:Approved dinosaur images, Category:Approved dinosaur scale diagrams, Category:Approved dinosaur skeletals, Category:Historic dinosaur images, Category:Wikipedia featured pictures. Let's not mix articles and images in the same category, if possible. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:37, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Somewhat foolishly, I hadn't noticed that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. And for requesting a new bot and everything. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominating Lambeosaurus

Feel ready (no-one's done much which could be good or....not)? Do you wanna do the honours of nominating? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No probs - you've got the bets handle on it so would be the best judge of when to roll. I'll keep an eye out. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:02, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fabulousaurus

I also think those two categories do not have that much information. I agree they should be deleted. Daycamper4444 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re BOTREQ

is User:BetacommandBot/Sandbox ok? β^_command 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's great! But can you get it to search for (and identify) Featured Dinosaur lists, too? Right now, only List of dinosaurs is a Featured List, but there could be others in the future. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:11, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page size

Is the technology to list project articles by size available for other projects. WP:CHICAGO would like such a tool.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be my tool, β^_command 01:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We used to have one based on CatScan which was maintained by hand, but we switched to a bot earlier this year. Such a list is certainly a useful thing for an active project to have, even when maintained by hand. J. Spencer 01:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On September 11, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mahakala (dinosaur), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Very interesting. And DYK.........that banned sockpuppeteer Ekajati (talk · contribs) who was also blocked for personal attacks ironically named herself after a Tibetan deity Ekajati (which she wrote), a deity which was "one of the most powerful and fierce goddesses" and has 12 heads? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaur

Hi - thanks for fixing my mistake there - I've been fixing dead links and removed that section due to its dead link without noticing there was a non-web ref as well. (The link is working today anyway!). Cheers, ELIMINATORJR 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allosaurus

Hi, Firs;
Thank you very much for having a look at the article! I put an idea on what to do with the typos on the talk page. J. Spencer 23:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's a bad idea to include mention of all the lapsus. I hope we get input from the other members. BTW, with the content you just added at Allosaurus, it's now 70k; you've just Dethroned Tyrannosaurus as the longest article on a dinosaur genus! Been a while since we've had one that long! Firsfron of Ronchester 03:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ready to roll yet? Want us others to do anything? I guess you wanna do this one before Lamby.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepy was away till the 15th I think - anyway, did a bit to lamby so let us know what else is needed. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tetrapod Zoology

Hey, I am going to be famous ;-). However, part of the credit should really go to Sheep who provided me with all the info concerning these critters. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamby and Ally

I've started hacking at Lamby. I'll do do Ally asap, but given I have midterms and a paper to hand this week, editing might be rocky. Circeus 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lamby is done. Circeus 02:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dammit, I had almost forgotten Ally... I'll keep it on top of my to-review list. Lamby seems pretty much done to me. I'll keep an eye out for its FAC. Circeus 18:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as you can see, I did Ally more directly (not nearly as much issues with it, although I did the first half of the copyediting at 4am from lack of sleep, so...) Circeus 04:43, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Types

Hey J., I had thought type species redirect to Type (biology), as did Type (zoology) last time I checked. However, now that I look again, they both redirect to Biological type. This article includes a section type species very similar to Type species. All this merging/splitting of articles on type is worrying, especially since so many articles link to them. Maybe WP Dino should take it upon ourselves to sort out this mess and use a bot to get all the type species and type genus links pointed to the right place. Dinoguy2 05:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help!

Thanks for the disambig help on Galapagos Land Iguana I'll use that same method on the other reptile articles I'm worrking on!--Mike Searson 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allosaurus

Hi J,

You've re-added another clause to this sentence: The quarry is notable for several reasons: the majority of bones belong to a single species of large theropod, Allosaurus fragilis (it is estimated that the remains of at least 46 Allosaurus have been found there, out of at minimum 73 dinosaurs); the bones are disarticulated and well-mixed; and nearly a dozen scientific papers have been written on the taphonomy of the site, coming up with numerous contradictory explanations for how it formed.

Is there a way you can rework this sentence so that it isn't so long? Break it in half somehow so that it's not 74 words in length? I'm worried about the clarity of sentences which are so long and contain so much information that the original idea is lost to the reader by the end of the sentence. You start talking about the notability of the quarry (which might be more appropriate to an article on the quarry), then move to the number of Allosaurus in the quarry, and then go back to the reasons why the quarry is notable. I had removed part of the sentence as I felt it was just too long, but if the material about the quarry must be included, I think it should be broken down. Veropedia's sentence parser flagged this sentence and a few others; I left two, but this one is so long that I can't imagine it would be clear to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I feel that's much improved. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:49, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want Acro?

Ready? Also why is your talk page red? Sheep81 06:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's signifying he's ready (red-y, geddit?) Firsfron of Ronchester 07:26, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dinocephalosaurus

Hi, Firs;

If you get a minute, could you move Dinocephalosaurus orientalis to Dinocephalosaurus? Someone suggested it on the talk page, but the genus name has a brief history (otherwise I'd have done it myself). J. Spencer 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 02:10, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paleorrota

hi, My name is Sergio kaminski. I live in Porto Alegre and don't speak english very well. Thanks for change my article in exaeretodon. If you like paleontology see my article paleorrota. I don't know if i wrote correct, in english. Thank you.

hi, spencer, Thanks. I speak portugues and is very difficult for me know if I am writing clearly in english. I birn in Santa Maria and i collected 8 dinossaur. Actually I live in Porto Alegre but my parents live in Santa Maria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiokkaminski (talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi,spencer, I need your help. I created this page Dinodontosaurus turpior. I need to improve page. I see the page Karamuru and I create one in portugues. Thanks Sergiokkaminski (talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(not a dinosaur but an odd large therapsid, related to the ancestors of mammals) yes I know. I forgot remove this line. Thanks, for your good job. Sergiokkaminski (talk) 13:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anasazisaurus

Hi, Firs;

Do you think you could re-upload Anasazisaurus? The version there currently has Utah's San Juan County linked instead of New Mexico's. Thanks! J. Spencer (talk) 16:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the correction, J. I will re-upload today. You know, you are welcome to join Veropedia yourself. Just go to the Veropedia IRC chat (java based version available here) and ask Danny, Riana, Steel, Alison, or Moreschi for access. All major WP:DINO contributors were invited to join, and the uploads are pretty easy to do. Something to consider. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling your work on WP would preclude your ability to join VP, but I figured I'd at least mention it. However, your comment "I'm never completely satisfied with an article (at least not any of the articles I've worked on)." is sort of flabbergasting: you are obviously a perfectionist, J. A person is usally his or her own harshest critic, but you must be able to see that your FA/GA work on WP is far superior than any web treatment on these genera: your Thescelosaurus! is great, but your articles here go much more in depth; Palaeos.com is very well done, bu their articles are short and out of date (especially their external links); the various Natural History Museums offer brief pages on some genera, but do not go into detail; peer-reviewed papers are often not accessible to the public, and are not written for a mainstream audience... meaning your work here is the only comprehensive material on these genera on the web, and pretty much the modern, web-based equivalent of those old monographs. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's all true. And of course, as soon as new papers come out, the article has to be revised... Firsfron of Ronchester 02:21, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category Madness

Do we still need to put Mosasaurs in Category: Cretaceous animals if I've put Category:Mosasaurs into it already?--Mr Fink (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gastromyths?

Hi J,

On talk:Dinosaur, you mentioned "gastromyths", indicating (I assume) dinosaurian gastroliths are non-existant. I hadn't heard of this before, and just a week or so ago, I added a section on Massospondylus about gastroliths (based on the 2007 Weems et al. paper). Has something since then been stated about gastroliths in dinosaurs? I'll remove the section if necessary (or could I possibly rework it so it states "the gastrolith theory has been discredited by so-and-so..."?) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I found the paper! I don't know that this WP article will ever really make sense (the juveniles could only move about bipedally according to the 2007 paper, but were definitely quadrupedal according to the 2005 paper; they were either herbivorous or omnivorous; they were only 4 meters long in one paper, but over six meters long in another; they were very closely related to Plateosaurus, but also in a completely different family; they had gastroliths but no gastric mills for them, etc, etc). I pity the poor confused reader who happens upon the article... Anyway, thanks for your message. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J, can you take a look at Massospondylus and fix it up? I realize you may be busy with other things, but I feel like this article needs the touch of an expert, as it's not really possible for me to judge which things need expansion and which things have been given undue weight. As you said on my talk page, each subsequent paper seems to completely contradict the one before it. The gastrolith thing is just one example. Your site indicates that the Kayenta skull is not Masso, but I don't know where that study was. The article really needs the touch of someone more knowledgeable than I... or some dynamite. I was hoping to get the article up to GA status, but you clearly know more about this genus than almost anyone on WP, and can probably do a lot to clean up this mess I made. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 17:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, J. I really appreciate your time, edits, and comments. The paleoecology section is a great addition, and I'm really glad to have the Kayenta skull and other stuff finally clarified. You always seem to bring a balance to articles that are missing it. I'll take your advice and find a picky writer-type for the grammar. I don't know that a Massospondylus FA can be pulled off, but I'm willing to try at some point. The worst that can happen is that it fails to attract interest and fails the candidacy, right? Massospondylus is one of my favorite dinosaurs, and I agree with you that there's something endearing about it: for me, it's part Diplodocus, part ET. ;) Anyway, I sure appreciate your efforts. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Awesome! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:16, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These are both me. (Interestingly, WHOIS locates 71.32.66.137 as a Qwest IP in Denver, and I haven't been in Denver since this summer, and never used Qwest anyway. Strange). Firsfron of Ronchester 18:18, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I borrowed from other, similar articles for a few language editions. I'm no 3PO, but I speak decent enough Spanish, and remember enough Swedish to get by on a few Scandinavian language editions (the Nynorsk and Bokmål editions of Masso are my work, too). I'm trying to foster more interest in this article by raising awareness at an international level. It's also kind of cool seeing how each language edition does its taxoboxes and templates. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? There are other photos of this same mount on-line, such as this one. Are you sure it's definitely the same photo? I don't want a copyvio on the page, but if there's a chance it's just another photo of the same mount... Firsfron of Ronchester 04:59, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, crap! I finally find an image with licensing compatible for upload on WP, and it's still a copyvio. Well, thanks for catching it. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Chicxulub Crater

I've added in the citations you requested. Cheers, David Fuchs^(talk) 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supersaurus reference

Do you by any chance have a pdf copy of the reference you added to the Supersaurus page?

Curtice, B.; and Stadtman, K. (2002). "The demise of Dystylosaurus edwini and a revision of Supersaurus vivianae", in McCord, R.D.; and Boaz, D. (eds.): Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists and Southwest Paleontological Symposium - Proceedings 2001, Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin, 33-40.

Its one I've not read before. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Micro

No prob, just caught that during random patrolling :) It's a cool paper in case you don't have it, freely available pdf through link. Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zen Award

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		for all the patience required in getting a huge article like Allosaurus all spruced up good 'n' nice for FA status cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Talk:Dinosaur "Another error"

I'd respond to your query instantly except that I'm not going to make life easier for those (not you) who have twice reverted my edits to Dinosaur - if it were not for the reverts I'd have quietly corrected the item. But I've noticed your much more friendly and co-operative tone in our few discussions and the many well-earned congratulations in your Talk page, and I'll be very happy to co-operate with you on any other article if it is appropriate. Philcha (talk) 16:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re Physiology of dinosaurs I'd be happy to contribute. I think I already suggested that the warmblooded/coldblooded debate should be a separate article - in fact Physiology of dinosaurs started life as "Warmbloodedness of dinosaurs" and I was fairly happy that it was coherent and well-structured after my last edit under that title (although of course there was room for improvements). Physiology of dinosaurs looks the kind of article that will spawn further "more details" articles as we find more material.

Re your suggestion of a "Dinosaur behavior" article, I agree the relevant section of Dinosaur is getting too long. But I suspect (totally off the top of my head) that there's too much variation for one article when you consider differences in: time (150M years); size; lifestyle (predator / scavenger / browser / grazer); environment; and specific clades (although clade may not be a helpful grouping, look at lions and tigers). My inclination (off the top again) would be to handle this aspect bottom up, e.g. "behaviour of dromaesosaurs", "behaviour of large tyrannosaurids", "behaviour of Jurassic sauropods", "behaviour of large late Cretaceous ceratopsians" (bound to be different from that of smaller, earlier ones because the big, late ones had horns). Even working out how to structure a set of articles on this topic probably needs input from people with knowledge of specific groups / periods. But I'm game for it, as I think structuring a large set of related articles is a current weakness in Wikipedia (I'm involved in an attempt to remedy that in 1 subject area, History of IBM mainframe operating systems, see the Talk page).

Re the conflicts, see User talk:Philcha#Dinosaur (period concerned is Jan - Mar 2007) and Talk:Dinosaur#Corrections_urgently_needed (21 Nov 2007). That's twice I've corrected errors in the article and had my edits reverted. In the earlier instance I pointed out the errors on Talk:Dinosaur and other defects and balance issues in Oct 2007 and nothing happened for 3 months. So I edited in Jan 2007 and my edit was reverted almost instantly. My current impression is that a certain clique thinks it owns that article and would rather revert edits not controlled by them than see the article improved by someone who's not a member of the clique and / or who (in the earlier instance) interprets Wikipedia guidelines differently from them. The more I look round Wikipedia the more places I can see where I can contribute, so I don't have time play games with such people. Philcha (talk) 18:15, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just had another look at Dinosaur and think streamlining the prose would at least partially reduce the difficulties we're discussing. It might be prudent to apply diet and exercise before committing to surgery. Philcha (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just re-read Physiology of dinosaurs and now suspect giving the article that title and scope was premature, because most of the facts and analysis are only or mainly relevant to thermoregulation. I suggest titling the thermoregulation article "Dinosaur thermoregulation (warmblooded?)" because the general reader is very unlikely to google for "thermoregulation". Running through Physiology of dinosaurs and its Talk page to trawl for items (sorry if this is hard to read, but I know of no way to incorporate a spreadsheet into a Talk page):

Evolution of thermoregulation in crocs → dino thermoregulation
Growth rates → dino thermoregulation, plus brief mention in Dinosaur.
Bone structure is a 2-/3-way split: Haversian canals and fibrolamellar bone → thermoregulation; calcium-rich medullary bone (birds and T rex) → dinos as ancestors of birds. Possibly brief mention of both in Dinosaur.
O2 isotope ratios → dino thermoregulation.
Predator-prey ratios → dino thermoregulation.
Postural evidence → dino thermoregulation and Dinosaur (? under "sizes" ?).
Feathers → dino thermoregulation and dinos as ancestors of birds.
Geographical evidence (polar dinos) → dino thermoregulation and Dinosaur (range and diversity / adaptability).
Behavioural thermoregulation → dino thermoregulation and paragraphs / sections in articles about the relevant dinos.
Respiratory System (air sacs and turbinates) → dino thermoregulation and dinos as ancestors of birds.
How sauropods breathed (all that "dead space" in a trachea longer than any giraffe's) → sauropod article(s) and dino thermoregulation.
How sauropods got blood to their brains (the "giraffe" problem) → sauropod article(s).
Whether dinos (especially sauropods - again!) used gizzard stones to aid digestion → sauropod article(s), dino thermoregulation (speed of digestion), Dinosaur.

"Adding material, and then going back and removing or budding the excess" works well for me too, when I'm allowed to do it. More generally, it's a technique that works best if at most 2 people and preferably 1 are working on the same article at a time. Philcha (talk) 22:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tyrannosaurus revision

Hi, I've just completed a major revision of Tyrannosaurus (""Locomotion" and "Feeding strategies"), for the reasons stated in Talk:Tyrannosaurus. I intend to revisit in about a week to polish the flow. Would you like to check it out? Philcha (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see you removed my explanation of the 3kg Compsognathus in Sellers et al (2007). I know it was a bit verbose, but we need to avoid: looking as if we think (adult) Compsognathus was chicken-sized; appearing to accusing Sellers & co. of a blunder. I read quickly through their article and found no explanation. The briefest way to finesse this might be to say "3kg juvenile Compsognathus", i.e. we take for granted that Sellers and co. know and we make it plain we know adults were turkey-sized. Otherwise we're leaving a target for would-be snipers at Wikipedia. BTW you left in the ref about the modern view of Compsognathus size although you removed the text it supported. Philcha (talk) 01:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help in finishing off the update to "Locomotion" and "Theropod". There are a couple of minor items outstanding (Talk:Tyrannosaurus), but if "Locomotion" and "Feeding" had been as they are now the thought of updating wouldn't have crossed my mind (and you know how picky I can be about structure and presentation). I've proposed revisions to some other sections, see Talk:Tyrannosaurus - what do you think? Philcha (talk) 11:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question:

On your user page, do the articles you've created in order of when you did them ascend or descend in regard to time line (IE, are the ones at the top the first or latest articles you've created?). And is your talk page meant to be red/green texted?

Anyway, I came to congratulate you on your success with Allosaurus, one of my favourite dinosaurs. I had been looking to get it to FAC myself, but you've done a far better job than I could have ever done. :) Cheers, Spawn Man ^{Review Me!} 10:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allosaurus

Thanks so much for doing such great work on Allosaurus! It's amazing how diverse these genera were, from what we can tell. Wikipedia really owes its all to quality contributors like you. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

Hi J,

I saw you're doing these all manually. You don't have to: you can use AWB, or I can do them, but there's no need to do them like that. Also, is there really a reason to remove the image parameters? It makes it easier to add an image if the image parameters are already in the taxobox. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know how anyone else feels about the blank image parameters, but I always included them in the off chance that someone had an image that s/he wanted to add, and it would be easier for him/her to add it that way (thus more likely we'd get images), but I'm only one voice. I'm revving up AWB now. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:18, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re-Sauropsida. Good question. Benton doesn't seem to use Sauropsida as a synonym for Reptilia, rather Reptilia is a paraphlyletic group that goes unranked and contains both Synapsida and Sauropsida, contrary to how most people use it. Maybe we should just switch back to class Reptilia if the Sauropsida article insists on treating it as a clade only. Actually, it seems Sauropsida doesn't discuss the situation in depth at all and consists of just a cladogram... should probably be redirected to reptile :) Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaurus in JP IV

Probably, because I read that the Spinosaurus was a contender for JP IV. Also, your welcome for archiving the talk page. I'll be doing that for more dinosaur articles now. Limetolime (talk) 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

happy Mango season

'TIS MANGO SEASON....
Have a shlice of mango cheek...well, I am up to my armpits in the things. Yuletide means lots and lots of mangos, as well as turkey and ham and ice-cream and pressies. Were on special so I bought 3 crates for AU$20 and now I have both crispers in the refrigerator full and even with everyone eating two of the ##$@& things every mealtime... I am a bit mangoed out so I thought I'd spread the goodwill around....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pachycheilosuchus

On 13 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Pachycheilosuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Dinosaur

Hi, there are a couple of points in Dinosaur where I thought we were close to agreement but nothing's happened for a while: rearrangement of "bird-like features" and "Physiology"; and the short classification with brief descriptions. Have you had second thoughts, or have you just been busy with other things? Philcha (talk) 12:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dromicosuchus

On 18 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dromicosuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--howcheng {chat} 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Terminonatator

On 18 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Terminonatator, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

DYK

On 22 January, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Coelurus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Archtransit (talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Synapsid categories

I understand why you might not want to include them in the Category: Prehistoric reptiles of *****, but I think they deserve to be sub-categorized. Do you have an idea what to name it? I don't think we can just call it Category:Synapsids of ***** because technically that would include mammals, too, right? Any thoughts? Abyssal leviathin (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the wonderful discussion defining a dinosaur

Sheep & Spencer,

Thank you both for your wonderful clarification of the definition of 'Dinosaur'. There is a philosophical difference between what I call objective definitions and theoretical definitions. However, because the Wikipedia appears to discuss it nowhere, I left it out of my discussion.

It seems to me that whether 'Dinosaur' is an object (nominal or empirical) term or a theoretical (phylogenetic) term wasn't specified when it was first used. It has, I'm sure, been clarified since.

If I picture fluffy, crouched on the sofa, to be a cat, the 'cat' has an objective definition in zoology. The paleontologist hasn't this luxury, because 'hoppy' isn't with us anymore. We give his bones an objective definition and name, but now we give him (his ancestry, appearance, gait, &c) a theoretical definition, based upon 'correspondence rules' which really just connect properties of bones with theoretical inferences.

The practical difference is that names based on objective definitions never change. Zoologists base Fluffy's identity upon such an objective definition, so I know I have a cat. If 'cat' were instead based solely upon his skeleton and claudistics, one day I might learn in the news that the wrong metric was used in a cluster analysis, and fluffy is now a dog.

Paleontology clearly has problems zoology doesn't. But I'm not sure you're both right it using a theoretical definition to name a creature (as opposed to practice in zoology), though its name could change in the future. After all, no one (to my knowledge) has ever patted the skull of a Velociraptor and said 'Good morning, Hoppy!'.

My granddaughter is very happy.

Bruce Bathurst, PhD (Geologist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Bathurst (talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Spencer, Thank you very much for your kind note concerning what I thought was an outstanding discussion on defining dinosaurs. Your and Dr Sheep's (?) information was so valuable that I've saved it, to offer my granddaughter much later. Your article makes it very clear now that (though Pterodactyl may not have been one), some dinosaurs flew, for birds are believed their ancestors (see, I've accepted the phylogenetic definition!). A question posed on Dr Sheep's Talk page, apparently in response to the discussion, shows that some people misunderstood 'terrestrial dinosaur' to be merely descriptive, as in 'crooked politician'. You should be very pleased with your excellent contributions to the article. I know how much work clear writing takes, and I salute your contributing to the Wikipedia, which I consider the best product of the internet yet.

My granddaughter is now comfortable with some flying Mesozoic creatures both being dinosaurs and not. She tells me the dragons were likely not, since birds don't breathe fire. She has also learned to distinguish between the svelte Chinese dragon, who created whirlpools while trying to catch their tails (like her kitty cat), and the more stout European dragon, that St. George fought. She hopes he didn't hurt the dragon much. She & I give you our thanks & best wishes. Geologist (talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Coelurus

Yeah.. I'm a bit busy, anyway I will try to upload a next version. Thanks for the advice. Cheers!--Dropzink (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

Thank! I asked this because I'm confuse. The marine reptiles that lived the same time with dinosaurs (like Plesiosaur, Pliosaur, Liopleurodon), I though they're dinosaurs because their names and appearances are pretty much like those of dinosaurs. And the flying reptiles (like Rhamphorhynchus, Pterodactylus, Sacphognathus) were also look alike dinosaurs and lived same time. In Jurassic Park III, flying reptiles Pteranodon appeared along side with dinosaurs. That's why I though they're also dinosaurs. But they're all not.

My idea is that it will more and more impressive if they're included as dinosaurs. For the reason is that dinosaur not only lived on land but also in the sky and the sea. 96.229.179.106 (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Hi! I've seen you around on The Beatles' articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject The Beatles, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of The Beatles on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us.

--andreasegde (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey Road... You're not in this picture... yet!

Todo:

On the Trail of The Buffalo

Dylan didn't release a recording, but the basement tapes are widely available/traded, and have a Wikipedia article that mentions the song. I reverted you edit, but added not released, fair enough? Pustelnik (talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I understand now. I have also changed the internal link to Basement Tapes (Sessions), which lists each recording. Right now, this is separate from the album article. Pustelnik (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, as far as I'm concerned. Pustelnik (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Italics and curly quotes

Re: this edit.

I always thought curly quotes were preferable. I also felt that if the word italicized is right up against punctuation marks, those too were italicized (avoiding the top of a closed parenthesis, for example, from colliding with the slanted word). Anyway, just a thought. –TashTish (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope—straight quotes are fine with me, and I agree that the inability to easily add curly quotes is prohibitive.

More debatable is whether trailing (or preceding) parentheses should be italicized. Which looks better to you:

(like Jurassic Park)

(like Jurassic Park)

I feel spacing is more attractive in the latter—the top part of the parenthesis doesn't run into the "k"—but as you say, that's one editor's opinion. Anyway, thanks for the dialogue. –TashTish (talk) 09:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Parasaurolophus skulls

Hi again! I was thinking on the way I did my drawings, and I really don't like it, especially because they were created in Flash. Anyway I can use pencil drawing, it's difficult for me because I have a 10-year-old scannerXD So, it will be better if the Coelurus is task for some expert like Arthur or Steve by now. In something I want to work is in those Parasaurolophus skulls I left incomplete, when I finish the P. cyrtocristatus, don't forget in send me a skull or skeletal diagram of P. tubicen. Thanks. Dropzink (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tile Join WP:LTA

Hi. Regarding your additions to WP:LTA, I'm a big proponent of WP:DENY. I find when we start keeping huge lists of socks like at WP:LTA, they become shrines. When those shrines are taken down, the vandals sometimes lose interest and disappear. In some cases, I've kept lists in deleted pages where only administrators can see them - but at least they're still available. What do you think? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely reduced. Next step is for an administrator to keep a list of the user accounts in a deleted page somewhere and then start deleting the user pages to reduce the categories as well. WP:DENY, WP:DENY, WP:DENY... —Wknight94 (talk) 03:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Naming Dinosaurs

It's Bruce. Just wanted to assure your that my recent personal comments on the 'species problem' on the Dinosaur page in no way diminishes the great help you gave me, my granddaughter, and all teachers who consult that article before teaching children about dinosaurs. My comments will likely be removed, but it is very interesting to ask whether making 'dinosaur' a theoretical term is better than defining it traditionally, as all properties a set of specimens have in common. I think it is; but only a paleontologist 'will know for sure'. Thank you for your excellent, tireless contributions! Geologist (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

phrasing (sentences starting with "but")

Your English teachers must have really traumatized you :-) Philcha (talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts they should have traumatized you a bit more - you just reinstated a split infinitive in Permian–Triassic extinction event ("to directly cause") :-) Philcha (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

re dannys dinosaurs link I didnt really look carefully - but i have a thing about ext links sitting in ref areas - thanks Satu Suro 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Im simply taking it from the category listing (List of OZ dinos) and a quick check as to whether australia is mentioned somewhere in the article - if i get some wrong - apologies im only following the category first - cheers Satu Suro 13:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

apologies for the incorrect tag - thanks for your note - should check closer - thanks Satu Suro 13:40, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linking of years

In general lone years should not be linked, but when they are part of a date 10 April 1962 they should - unless its a literal date in a quote, name of something , URL etc.. This is because it allows date formatting to work. Unfortunately these cite templates are currently rather complicated, and very widely used, so the fact that the date is sometimes linked and sometimes not, depending on the exact parameter used, will take a little resolving. There is an editor who has started working on this, however he is currently behind the great fire-wall of China. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 18:01 25 March 2008 (GMT).

Taxoboxes

Hi J.

thanks for adding all those taxoboxes on the new WP:AFC paleo-reptile articles! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, a lot more similar articles have been submitted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-29 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today (what will be Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-30). Could do with a hand if you got the time. Thanks! :) KTC (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Veteran!

Fauna Barnstar!

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Thank you for your dedication to upkeep of dinosaur-related articles! Bob (talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DYK

On 12 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lazarussuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Wizardman 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

"Physiology of dinosaurs is collab for March 2008"

Whatever became of this? I have some ideas on improving the article. Let me know if you're interested.

BTW congratulations on all the recent awards. Philcha (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does that means you'd rather wait until you're back? Philcha (talk) 09:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I think we should discuss the rest at the article's Talk page. See you there! Philcha (talk) 13:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done what I can for now. Look forward to hearing from you. Philcha (talk) 20:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some kind of snappy dinosaur pun

Hey, thanks for adding that bit about procompsogonathuses in Biological issues in Jurassic Park. It nicely justifies a fact that would've otherwise been left dangling. The local gang has been able to get the article out of danger of being deleted, but as we're all a bunch of amateurs and I'm busy being largely incapacitated, that's about it.

And though I swear that this was not why I began this post, any other improvements you could make would be even more appreciated. The article is significant because:

(a) It's freaky, which is awesome.
(b) It's a serious article about a freaky subject, the kind of thing that makes people smile when they say "only on Wikipedia." Biological issues... is part of one of our greatest advantages, valid coverage of subjects that no other work has the space or manpower to have.
(c) Jurassic Park is ridiculously popular and the basis for correspondingly many peoples' knowledge of dinosaurs. A well-written examination of the scientific inaccuracies in that depiction could be one of the most useful parts of our dino coverage. --Kiz o r 11:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaurus

Hi, sorry I reverted your edit, I'm sure my summary confused you. I had been reviewing prior edits by an IP which changed the established and cited measurements. Somehow I missed your changes altogether, but my revert affect your edits. Again, sorry for any confusion. Doc Tropics 04:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the Dagger

Hi, J. Spencer, thanks for you comments, and sorry for my delay in getting back to you. I'm not familiar with the capabilities of bots, and how one goes about requesting that one be set up. Where would I look to bone up on this? If it worked well, I would imagine it could be quite useful, but it seems to me that it would inevitably do a partial job in some situations, so one would want it to tag articles it has worked on to alert people to that fact (the tag could be removed from an article after someone checked the distribution of daggers and made corrections if necessary). WolfmanSF (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystriosuchus

Hi, I am trying to get article Mystriosuchus ready for Good Article status, but I think there are multiple issues with the article. If you are interested in extinction-related articles, I'd appreciate it if you could lend a hand. I am asking all the users I can find who are prominently involved in the extinction-related wikiprojects. Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! (talk) 04:58, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Calsoyasuchus

On 28 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Calsoyasuchus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--BorgQueen (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Kryptops

Hi J Spencer,

I added it in as quite a few pages seem to start "... extinct genus ...". Personally I don't mind either way, but in the interests of standardising of pages I added it. That said, I have to disagree that it implies some abelisaurs are not extinct, but then I suppose it depends on how you read it. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the dino and pterosaur articles don't start with that either. But when you look at the turtle ones especially they do. Mayhap a discussion at the Wikiproject dinosaurs or extinction would be best? Get a consensus going? I never considered that it could be misleading when you read it (just seemed obvious to me). Mark t young (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dwarf Allosaurus

Hey, thanks for dealing with the dwarf Al article. I never realised there was a species of Allosaurus page. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Justin is quick! He catches these first nearly every time. It's quite remarkable. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:22, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I catch a lot because I've got the taxonomic redlinks on the various prehistoric reptile pages watchlisted. This one was luck, though, because Hartebeest edited Allosaurus to include it in the taxobox. I actually feel bad about redirecting this one. J. Spencer (talk) 04:03, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, do either one of you want to become admins? Watchlisting redlinks and talking peacefully with wayward editors are good administrator traits; you're already doing the rest, you might as well have the four extra tools. Just something to consider. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:42, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the consideration, but at this point I think I'm of more help on the content side of things, instead of trying to do both content and administrative tasks. J. Spencer (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured. Cheers, Firsfron of Ronchester 17:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind becoming an admin, if you think I have what it takes. Cheers for the kind thought, Mark t young (talk) 17:20, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Xenoposeidon

Thanks for catching that! :D Abyssal leviathin (talk) 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

Cheers for your support during my RfA. Failed in the end, but I got a lot of good constructive criticism from the process which can only be an improvement for me. Who knows, in the coming months after I've incorporated all this advice I may be successful. Cheers! Mark t young (talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping The Shadow-Fighter

Your comments on his talk page have been very kind and measured. He's my son; he's only nine, he has some social challenges, and I set him up on here and then failed to monitor his progress adequately. I finally told him definitively the other day not to make any edits without consulting me (as I should have done in the first place), and that he can ask me all those questions on his talk page instead of the world at large.

One thing I've noticed on there is that a lot of people are awfully quick to fling the term "vandalism" around. Only the other day did I find the Wikipedia value about "assuming good faith," which I think is excellent, and violated with great frequency. Anyway, thanks again. AdRock (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serial hoaxer

Hi, Firs;

Do you think you could provide me with the recreator of Haxsasauras (the original creator was User:TheHumbleTomato), and the creator of Haxassauras? We've got a serial hoaxer with this article, and I'd like to prepare a Checkuser report. J. Spencer (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found them through a back door (using an AlexBot list of new pages). J. Spencer (talk) 00:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good report. Seems likely that they're all related. We'll soon find out. At any rate, vandalism-only accounts can be blocked. Firsfron of Ronchester 13:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever it is, the editor(s) shows experience with WP formatting and article conventions, as the article looks remarkably like a real topic and has all of the things that will keep new page patrollers from tagging it. Additionally, whether through chance or on purpose, having different accounts add the article makes it harder to track and pick up on the fact that it's the same hoax over again. It would be easier to find these things were there a way to find out when articles are added to categories watchlist-style. J. Spencer (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True. I've been checking WP:DABS semi-regularly for hoaxes, but mostly at the low end of the list, since most hoaxers won't create such elaborate hoaxes. This one was almost 4k, though, so it would have been quite far up the list. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And there we have it: first two (TheHumbleTomato and RombusMan) plus a sleeper (Teddy Square) are one editor, the third (SpaceFT) is possible, and we return you to your regularly-scheduled program of eternal vigilance. J. Spencer (talk) 00:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edmontosaurus

Hi J,

Our article on Edmontosaurus currently states: "[...] Charles Mortram Sternberg named Thespesius saskatchewanensis in 1926, but this is also now considered to be a species of Edmontosaurus, namely E. saskatchewanensis" and then in the next paragraph states "Anatosaurus saskatchewanensis was sunk into Edmontosaurus as E. saskatchewanensis."

As you're sort of our resident ornithopod expert, I thought I'd ask if this makes any sense to you. I'm aware that there are many nomenclature tangles, but this seems to indicate that there were three different genera (Anatosaurus, Edmontosaurus , and Thespesius) which all had species named saskatchewanensis, and that they all three miraculously turned out to be the same species. Is some clarification needed here? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I figured it was something along those lines (one species assigned to three genera), but couldn't quite untangle that mess myself. This does help clarify the matter. As you say, the Edmontosaurus article could use a revamping, but there really is no hurry; if you don't have access to the materials for a few weeks, there's no rush. :) I'll probably add small bits for now (so that the illustrations don't overwhelm the article). Firsfron of Ronchester 01:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this or a different paper? Either way, congratulations are in order. You do so much work here, it's hard to believe you have time for PhD-type stuff (not that I'm complaining, mind you!). Firsfron of Ronchester 04:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's so awesome! Again, congratulations. I look forward to seeing it eventually. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is the sort of stuff that can't be added by just any schmuck. Cheers! Firsfron of Ronchester 20:51, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Palaeontology/COI

Hi J,

Firs told me that you'd have a paper out in the not too distance future. I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining wP:WikiProject Palaeontology/COI? Its a new endeavor I've created as on the metriorhynchid articles I've referenced one of my own JVP publications (just a poster abstract). I don't want any of us to fall foul of WP:COI, so I set up this latest action list. Cheers, Mark t young (talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed the above link, sorry bout that. Well you've got a paper in press, so you're as qualified as I am! Mark t young (talk) 00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leidyosuchus Extention

I had extended Leidyosuchus' range, as I saw that it was in the category of Paleocene Crocodylomorphs. So all of the Paleocene Leidyosuchus species have been moved to Borealosuchus?--Mr Fink (talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By any chance, you happen to know which genus L. riggsi was shuffled into?--Mr Fink (talk) 14:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]