Stegosauria, Stegosauridae and Huayangosauridae on one page??
I have been starting to play with these a bit:
Stegosauria, Stegosauridae and Huayangosauridae - and I feel the info may be pretty meagre to go over 3 pages (and involve a bit of repeating). Looking at the Ceratopsia page I feel a page with all 3 would do it justice and could be an informative one with overview and issues etc. 9also a place to stick mention of unplaced Stegosauria fragments from the UK and elsewhere.
The infraorder Stegosauria is also what laypeople would recognise as Stegosaur-type dinosaurs (like we draw the line for natural group at Ceratopsia, rather than Coronosauria etc.
OK, initial combination of pages to model on Ceratopsia done now. Kids are mucking up in the other room, gotta dash. Need to do redirects on old family pages....Cas Liber01:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi Project - I'm in the midst of a (long) process of rejigging the links in Greek derivations of Dino names. Manic obsessive or what? We currently have a wide variations of format, from no link to links to 'Classical Greek' (which redirects to 'Ancient Greek' anyway) or 'Greek language' (which refers to modern Greek!). What I am doing is Greek (visualise using popups or by putting into 'edit'), which is hopefully the most accurate. Please, assuming you all agree, do any new derivations with this link, to save future work in reformatting. Also, please change any you trip over, during your edits for other purposes. Great help, thanks :-) - Ballista20:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
cool, I had noticed a couple of old links to 'Greek language' so I am glad you're getting stuck into it. I have been adding on greek characters so will cut and paste a standard one of 'Ancient Greek' above. cheers Cas Liber21:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
Has anyone established an age for this dinosaur (not Giganotosaurus, BTW)? A google search pulls up just a couple of valid links, both of which say nothing more than it was a European sauropod that had some convoluted naming history that has since been sorted out. But nothing on the age. Links? --Firsfron of Ronchester19:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
DinoData says Kimmeridgian, and my old Dinosaur Society Encylcopedia (I knew that thing would still come in handy every now and then!) also lists Late Jurassic.Dinoguy220:38, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Hello Project. This may be a very small point but it makes searching for dinosaur articles incomplete. I have found several dinosaur articles that do not have the word 'dinosaur' anywhere! Any dinosaur article you encounter or edit, may I suggest everyone looks for the word and adds it (with wikilink) if it's not there. OK, I'll sit down! - Ballista18:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
For those of us who favor an apomorphy-based definition of Aves, can we get "bird" on all the maniraptor pages? ;) Dinoguy223:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Hee! Actually... what articles didn't have the word 'dinosaur' in them? Because all of them should have, by now, especially the genera ones which we agreed would be categorized by "Name of Period dinosaur", "Name of continent dinosaur", and "type of dinosaur". Puzzling. --Firsfron of Ronchester23:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, can't remember - I'd have to troll all thru' my editing history to find it now, but it was one of the 'shortest articles' that I expanded. By the way, ref. that list, Sinosaurus, Sonorasaurus and Tylocephale are now expanded beyond 1kB. - Ballista03:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
I expanded the Harpymimus stub into an article this morning, and I'll be getting to Pelecanimimus tomorrow. With luck, I'll even scrounge up some usable illos. for both. Thank, Dinoguy2 for helping out with the taxobox today.--Nar'eth21:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to add my thanks to Dinoguy for fixing some of my taxoboxes. Also: Harpymimus is looking quite a bit better than yesterday... --Firsfron of Ronchester22:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Probably time to figure out what should go on each page. Been trimming a bit on Allosaurus - related genera stuff on this page could go on Allosaurid, or that could be ditched and redirected to carnosaurs. What do folks think? Cas Liber11:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
The problem with having a separate page for Allosauridae is that it's practically monotypic. I can't think of a single allosaurid that hasn't been referred to Allosaurus, though no all these referrals are universally accepted. I vote for keeping the Allosaurid page, and moving discussions of other allosaurid genera and their possible synonymy with Allosaurus there. Should be enough material for this to warrent its own page, and not just a section on Allosaurus.Dinoguy213:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
OK. if so, then the Allosaurid page is short and the possibility is that it wouldn't get much longer than it is now. In which case, maybe better to have discussions about it (i.e. subsume it) onto Carnosauria where the list of Carnosaurs (including Allosaurids) is now? Alternately, take the list of Allosaurids off Carnosauria (like Ceratopsidae off Ceratopsia) Cas Liber21:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Anatomy/Morphology articles
Something to think about as we edit and write dino pages: there are a lot of very basic anatomical terms that still lack even stubs. For example, today while writing Pelecanimimus, links to gular pouch and heterodont would have both been very helpful. Only, those articles didn't yet exist. I just created them this evening. I've been trying to do this as I go along, but many basic anatomical terms, espcially for "lower" vertebrates still do not even have stubs. So, grab a morphology textbook and lend a hand! :-) --Nar'eth21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I know - I was musing on this. I did find mention and explanation of rhamphotheca on beak, so I made the word link to beak on the Stegosauria page. Rostral bone in ceratopsia is another story.. Cas Liber21:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
I also disambiguated ramphotheca to beak on Herpymimus. It would be a good idea to dab these scientific terms to a more general article that discusses them. For example, heterodont could easily be added as a sub-section or insersted somewhrere into tooth, then link to #heterodont for the dab, or something. But if there are no appropriate articles, new ones should certainly be created (like rostral bone). Maybe gular pouch could be added into a subsection of the newly created bird anatomy?Dinoguy200:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the problem with sinking them into more inclusive articles is that the wikilinks then cease to function as a quick reference, as the reader has to search through a lengthy article for the one bit they wish to clarify.--Nar'eth04:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
True, but if you created a sub-heading for the term and linked it via the # sign, it would take you right to the appropriate spot.Dinoguy215:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
If everyone thinks it's okay?
If everyone thinks it's okay, I would like to maintain the Dinosaur collaboration. I've done a good job so far & thought it would give me something to do. Is this cool with everyone? If nobody replies I'll suppose it is... Thanks, Spawn Man01:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
<Kiwi> choice, bro!</Kiwi>
Sorry, couldn't help myself - seriously it is a good idea to encourage closer collaboration on a few pages Cas Liber02:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
It's great by me but how about going steady on some of the (humorous) outbursts, in case someone takes offence? - Ballista04:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
OK, sorry in advance Spawnman - feeling a bit decerebrate here. Got flu/kids up all night/sleep deprived/mum renovating and haivng to race around early in am to sort stuff out before builders...........Cas Liber05:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Cas - I meant some of Spawn's more 'florid' language might be taken by some for an insult, perhaps - To all I say, assume goodwill and congeniality, anyway - :-) - great to 'know' you all. - Ballista08:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Huh? What "florid" language? I've merely asked to be the maintainer. What's wrong with that? Huh? I'm confused... Spawn Man08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Actually - looking at all the pages of Sauropod groupings there is a bit of reduplification here too. Hands up who really likes sauropods..
PS: One of the biggies should make a good featured article but which one................Cas Liber02:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
More dino shots
Hi all - Firsfron's been fiendishly 'doctoring' some of my dino shots - please take another look: User:Ballista/images/OUMNH
Meanwhile, I took a few more shots, down in Dorset at the weekend (at the Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre) - he's been at them too, as he likes Scelidosaurus - please find on: User:Ballista/images/Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre June 2006
At some point, when we are all comfortable with which are to go up into articles, I'll start uploading. - Ballista08:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry everyone, I haven't been taking any part in the discussions for some time now. I am stuck in Kuwait and only yesterday I got internet access in my house. I'll check out the shots as soon as i can (I only have a dial-up connection). Cheers! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs09:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
By the way, what happened to the Big 20 list on the project page? I think its on one of the discussions above, but i've missed a lot and can't find it, if its there. Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs09:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I also have some pictures I took at the UC Museum of Paleontology a few weeks ago which I will upload if I ever have time (have been insanely busy lately). Sheep8111:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I believe we are supposed to wait, per FA nomination guidelines, for the last one to finish up before we do a new one. However, I have to admire your enthusiasm.--Firsfron of Ronchester00:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I am aware of no such guidelines. If you don't want to support, feel free not to. I nominated it on my own, & if you don't want it to do with the Dino project, then I edited it so I have a right to nominate it. Spawn Man00:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. I don't have to not nominate an article because the Project said so. Think of it as I am independant from the Project. Spawn Man01:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I still think there is a bit of work to do on it but of course I will do my best to make it FA-quality. As I now have my cable back, I will be able to help you work on it. Sheep8101:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad you're still calm cause I'm at boiling point. I've had it up to here with Firsfron commenting on everything I do. Spawn Man01:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
I will gladly let this drop if you tell me how this was sooooo rude that you had to interviene?
I know you really enjoy editing & uploading photos onto dinosaur articles, but some care must be taken! Some of your photos are out of focus/in bad light/irrelevant (choose 1 or more). Other times, you just place them in the most akward locations, such as all in one section. Take some care to carefully plan out where they will go or where they will fit. Don't just plonk them anyhere k? The ones which aren't that good, don't put them in. Think of it like a piece of cake. You've just eaten a buffet meal & you're sooo full. But everyone else is eating cake, so you want some. You don't need it, but just cause it's there you eat it. Or think of a bad picture as a toy you never use. You never use the toy, so your mum wants you to throw it out. You plead that you do play with it, but you never do. If a picture is bad or is overcrowding the text, throw it away or don't use it. It will save everyone time & overall, make the article ten times better. This was a friendly reminder from your friendly neighbourhood Spawn Man! Thanks, Spawn Man 00:01, 22 June 2006 (UTC). P.S. Kids, eat your veges!
Can he tell you on your talk page please? This page is long enough without having to scroll through endless personal arguments. Sheep8102:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Implying someone hasn't been careful in uploading photos, when Ballista spent a week of work on the pictures, and went way out of his way to get the images reviewed and edited, spending countless hours on the project, is rude. Telling someone their images are "bad", "out of focus", and "irrelevant" is rude, especially when such statements are not even true. Now I've answered, I'll hold you to your word to, as you promised, "drop it".--Firsfron of Ronchester02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
That doesn't prove anything. Sheepy wasn't scared to step on my toes with his editing, & you supported that. He said he wasn't going to let bad editing through. Neither am I. So sorry, but the images were bad (or another fluffy word since you don't like that 1), so I deleted some of them. Spawn Man02:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
You didn't delete them, you removed them from the page, which is not the same thing at all. I do support editing, because it builds a better encyclopedia. But editors still need to be polite with one another. You can't seem to do that with anyone. You asked for examples where you were rude to Ballista, and I told you. The images Ballista added were not bad, and were in the main supported by the members of this WikiProject. Your removal of them does not violate any policy, but it does make it hard to have any sort of a group image collaboration. Your refusual to be civil does violate WP policy.--Firsfron of Ronchester02:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry the Project's (& the Collaboration's) time has been taken up with this unfortunate exchange, on my behalf (while I slept like a baby!). Let's hope that advance discussions can prevent this time-and-energy waste in the future. - Ballista04:59, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Finally got time to really sit down with this article and go over it thoroughly. It looked a lot better than the last time I saw it during the Collaboration. As requested, I went over the references, and every assertion in the article is now cited (thanks Spawn and Firsfron). There are now 27 publications cited! I moved the pictures around so they are more varied, although this is stylistic and I won't cry if they are all moved back to the right (Spawn?). Also expanded on some of the other sections (and tried to not to rewrite them wholesale unless they were wrong or just didn't read well... I think you will find a lot of the original text intact or only slightly altered). If this isn't FA material now, I don't know what is!Sheep8123:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hey, Cas, that's really neat - I seem to remember him on Sinosaurus, too, that I had a go at expanding a few days (seems like months) ago. There may have been one or two others of our 'shortest articles', too. Can't remember now (put it down to BSE?). - Ballista13:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Velociraptor enlarged claw picture?
Does anyone have access to a picture the enlarged hind claw of the Velociraptor? It would really help if someone did upload the picture, so as the article could get featured. Thanks, Spawn Man01:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
No 'proper' picture but, in the interim, might this help? File:Velociraptor showing specialised claw.jpgVelociraptor specialised claw (zoomed) - It's a zoom from one of my several Velo pics and it shows sort of 'OK'. I tried zooming further but lost quality - what it needs is a dedicated zoom photograph - I'll try one day, if nothing else turns up. - Ballista07:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Sorry! no I can't, that was the limit of the original shot - it really needs a 'purpose-built' shot soon. I only offered this 'cos it was there, so to speak. - Ballista09:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Velociraptor specialised claw again
Hey - missed this one, somehow - it was one of my shrunken images, so overlooked it - better shot, better clarity, less background AND whole foot! - probably at maximum enlargement for clarity's sake. - Ballista09:48, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
That's a lot better. I think we can use that. Although, if you really wanted to go back and get down on your knees to take a picture of just the foot from the side, that would be peachy. No pressure though. :) Sheep8112:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Heh. Ballista's already been to the museum twice to take photos for the project. If he keeps hanging around there, eventually, the museum staff will think he's an employee or something. ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
If he became an employee there, he could get back into the collections and we could REALLY see some cool stuff. Mwahahahahaha... Sheep8116:15, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Since nobody else did it, I just archived over 80KB of text from this page (we are quite talkative) into two separate archives, now listed on top of this page. Also, in case anyone didn't notice, we got Albertosaurus featured. Now to get cracking on Velociraptor! Sheep8116:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi all - I just posted this on the Paleobox template discussion (is it worthwhile trying to get some consensus?):
Sorry guys, the more I read about dinosaurs the more holes there are in information to the point where, if we were really hones, there'd be huge holes in Paleoboxes to the point that I think their presence detracts more than adds from the text. Many assumptions about size and habitat are just that, assumptions, and are often better presented with text explaining why a certain position on data may be valid and the strength of the data. Also, alot of the genera pages will be small, because the information is either meagre or quite technical. I think that discussing and trialling paleoboxes was great but I think that overall, their problems override their benefits. Sorry Cas Liber23:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
My opinion is still marginally AGAINST their inclusion, on balance. If they were to go on small articles, the imbalance would detract. In larger articles, they compete for space with illustrations or photographs. - Ballista04:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Dear all,
Quite often there is reduplicated info - Species (and genera on family or infraorder pages) are often listed in both the text and in the taxobox at the bottom. I have been using the headings
(Intro)
Discovery and Species
(with list at the bottom of this bit)
Classification
Paleobiology
Popular Culture
References
External Links
with assorted subheadings interspersed as needed. I find species are often so contentious they need explanation etc. Thus maybe the best is having only type species or none in the taxobox. The shorter the taxobox, the more images one can stick under it. A taxobox in design terrms seems to serve as an image in contrast to text, so maybe shorter is beter to get more bang for the image buck, so to speak......Cas Liber23:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
Now you've raised this, it seems logical to me (is this what's called 'thinking outside the box'?) - the type species could have a place there but even that may be superfluous - I think the taxobox's best function is at-a-glance presentation of the beast's place in the tree of life and to prevent having to reel thru' what might be boring taxonomic info in the text. - Ballista04:31, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Woo-hoo on Velociraptor! :) As far as the next candidates... I agree, Cas. I hope whoever nominates will choose some non-theropods, too. Balance is good: articles from all families should be selected, although, admittedly, at the rate we're going, we may have quite a few done in the next couple of months! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Time to play a short little game. Anyone else see what all three of our featured dinosaurs (as well as our current collaboration) have in common? Sheep8104:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Hi folks - I've decided (rightly or wrongly) that WP needed a page on the body armour of animals (including (of course) our 'babies'). I've therefore started a page that could do with the group's collective expertise and input (Armour (zoology)). I also added it to the Armour (disambiguation) page. I hope I haven't missed an article that does the same job, under a different name, although I did make efforts to check this. This new article creates an opportunity for a 'link' from dino articles (perhaps doing this for all our armoured dino articles should be Firsfron's prize for spotting the link in Sheep's game?) The article could also do with some pics for the examples listed??? - Ballista06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if such an armo(u)r page for animals already exists. Did you check Armor, just in case? ;) Also: that doesn't sound like much of a reward! That sounds like work! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for response - checked Armour/Armor - refers to the metal stuff. Oh, you spotted the catch in the reward bit, then? - Ballista08:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) P.S.: I've also created Display (zoology) and Club (zoology), as hopefully useful explanatory articles for these 'fringe' topics, to which links can now be made.
Misspelled articles
Hey all,
You may be aware that we've had, in the past, some misspelled titles in articles that have since been corrected (moved to the correct titles). I recently proposed the deletion of several misspelled articles (Nurosarus, "Rapator" (yes, with quotes), and Antarticopelta), as all three misspelled names return 0 hits on google (outside of wikipedia and its mirrors). The prod tags were removed, because WP policy apparently says redirects shouldn't be proposed for deletion (what, you can propose an article for deletion, but not a redirect!? Whatever.) There's a lengthy voting procedure one must go thru to delete a redirect. I've listed both "Rapator" and Antarticopelta at the RfD page (Nurosarus' prod tag was somehow allowed).
"Rapator" (with quotes) has recieved quite a few delete votes, and will probably successfully be deleted, but people want to keep Antarticopelta, as a "likely misspelling" (even though Google catches 0 hits for the misspelled word, outside of WP). I can see a need for a redirect for a commonly misspelled word, but these aren't commonly misspelled.
Please join me in voting off these reject redirects by voting here (You can, of course, vote to keep them, if you so desire).--Firsfron of Ronchester 20:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
I voted, thanks for tip-off. - Ballista07:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well done team, the article's been featured! Although it was a bit risky for me to jump ahead & nominate it, with my, & everyone else's help, the task was an easy one. I'm proud of the way we work as a team, even if some of us have our differences.... I'll see when it can go to the main page & then we can look to the future... Well done everyone.... Spawn Man04:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree, a bit risky, but nominating it sure motivated the Project to bring it up to standards, that's for sure! In any case, it really was a team effort and one which we can all be proud of. Good luck on your other FAC, Spawn.Sheep8104:51, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
Ahhh, I withdrew it, too much work for me as I'm about to be only semiactive for a while. Anyway, Sheepy, ya know for any FA to make it to the main page, you have to request it here: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests? I noticed you haven't requested either Alberta or Pssita. Just a thought... Bye, Spawn Man01:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Woo Hooo!! Thats awesome!! I am really impressed with the team over here. Long time ago when the project was started, we had over 500 articles for creation! Never thought we'd come this far. Congrats everyone! Jayant,17 Years, India • contribs11:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
Well I was about to say we needed a couple of tiebreaking votes but I realised all the ones which expired on June 30th, looks like its Diplodocus next then................Cas Liber11:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
.1.jpg)