User talk:PaleoNeolitic

Welcome to my talk page. Whatever your question, message, concern or suggestion is, please leave it here.

Strikingly similar

Our nicknames are strikingly similar. On the other hand, I can clearly see that it's a coincidence. —PaleoNeonate – 02:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You also appear to be back from a break. Welcome back and happy editing, —PaleoNeonate – 03:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Illustration revisions

Hi, I noticed that you recently remade my illustration of Cruralispennia. It actually looks really nice, but it kind of caught me off guard when I noticed it was changed. Just a tip, whenever you're dealing with old illustrations, you should start a section on the WikiProject Dinosaurs Image Review page to describe how and why you changed or would change them. It's just a bit of courtesy to get approval from the Wikipedia paleoart reviewers. Not that your revisions are in any danger of being rejected, I personally think that in all cases they're an improvement. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:11, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

one of your edits on Achillobator

I've just had to fix one of your edits on Achillobator as you placed the incorrect things in italics. Genera and species need to be in italics, higher level taxa (such as Ankylosauria) do not. Tknifton (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you sort something out with me on the talk page?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Squalicorax--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

velociraptor

hey paleoneolitic would it be possible to get a size comparison of the velociraptor form your biggest raptors picture https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Biggest_Raptors.png but on its own thanks mikeDinomike123 (talk) 11:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure Dinomike123, take a look on it.קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς 17:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

thanks so much paleo, i really appreciate it. mikeDinomike123 (talk) 19:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Writing geological formation articles

When writing geological formation articles, remember that you are primarily writing about the geology of the formation itself, look at articles like Tendaguru Formation, Tremp Formation and Marcellus Shale for guidance for writing a good article. If you're going to write an up to date account of the Formation, you should primarily be based on "Stratigraphy and paleoenvironmental evolution of the dinosaur-rich Baruungoyot-Nemegt succession (Upper Cretaceous), Nemegt Basin, southern Mongolia" which is the most recent and complete account. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the advices! I'll consider these formations as a model. Also yeah, it seems to be the most updated stratigraphy-related paper for the Nemegt Formation until now, gotta pick it up.קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς 23:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Gilmoreosaurus

Hello fellow Wikipedian; I noticed on your user page you said that you're planning to work on expansion of Gilmoreosaurus as your next project. Well, just as your interest and work center around the Bayan Shireh Formation, mine center around ornithopods and hadrosaurs in particular. As such, I was wondering if you'd be open to a suggestion of collaboration on expanding this article? Similar to the kind of collaborative work that was done on articles like Lythronax and Brachiosaurus. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:17, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I'm totally in! Good thing that I uploaded several of the Gilmore 1933's plates haha. How do we coordinate this? קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς 22:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

The simplest way, I think, would be to divide work up by section for the most part. This would split things up pretty evenly and avoid stepping on each other's toes, and then we could look over and adjust each other's work afterwards. In regards to the breakdown, I'm pretty bad with raw anatomy so I think the description section is better in your hands, and you've done work on the Iren Dabasu Formation so the palaeoenvironment section seems best suited to you. Correspondingly, I'd like to take history and classification if you don't mind. Palaeobiology should be the smallest section so we'll worry about that later. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Great! given that, I'll be expanding the description and paleoenvironment 👌. קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς 23:10, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Persistent unusual grammar

Despite what you claimed on your most recent edit at Falcarius, a genus is indeed a singular noun. You've made a titanic number of changes according to your belief to the contrary, including to articles like Falcarius, Garudimimus and Achillobator, but since you often include large amounts of other constructive content at the same time, it's very laborious to go through all your changes and revert the grammar.

Why did you make these changes? If you look at just about any article you will see throughout that your grammar contradicts how things are usually written by everybody else. See Tyrannosaurus for example: "Tyrannosaurus is a genus of coelurosaurian theropod dinosaur". Would you change this? Because going by some of the logic in your grammar changes, I think you would, as well as much of the rest of that article's lede. I just don't see a reason to create this grammatical inconsistency between articles when it didn't exist before.

I am certain you are acting in good faith but it'd be great if you could acknowledge this and stop making the same changes in the future, because they are inconsistent with other articles and a colossal effort to fix. Your contributions are on the whole most welcome but I am slightly terrified by the apparent sheer prevalance of your changes to grammar in this way. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 14:36, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hey how's it going. Don't worry, I'm certainly not trolling or doing vandalic edits as you (apparently) did once. I tried looking for actual papers discussing this issue but most of them are just about the correct writing of species (i. e., must be in italics). Well, this grammatical discussion existed back in 2012 and most likely in other pages as well. Just because it's not common doesn't mean it's incorrect. Treating a genus as a singular is like assuming that it was a single animal and has a common name, which is clearly not true for some genera (in this case, non-avian dinosaurs). However, genera like Megatherium have indeed a common name despite their long-extinct status. It would be pleasant if you could provide me published literature that proves me incorrect, if so, I would be happy to revert the mistakes myself. קคɭє๏ภє๏ɭเՇเς 15:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Your art

Hi. I appreciate the work you've done on the pages of therizinosaurs and other Mongolian dinosaurs, especially the more obscure ones. The art you add is really nice too. However, I've noticed that you often replace perfectly good preexisting reconstructions on many pages (including old and often-untoched ones with your own art. I also noticed you tend to add them in high-visibility places such as cladograms, navigation templates and even the infoboxes on Commons. No offense, but from an outside perspective it may seem as if you're doing this to promote your art above others'. Are you really doing this for self-promotional purposes? If not, I'm sorry for any accusations, but please explain why you do this large-scale replacement. Thanks in advance. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Well this was an unexpected possibility since most of my edits are made with the aim of updating things up. Short answer: no; long answer: well, let's see. I think it's a big headache to know that many articles use very old and outdated illustrations when someone could simply take the time to create new and updated ones. And that's what I've been doing. For example, it's hard to call these [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] "perfectly good preexisting reconstructions". It is, if anything, a rather undesirable coincidence that most reconstructions that I have "updated" are located in high-visibility places. Hell, if this was for the purpose of self-promotion I would include something like made by PaleoNeolitic at the end (something I've seen from other users), or add links from my social media to my page, which I have chosen not to do. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 12:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I see. And again, sorry for any negative effects. Miracusaurs (talk) 02:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree that the examples you listed aren't exactly the best, but some like Steveoc's Tarbosaurus and FunkMonk's Deinocheirus are decent enough, so I don't see why you feel the need to replace them, even on Wikidata. 2001:4453:5C6:CB00:9926:EB45:7CA8:FA1C (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Therizinosaurus etymology

There are three pages Therizinosaurus, Therizinosauridae and Therizinosauria with etymology and all point to θερίζω 'to reap, to cut' as the etymon; of course you can change it but you should provide a reliable source (Maleev?) where it is written that the name derives from a noun describing a tool rather than a verb.--Carnby (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Regardless of whether we know that Therizinosaurus is derived from θερίζω, Maleev, the original describer of Therizinosaurus and Therizinosauridae, intented the name as mowing/scythe lizard. It is also worth mentioning that the published translated paper uses scythe lizard as the genus meaning, which has been followed by other authors ([6] [7] [8] [9]). This is similar to the case of Utahraptor, where 'raptor' is generally accepted as thief or seizer (hence Utah's thief), but the describers (Kirkland, et al. 2013) intended the generic name as Utah's predator and not Utah's thief/seizer. Now, I quite don't understand what you mean by all articles pointing to θερίζω, as Therizinosauridae has no specific etymology section/paragraph other than the initial (scythe lizards)—now apparently changed—and some bits around the Paleobiology section. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I must add though, that this whole scene has left some concerns within me about whether we should tweak or get rid of the whole The generic name, Therizinosaurus, is derived from...... as the remains were thought to belong to a turtle-like reptile. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

I fixed the source, all looks fine. Thank you.--Carnby (talk) 06:17, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

No worries. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:03, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

I noticed the effort you put into your Cedar Mountain Fauna diagram, and the paleoart of yours as a whole, thank you for the amazing additions! LouisGarb (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Size Comparisons

Hi, sorry to bother you, do have any of your size comparisons in svg files. thanks mike--Dinomike123 (talk) 16:35, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey how's it going. Sadly no, I work on Photoshop CS either as JPG or PNG files. I should try SVG tho 🤨. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for letting me know, svg is great, mike Dinomike123 (talk) 10:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Supposed Nemegtomaia skeleton

Hi, I saw you replaced the pretty bad photo of a Nemegtomaia mount in the taxobox with this edit[10], and while I had myself uploaded and added that image before, I reverted myself, and I'll explain why and see what you think. I found this[11] unlabelled image on Flickr, and noticed from this photo[12] it was the same mount that Greg Funston had identified as Nemegtomaia on his blog. I emailed him about it, and he answered:

"Thanks for getting in touch. I can confirm that the photos from Flickr are of the same mount as the one I photographed. The specimen is currently displayed at the Central Museum of Mongolian Dinosaurs in Ulaanbaatar, but this museum does not have a palaeontologist on staff, so there is no public catalogue. Therefore, the specimen is not available for study and there is no catalogue number, which is a shame.

The specimen was poached and returned to Mongolia, although I do not have any details about when/where/how this happened. The specimen itself is authentic, the bones are real and relatively complete, in some areas matrix is still preserved with the mount. There has clearly been some repair, but to my eye it seems minimal.

The identification as Nemegtomaia is my own opinion based on my observations of other Nemegtomaia specimens. Unfortunately the museum has no information about its provenance, so this cannot be confirmed at the moment. Based on the anatomy alone, I’m fairly confident in the ID.

I hope this helps, please let me know if you need more information!"

So at this point, I'm unsure if we can defend using it in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Oh hey! I totally get it now. However, I'd support keeping it in the article (for now at least) given that other articles feature skeletons that have likely intriguing information about the specimens they are based on. I must add that the skull and hand morphology is otherwise similar to other Nemegtomaia specimens. In a sense, it illustrates fairly well general aspects of the genus, more so than the other skeleton mount. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the other mount is pretty bad. So perhaps the caption need a note saying it's a tentative identification, as someone suggested, not sure. FunkMonk (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and add a small note, feel free to change it! PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Cool, I'll probably see if I can make it more concise at some point. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Byronosaurus nest parasite claim

The Wikipedia article of Byronosaurus refutes the nest parasite claim based on just a single website which can't be accessed (at least by me). Now I couldn't find any specific scholarly articles that refutes the nest parasite claim. Is there a specific article that does so? I'm asking this to you, since you are pretty much the expert on Mongolian dinosaurs. Junsik1223 (talk) 11:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey man, I see you're back from the break. There are, in fact, two sources for this claim, one more serious/scholar than the other. First is the 2005 published thesis of Gerald Grellet-Tinner, where he directly confirms the presence of a troodontid nest (IGM 100/1003x) in close proximity—"few meters uphill"—to the Citipati nest containing the juvenile troodontid skulls. It is noteworthy that this troodontid nest contains a juvenile skeleton (as seen here, or here), which likely belongs to the MPC-D 100/972 skull. Finally, there is a paragraph submitted to the Dinosaur Mail website in 2011, where the AMNH fossil preparator reached out to Mark A. Norell and asked about this whole fossil association. Norell revealed that both nests were found within the same vicinity in different years, and that juveniles that perished within the troodontid nest were taphonomically transported into the Citipati nest. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:05, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I couldn't find the 2005 thesis, but was able to see the 2011 paragraph (which was basically the link I wasn't able to access in the Wikipedia article). I've edited the article slightly in a way that reduces bare URLs as well. Junsik1223 (talk) 00:48, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The thesis is here, you should be able to read from there. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I should point out that there is no consensus on whether this nest and juveniles belong to Almas or Byronosaurus (check the Almas description paper). PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

That's actually something I never knew. Thanks for sharing them. I have added this info as well. Junsik1223 (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beibeilong

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Beibeilong you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:02, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Beibeilong

The article Beibeilong you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Beibeilong for comments about the article, and Talk:Beibeilong/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Jens Lallensack -- Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Beibeilong

On 7 May 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beibeilong, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Beibeilong was one of the largest oviraptorosaurs, with an estimated adult length of about 7.5 m (25 ft) and body mass of around 1.2 t (2,600 lb) or 2 t (4,400 lb)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Beibeilong. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Beibeilong), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, PaleoNeolitic. Thank you for your work on Suliform. User:AngusWOOF, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

not clear if this is a singular so didn't mark that, otherwise ok to use

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|AngusWOOF}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:13, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Oh, it was intended as a singular: "a sulliform". I've been working on adding taxa to the Coquimbo Formation article, so I created some of these redirects. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Evidence that Epidendrosaurus, an extinct reptile, was indeed a dinosaur

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/2007_03.html?fbclid=IwAR2phJ_JdJ80qN7K7Vw9R95KWa-bGbotYQKi7YWQEZZ49YKuPrFUFd4Aw3o Yipower123 (talk) 12:27, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Atlantis536 Catfish Jim and the soapdish, is this Dinomarek? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:59, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

From the way they are strangely focused on scansoriopterygid pelvic regions while seemingly doubting the fact that they are feathered dinosaurs, I’d say there’s a good chance. If they display similar strange behavior over the next few days, I might submit a sockpuppet investigation. Atlantis536 (talk) 07:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Utahraptor Wiki Info

Hey if you have discord[im not used to wiki mechanics]id like to understand why you changed my information on the Utahraptor wiki that I updated, almost immediately!it seems we have different understandings of Utahraptor so if you could chat My disc is CautionMechanicalDogs#4444 thanks :) Talons Feathers (talk) 23:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Firstly and urgently, I'll encourage you to read the manual of style WP:MOS so you can understand how the structure and writing of articles work. Second, I'm not reaching you out through Discord, talk pages are here for a reason. Now regarding the article, almost everything that you added is non-encyclopedic wording, and some of these elements already are in the article. For instance:

—•GENERATIONS•— These are recent depictions, but it wasn’t always like that. Utahraptor when it was first discovered[1993] up until around 2014 had a “generation one” until........

What exactly do you mean by "generations", is this supported by any methodical background or research? this can be easily taken as original research, be careful with that. Furthermore, I see that you removed virtually ALL citations in the Description section, may I ask why do that? That is not what I'd call updating information...

26ft[7.92m]in length, plus 660-2200LBS[299-997KG][1500lbs(680kg) on average]and possibly up to 1.5 tons. Of course none of these are confirmed *yet* but are possible. [Photo examples of these size estimates below.]——when we uncovered more it led to an over estimate of the largest subject to 31 ft and 9ft tall!

Now what is this? why did you change the convert format and overcrowed the section with numbers and units of measurement? Another thing to bear in mind is the informality of your wording. As an encycopledia, Wikipedia should not be written with don'ts, can'ts, or ! signs. Also, sections are not meant to be saturated with images.

Last point, I can't help but notice that you uploaded multiple images that are most clearly copyrighted and not compatible with the licenses of Wikimedia Commons. All I can tell you is that it's only a matter of time before they get deleted from Commons. Next time you want to upload something make sure of its copyright status. I see that you are acting in good faith, but again, you should internalize yourself with the basics of Wikipedia. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, I said discord because I’m not too sure how talk works and I’m more used to discord so I apologize for that and sorry if I came of as rude or condescending.

im sorry for not using the correct format to write Wikipedia articles that is preferred or required and I should have researched that before hand. I cleared out your writing cause I found it easier to replace information but I should have kept as it was valuable. I didn’t mean to really make you feel if I thought all of your writing was completely wrong and none was correct.

I’ll learn more about it in the future and thanks for the feed back.

I use the word such as “generations” and “gens” for describing old and new depictions of Utahraptor due to me watching a interview with Jim Kirkland and he used the term “generation 1” referring to the skeletal out on display instead of being the modern one. Since the guy who namend Utahraptor and works on the Utahraptor project used the term I found it Valid to use myself.

again I apologize for not reading how to use it first and diving into it. I was sure how the convert formats work I should have looked into that more.

also I was trying to give the correct measurements of the different estimates but I didn’t mean to crowd it completely in a un-formal way. I was not completely sure about the “!” And that’s completely on my part.

Again I wasn’t aware of the certain word requirements, should have looked into the rules first. I wasn’t trying to drown it in images and i should have learned how to use the links to articles talking about said thing that had their own examples, not adding photos of non Utahraptor photos onto the Utahraptor wiki. I did take it a bit overboard with the images so that’s on me as well.

sorry about the a lot of the copyrighted images and I understood it was possible that they could get taken down. I should have spent more time learning the copyright issue.

I’ll try my best to learn everything that is the best for writing Wikipedia articles,I’m sorry I didn’t take more time.

also sorry for my repeating of words and poor grammar/punctuation in both this reply and my Article on Utahraptor I should have gone through it more because a lot of people use Wikipedia to get information and with poor grammar people can assume it’s wrong and not liable.

Also besides my poor article skills on this site would you disagree with any of the information I “updated”?

id love to know what your view is on the actual information I typed. Thank you for the feedback once again. Talons Feathers (talk) 02:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I can hardly see any update relative to the data that is present in the article. Like I said, the points you think you updated were already part of the main text (other than the "generations" part), you only rephrased things in a very informal way. Also, do you realize that this image that you uploaded is an older and arguably inaccurate version of my Utahraptor size diagram? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 02:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah sorry about that, I should’ve left a lot of your information in. I didn’t mean to be informal.

And I wasn’t quite sure on that cause I’ve seen multiple things about that diagram floating around. If there’s anything else I’d like to know. But

about your size diagram I believe that’s under the smallest estimate? Also your size ranges are only the smallest estimate and I feel that since Utahraptors size is debatable, that there’s more than that. Correct me if I’m wrong please.

Maybe once I learn “the way” of Wikipedia we could compromise on the information? I don’t want this to be a immature war of trying to redo the article over and over. Talons Feathers (talk) 02:50, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

You "feel that there's more", that is a bad start. I'd be happy to include a larger estimate if there were specimens reaching such proportions. I recommend reading the description of my digram: BYU 15465 based on its femur length is one of the largest specimens in literature, no other specimens are reported with greater sizes. If there's anything that truly needs to be updated with reliable references, it's the Paleobiology section. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 03:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok makes sense, it’s hard to tell currently but we will see in the future.

one main thing that dosent make sense is how the size could go from 6-8ft down to 5’8-5’10ish[not including the over-estimate mistake]. I do understand sizes can change but that’s a huge difference.

but mainly for the weight of your size estimates is that we know Utahraptor is heavy for its size around the same weight as a grizzly or polar bear, so I’m not sure why you have it currently at 620-660Lbs when they could possibly get up to a ton. But again going over your size proportions on the article it’s more likely for that size to maybe get anywhere from 660 to around 1000, max being for that size 1400 but unlikely.

and I think the length estimates are still up to 23 or 24ft cause 16-18ft is more achillobator and Dakotaraptor size.

Also sorry for the bad opening I struggle with English despite it being my first language haha Talons Feathers (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Once a specimen is reported around that dimensions, it should be safe to include the estimate in the article. To finish, I recommend you to take a look on other articles in order to learn basic structure and wording. I'm not the best editor out here, but I'm always trying to learn from others. Just like you, I made some notable mistakes when I first started editing without guidance. Hope this helps 💡. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Velociraptor SVG

Hi PaleoNeolitic, i am sorry to bother you but do you happen to have a version of your Velociraptor size comparison, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Velociraptor_size.png as an SVG file, if not would it be possible to get a version showing just the largest specimen. Thanks mike Dinomike123 (talk) 14:36, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey how you doing. Sadly I don't have a SVG version of this file, and I'm currently occupied with some projects so I won't be able to make a separate version. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Hi, no problem, if in the future you have some time to spare, i would be really appreciative. thanks mike Dinomike123 (talk) 09:04, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
August 2023 Backlog Drive: On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
Other ways to participate: Join the conversations on our talkpage
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year. (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Jaculinykus images

Hey, I just wanted to offer a huge thank you for uploading all of the figures from the Jaculinykus paper! I would have gotten to it eventually, but I had some things come up so I wasn't able to earlier. I really appreciate it! -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

When I entered the article I thought that the paper was paywalled, but when I saw that it was published by PLoS ONE I automatically went to upload the figures. No worries! PaleoNeolitic (talk) 23:01, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Siats and protoceratopsids update

Hello!

Last year a publication on frill protoceratopsids came out, stating that they had undulating frills. Could you update your reconstructions of Protoceratops and Bagaceratops with this information?

Bibliography: Chiba, K., Ryan, M.J., Saneyoshi, M., Konishi, S., Yamamoto, Y., Evans, D.C., Chinzorig, T., Khatanbaatar, P., Badamkhatan, Z., Mainbayar, B. & Tsogtbaatar, K. (2023). "New insight on the frills ornamentations of Protoceratopsids". [in]: Lee, Y.-N. (eds.). "Windows into Sauropsid and Synapsid Evolution: Essays in Honor of Prof. Louis L. Jacobs". Seoul: Dinosaur Science Center Press. pp. 140–150

I think Siats should also be corrected. Hypotheses of its affiliation to Megaraptor or Carcharodontosauria are currently under consideration. Would you please consider my suggestion in your spare time? Aventadoros (talk) 08:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey, how you doing. Can you please be more specific with "undulating frills"? Also, do you happen to have acces to the frill paper? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

According to this publication, the edges of the parietal bone were undulating and this was present in all specimens. Also, some frill features were very similar to those of centrosaurines, e.g. contact between the parietal and squamosal. If you want to know more details I invite you to the wikipedia discord [13] Aventadoros (talk) 15:05, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll pass on the invitation. Is the paper in question referring to the parietal ridges reported from Udyn Sayr and Tugriken Shire specimens? [14] [15] PaleoNeolitic (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they studied specimens from the Udyn Sayr and Tugriken Shire sites. If you join on discord I will show you this publication. Aventadoros (talk) 14:23, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not joining the discord, for now at least. I'll see what I can do. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:28, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Send me your mail. Aventadoros (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Sent you an email. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Check your mailbox. By the way, I think it is worth updating the reconstruction of Siats. According to the 2022 monograph on Eotyrannus, it was recovered as a basal representative of Megaraptora, so maybe it should look like a megaratorans. Aventadoros (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Got it, many thanks. Also yeah, I'll check on Siats later. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

No problem, thanks! Aventadoros (talk) 17:06, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Identity of fossil whale skull in Peru

Hi, I noticed you have added the category Acrophyseter to these photos[16][17] of a skull in Peru. But I can't find any references to this identification, and it seems to be a recently discovered[18][19] skull, perhaps of something unnamed. Or do you have some other knowledge about it? FunkMonk (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey. I have also not been able to find references to this skull (there some news reports [20] [21]), beyond the identification provided by the exhibition labels. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 15:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Ah, so it doesn't seem it identifies it to genus? Shouldn't it be in the Unnamed Cetacea fossils[22] or Unidentified Cetacea fossils[23] categories then? FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Dakotaraptor skeletal diagram

Hi, considering the latest publications that consider Dakotaraptor a chimaera, I thought it would be best to replace the current very speculative reconstruction in the taxobox image with a more reliable diagram that just shows what's actually known. Your skeletal[24] is close, but also show very speculative grey parts that distract from what's actually known. Would it be possible to also upload a version that only shows the known elements? FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Monk, how we doing. Absolutely, I can do that, as I was never really convinced with myself about depicting the inferred regions. I also would like to know more about those latest publications. Is there any major reexamination? PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good, things are fine Wikipedia-wise! The source is the new Andrea Cau Compsognathidae paper:[25] FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

And now I'm here, I'm thinking of expanding Atrociraptor, and was wondering whether you could make a fauna comparison like this one[26] for the Horseshoe Canyon Formation? FunkMonk (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Yes I can do that, the fauna doesn't seem that complicated/overloaded. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 01:33, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Ergilin Dzo Formation size chart?

Will you please do a size chart for the Ergilin Dzo Formation? I would really appreciate it if you could. 161.38.238.45 (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Mammalia is not my strong point when it comes to illustration, so I'd not be able to do this request. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Then who is able to do such a request? 161.38.238.45 (talk) 03:52, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

I recommend making this request at WP:PALEOART, where other paleoartist may be willing to accept the request for the formation. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)