This page is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Hello guys! I have got a problem with uploading images. They have started a new system of uploading images on commons. How shall it be used? when I write which image I want to upload as a new image and write what I have changed, they say that there already is a version of the file. When I should upload new versions of my Scipionyx, it became 2 extra versions instead! And I had to write new categories, licenses tec. Can you help me? How shall I do so it just becomes a "New version" of the previous file? Conty 08:30 13 April 2010.
On a related note, here is an interesting article about restoration advice given to Julius Csotonyi by Royal Tyrrell Museum researchers:[1] Look at the notes on the images, reminiscent of the stuff you'd see on our review page, and seems even the "pros" get stuff wrong at first iteration... FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
No, because that specific image was released into the public domain[2], so they don't have to credit him, but doing so would had been nice anyway of course... FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Whut
Slightly related, I discovered this weird meta thing, an image of Segnosaurus I drew and uploaded for Wikipedia years ago, now used in a Polish museums display next to actual fossils, and a picture of this display has then been uploaded to Wikimedia again... My mind is blown. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Since there are so many articles that lack images, I was thinking of retooling some images I have made that are now slightly redundant, since the articles they are in now have more than one restoration. So what I was thinking is that I would delete a file and then reupload it under the name of a related animal, for example I would reupload the image I made of Coelurus as Mirischia, and then voila, all our compsognathid articles are illustrated. Anyone have anything against that? Other possible candidates for retooling are the Bambiraptor, Neovenator, and Caulkicephalus I made. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Not opposed, but I would suggest some simple image manipulation to make the images at least a little different, because, you know. For example, a quick palate rotation or brightness/contrast adjustment. deBivort04:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This size diagram indicates that Alamosaurus sanjuanensis was ~50 ft. A new paper, however, finds a specimen attributable with a cervical vertebra comparable in size to the enormous Puertasaurus. It needs to be amended and I have tried here with a basic photo editor. Thoughts? Taylor Reints (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought about updating the image when I first heard of the new specimen, there are a few problems however. There are several reconstructions availible for the more complete smaller specimens, so size estimations are more certain. On top of that there is a publish figure with scale bar that can be used for reference and cited. The new paper describes only three incomplete bones that are refered to Alamosaurus, because of this, no reconstruction or total length estimates are given. I'm not sure what to do with this diagram, the scale of any silhouette will be basically made up. Sometime tomorrow I will add a note in the description mentioning the new larger specimen and clarifying the specimen that the silhouette is based on. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Lost contributors
We've just lost two of our paleoart contributors due to Wiki formalities, darnit.
Ouch. I'm not as active an illustrator as I used to be, but I still feel like an active member of the WP:Dino illustrators community. This is a serious blow. deBivort23:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, seems like the rest of us'll have to work overtime to keep up... I'd like to see more of your stuff, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
proscribing problematic pronation?
Hi all - So, I wonder about removing images if they have known anatomical flaws? For example, most/all of the hadrosaur images I made have been removed for having pronated hands. A lot of skeleton photos have also been removed. Would it not be preferable to note in the caption that the hands were not pronated, but keep the illustrations? If a single flaw, even a comparatively small one, is sufficient to remove an image forever, this strikes me as a strong discouragement to image creation. I dunno, what do you all think? deBivort
Articulated skeleton, note that the palms do not face each other, unlike in theropodsImage that was removed, but note that radius and ulna don't actually cross
I've brought it up before: [4] I think we should at least discuss it before removing everything (especially since some featured articles have been left without taxobox images). I don't doubt the finding, but it isn't very obvious when a hadrosaur hand is pronated/not pronated, the figures in the paper[5] make this obvious. Key line: "and the palms face caudomedially, though more medially than caudally." It would not really be visible in a restoration, since most of the "action" happens inside (crossing of radius and ulna), and the palms would not face each other (see footprint diagram), as in other groups. Contrary to the situation with theropods and ceratopsians. So I think we should take the images on a case by case basis here. Albertonykus should be notified of this discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Gah, so sorry for the inconvenience! I should check the talk pages here more often. I concur that there is a good amount of leeway in the interpretation of life restorations here, and that a more detailed examination of each image is in order. The footprints (and the study itself) do appear to rule out a fully caudally-facing posture for the palms though, so I still support purging/editing images that unequivocally show the hands pointing backward. Otherwise do feel free to undo any of the damage I may have wrought. Curses! Albertonykus (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem! Because some of the skeletons and restorations were wrong no doubt, I've not reverted ally our edits at all. For example, Debivort's image here[6] shows the thumb very far back on the right hand, which indicates the arm is rotated too far. Could you fix it, Debivort? As for skeletons, this[7] shows obvious rotation of the left lower arm, so I'll have to look for a new image it seems... FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Another thing, wrong mounts can be valuable from a historical perspective, for example the AMNH Anatosaurus skeletons. Such should not be used in the taxobox, however. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I tried to avoid removing mounts that were specifically captioned as being outdated/historical in the articles they appeared on. Albertonykus (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
But what do you guys think about the principle here. My instincts say that it's better to have an image with a minor known flaw(s) – while acknowledging the flaw in the caption – than to remove an image all together (especially in image sparse articles). After all, we know that the reconstructions have several to many flaws, we just don't know what they are at first. deBivort15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, we have an abundance of hadrosaur images, so the only one that was left entirely "naked" was Secernosaurus. It was relatively easy to find replacements for the rest. But I'm tempted to say an article could have a slightly incorrect image, as long as it is the only one we have, until we can find replacements. In any case, I've restored most of the images that were removed, because they were not actually incorrect, per that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Whew, many thanks for cleaning up the mess I made. Will try not to perform wholesale overhauls like that under such ambiguous circumstances in the future. Albertonykus (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I made this attempt to fix it quickly, but does it look right? I've totally confused myself. [11]. Seems like the other leg is wrong now. Can you point me to a good example? deBivort23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's too drastic, you could move it just to the middle of the hand, like this[12] (roughly done here). The other hand looks fine. If you look at the footprints in figure 6[13], the hand isn't really turned so much. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a slightly inaccurate depiction (particularly a museum specimen, whether it's an actual fossil or a cast) is much preferable to having no image at all. They should be marked in the captions as outdated, but there's no reason, IMO, to completely remove an image because of what appears to be a common problem found in many museum displays. Firsfron of Ronchester06:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It is quite puzzling how some museums have mounted their dinosaurs. As Mallison also pointed out for Plateosaurus, here's a Bactrosaurus where the radius and ulna do not only cross, but their connection to the wrist has been reversed![14] That is completely unknown in any animals, and is not just an outdated error, but a complete anatomical failure. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, but if it's a choice between no image and an image where two bones incorrectly cross one another, I'm definitely in favor of retaining the image. Firsfron of Ronchester07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Now we're on the issue of restoring hadrosaur hands, something just occurred to me which I have never seen addressed before. If the ancestral condition for archosaurs, and therefore dinosaurs (the condition is seen in theropods, ceratopsians, thyreophorans, sauropodomorphs, etc.), is to have clawless digit four and five on the hands, all restorations of hadrosaurs (disregarding the issue of whether the unguals were entirely covered in pads) with three hand claws would be wrong. If they had any hand claws, there would only be two, on digit two and three, since digit one, the thumb spike, was lost. The only artist I've seen restore it this way is Bob Bakker. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not clear on this and I haven't been able to figure it out from lit searchers (not that I have much lit on hadrosaurids unfortunately). I'm pretty sure I've read that footprint evidence shows three functional claws on the forelimb. Unless this is misinterpreted, it would probably mean that the claw was re-evolved or frame-shifted onto digit 4. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems that even modern crocodiles have unguals on digit four and five, yet no external claw. The hadrosaur handprints I've seen just seem to show an elongated blob... In any case, such a fourht claw would had been very small:[15] Most restorations show all three at nearly equal size. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Dinosaur spine flexibility
Exactly how flexible were Dinosaur's spines? I'd assume they would be mostly rigid, considering that Bird's spines are. But there is no specific guideline on the flexibility of their spines, have there been any studies trying to determine how much dinosaurs could move their spines? 50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, in birds, most trunk vertebrae are fused together (sacrum and notarium), making the spine rigid. This is because birds don't like their spine bending downwards each time they make a wing beat. Non-avan dinosaurs usually don't fly, and most trunk vertebrae are free (moveable against each other). Its no problem to estimate the flexibility of the spine: the structures that limit flexibility are the articular processes (pre- and postzygapophyses), and by looking at these processes you will be able to draw conclusions about spine flexibility. However, some dinosaurs show additional features that make the spine more rigid, e.g. accessorary articular processes, ossified tendons, and stuff like that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on the article and to my surprise someone did hazard a full body image. Are such scant remains worth the bother? Or should we circumscribe the reconstructive efforts to what body parts have been reconstructed in the paper itself (in this case, the head)? --Dracontes (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, in any case, it seems to be tipping over. The uploader never posts his images here, and they usually have problems. I have no problem with hypothetical illustrations, as long as they don't have direct mistakes. But this one does. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Truly unique! Well, most images might stay accurate, as the feathers seem to only be on the head, neck, and forelimb, the regions that tend to be drawn with feathers. IJReiddiscuss22:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The images of Gojirasaurus, Tawa (dinosaur), Segisaurus, Camposaurus and others would be incorrect... Probably other primitive theropods would need feathers too. We can perhaps ask Tomopteryx to fix the Camposaurus, but the rest would have to be done by us. And by the way, Currie mentions in the interview that now not only one but four theropods with feathers are known form Dinosaur Park! FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think the fossil in question looks like a compsognathid. It bares a particular resemblance to GMV 2124. So I'd wait for a publication before jumping all over this. That said, if you want me to change the Camposaurus I can. If this thing gets published and is a coelophysid then I'll more like just do a whole new image for the animal. Tomopteryx (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hindsight, I definitely think that is a compsognathid. Liaoning is nearly all Cretaceous deposits, and a coelophysoid from there would almost certainly cause a humungous ghost lineage. Also, coelophysoids tend to have longer snouts and flat skull roofs. IJReiddiscuss14:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tend to doesn't mean always do, though; adaptation makes things look very different to others in their family. That, and there's already possible ginormous ghost lineages in theropods already (maniraptors, if Eshanosaurus is a therizinosaur) and the chances of fossilization is actually really low; so if it is a coelophysid, that merely means many coelophysid genera were around during the gap, but weren't fossilized. As for the specimen's identity, comparing the shape of the skull to both those of Coelophysis and Sinosauropteryx shows that the known elements have more similarities to the skull of Coelophysis than the skull of Sinosauropteryx; though it also seems to be slightly crushed, and a portion of the upper jaw is missing, so I'm not going to jump to the conclusion of "OMG CRETACEOUS COELOPHYSID" juuuust yet. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
When drawing to Lepidus, a friend gave me this link to the another discovery showing a ichnofossil of Eubrontes, showing that this had protofeathers [16]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Those Eubrontes were probably made by a dilophosaurid, and this has been covered on TetZoo. The identity of the marks as feathers has been questioned. [17]Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
There are several studies that relate to Eubrontes with coelophysoidea, here are three publications:
Harris et al., eds., 2006, The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 37. Milner ARC.
Harris JD, Lockley MG, Kirkland JI, Matthews NA (2009) Bird-Like Anatomy, Posture, and Behavior Revealed by an Early Jurassic Theropod Dinosaur Resting Trace. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4591.
Gierlinski 1997 What type of feathers could nonavian dinosaurs have, according to an Early Jurassic ichnological evidence from Massachussetts?. Przeglad Geologiezny. vol. 45. nr 4, 1997.
And Eubrontes is coelophysoidea for several reasons; Chronologically data especially in the upper Triassic to Jurassic, so basal Tetanurae Saurischia or discarded, was abundant at one with them and now comes a study that will try to show that their morphology is clearly coelophysoidea. --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Two Wikipedia images in Nature!
This figure is funny[18], they use a silhouette of my Aristosuchus for Dilong (which was based on the Coelurus skeletal by Jamie Headden), and Conty's silhouette of Dryptosaurus, though credited to T.M. Keesey (I guess because they found it on Phylopic?). So better upload some more images here! FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Midiaou Diallo. I usually specialize in either Paleoart or Speculative Evolution. I noticed the Wikipedia page for Troodon lacked any proper illustrations, thus I decided to make my own reconstruction of the animal. Two females playing in the snow. Scott Hartman's skeletal was used as a reference.The animals were given pseudo-beaks, hardened skin that has nearly fused scales, as true beaks aren't capable of overlapping teeth. This was done due to their close relationships with avians. Tongues were also given prongs towards the back, due to modern birds having odd integument placed on the tongues based on diet and size. Certain Troodontids, although possibly omnivorous, could possibly host said prongs (looking at you, eagles and herons).The claws are longer than in the skeletal due to them having keratin on them. Lighter color variation given due to winter season. Midiaou Diallo (talk)
Cool! Though I don't know much about the relevant climate, it looks anatomically correct to me. Hope to see more contributions, your gallery looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Now added to the paleobiology section. I moved the old restoration closer to the skeletal it was based on, which is kind of interesting to show, how the bones are fleshed out in a sense... Anyhow, feel free to post future works in progress on the "main" review page (this is only a talk page mainly used for discussing the review page itself). FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
The theory about theropod lips[19] is sure to be treated like gospel (already is) once published, but will have wide ramifications if we "enforce" its findings. Personally, I'm not convinced (mole rats have exposed teeth covered in enamel[20], for example), as it only takes one exception to make their conclusion unreliable, and we need some confirmation from other researchers as well. Anyhow should we 1: Remove all restorations of dinosaurs without lips? 2: Only replace images that show exposed teeth if we have available replacements that show lips? 3: Use both until the theory has been dealt with by other researchers? I'm for 3... If 1 is chosen, this would logically extend to sabre-toothed mammals as well (or rather, all non-amphibious animals that have enamel covered teeth)... For the record, I of course believe that theropods could have had lips, I'm just not convinced that they should be depicted with lips. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Dinosaur 'Lips' are going to be controversial until fossilized facial skin is preserved. I prefer lips for most theropods with the possible exception of spinosaurs, especially Spinosaurus. That said, I agree with option 3 for the time being, that we can include both. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I think spinosaurs would be exempt due to their supposedly amphibious habits, according to that theory. But I think you'd need much more than just comparative anatomy to determine whether enamel needs hydration to exist... Experimental work, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
My reasons for Spinosaurus are actually to do this it's maxilla teeth, they jut out sideways at an angle. You can kind of see it in these pictures. [21][22][23] It's probably not impossible for soft tissues to cover them but I find it hard to imagine. It's teeth don't hang down vertically like most theropods which could theoretically just slide into a bottom lip, it would need a specialized lip structure to encase those teeth. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Where do the lips go?
Makes me think of some pterosaurs as well. Didn't they have enamel covered teeth too? Some of those tooth configurations would be impossible to fully cover in lips... Not that I've ever heard anyone even suggest pterosaurs had lips? But that is a ramification of the theory; all teeth with enamel supposedly need hydration. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I was at the zoo a few weeks ago, and noticed that the canines of most of the Tasmanian devils there were poking out of the mouth of most individuals even when closed:[25] I wonder if that "hydration" paper will ever be accepted by a journal... FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
We should not rely on that paper at all. It has been stated by many paleontologists at many places that crocodilians do not have face scales, they have cracked keratin covering their face. So the "large flat scales" present according to this paper, and based entirely on crocodilians, is woefully incorrect. In addition the lacking of lips is only mentioned as impossible because theres no "room" for them between the "scales" and the tooth row, while "scales" could extend onto lips, and the attachments where lips would be are not covered. Luckily this paper is not published yet, so we can reasonably disregard it without worrying about OR. IJReiddiscuss22:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
They used the same kinds of bony landmarks that have for example been used for figuring out the facial integument of Pachyrhinosaurus. Though they may incorrectly use the word "scale", this doesn't itself invalidate the finding of the paper (which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, not just this abstract). Whether these structures are called scales or cracks doesn't really change the fact that they exist on crocodiles, and could also exist on theropods. That said, it doesn't seem that either camp has a solid case at the moment, so I think it's a free-for-all until that pesky mummified theropod head is found... Though we might be more lucky with Burmese amber... Which leads me to this photo of a baby-bird of some sort in amber:[26] That's even more well-preserved than anything published so far, but I think it may be privately owned... FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Cool. The easiest way would just be to make a Wikimedia Commons account and upload it directly there (so no one will doubt it is your image). FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Inaccurate restorations published in CC-licensed journal articles
This is an issue I've been thinking about for a while, but the life restoration[27] in the recent, free Corythoraptor Nature paper made me want to bring it up here (it appears to lack primary feathers on the second finger, as would be present following phylogenetic bracketing). It happens depressingly often that peer-reviewed journal articles include life restorations that have anatomical inacuracies, at least in respect to what is the common consensus among the more life appearance-minded palaeontologists and palaeoartists. Wikipedia is always in dire need of free imagery, but sometimes these inaccurate images turn up in CC-licensed papers too, which means that even if we can legally use the images here, we may not want to do so, due to their apparent inaccuracies, which is of course an unfortunate dilemma.
In some cases, I have modified such journal images (like this Carnotaurus[28], by making the eyes smaller and removing the hand-claws), but such tampering could also seem like WP:original research; who are we to disagree with how an animal is depicted in a peer-reviewed paper, in images supposedly approved by the article's authors? This free restoration of Beibeilong also appears to show a pronated hand[29], but would be much harder to modify due to the style, but does this mean we shouldn't use it? Other images are so blatantly inaccurate that we probably can't use them for anything, for example these pachycephalosaur restorations[30] which don't even seem to match skeletal elements of the animals they are supposed to depict, in addition to other errors... So what to do? Scrap images even if they have minor errors? Is modification of such images "original research"? Any thoughts are welcome... FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel that it's okay to modify official reconstructions as long as there is no specific justification in the body of the paper for the way the reconstruction is made. See also Scott Hartman's commentary on schematic vs realistic skeletal reconstructions. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
We often need size charts and restorations for various articles that people are working on expanding, but it occurred to me that it would be rather hard to request a specific image being made. We do have an old "most wanted images"[32] section at the almost forgotten "signup sheet" page, but I think few people have it watchlisted or even kow about it, and requests placed there have been hanging for years now. So I was thinking that maybe we should use the review page, since this is what most people watch anyway. This worked when I requested a scale chart during the Stegoceras restoration review, for example.[33] A request for an image could be added to the list just like an image for review, but it could just be titled "Request: Somethingsaurus size chart" or "Request: Somethingsaurus life restoration" to differentiate from restoration reviews. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
We never had a description of what this page was for, so I added a little intro, including the possibility of "requests", with this edit:[34]FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Shortcut
I already brought this up on the image review page, but since many people use this page, it might be nice to have a shortcut. I have no idea about the rules for making shortcuts (not to mention if they even exist), so I will leave this up to other editors. Opinions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Category:Approved dinosaur images does not seem to be used, unless we only have 6 accurate images. Should we start using it again, or possibly create a reviewed paleoart template on Commons, just not do anything, or do something completely different? (It seems like now would be a good time to make these descisions, as WP:DINO is having a bit of a remodeling!) --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Since you can follow the links for pretty much every reviewed image back to this review page if you click on them, I think the category is a redundant left-over... Especially since images that are inaccurate are now tagged as such on Commons, so we already have an exclusion method... FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I noticed that articles on Acta Palaeontologica Polonica are released under CC BY 4.0 [35]. Surely that means we can use images from them freely here? So long as it's properly attributed etc... or am I missing something? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Colouring and removing background from preexisting images
OriginalEdited
I've come across plenty of times where people have taken current life restorations, and edited them to remove the background, or add colour, and then uploading them as a new file. I'm pinging users specifically involved MariomassoneSteveoc 86Tomopteryx just to name the ones I can remember. I think we should try to create a policy on such occassions, such as requesting to the original author for an update to colour or remove an off-white background, or overwriting files instead of creating many duplicates (not all of which are accurate). IJReiddiscuss04:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Technically, the licence of a given image on Commons dictates what's allowed to be done with it. Only images that can be "remixed" or modified are allowed to be uploaded there. So permission ins't really needed, but one can always ask. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
In my case, I'm doing it to illustrate cladograms, and thought that the original uploaders wouldn't have time to do so. Sorry if this has caused alarm. Mariomassone (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind if my images get cutout and coloured, so long as they don't introduce inaccuracies. I like to be informed just so I know if I update an illustration I might have to update other 'spin-offs' as well. I think that it's best if the duplicates serve a purpose; obviously, I think we should reduce the number of duplicates but I like what mariomassone is doing with the cladograms. I wouldn't want users just arbitrarily cropping and flipping if it wasn't adding anything of value. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the colouration, maybe just dial them back so they look more natural; reduce the Saturation a little and maybe reduce the opacity of the overlay. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I do like consistency and standardizing. I like when things all face the same way, it pleases my OCD. ;) When placing an image in an article you can decide for example what side the image alignes to, or how big the thumbnail is using certain wiki codes; is there wiki code to flip and image without permanently changing the file? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a MOS guideline at least that says the subject of an image should preferably face the text, so there is some use for flipped images in that regard. But I'm pretty sure there's no automatic way to flip images... Also note, when Carnotaurus was on the main page, one of the admins actually uploaded a flipped version[37] of one of the restorations to be displayed there... FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
On this note, the pose was originally more standard running pose, as you can see in the earlier version of the file I just restored:[38] Maybe I should revert back to the old version? Anyhow, feel free to use the old version and flip it if you want, Mariomassone, then we have both anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice the old version wasn't made in vain after all! I reposed many illustrations a while back (to differentiate them more from the skeletal diagrams I based them on), but in hindsight, some of the new poses are a bit too "unusual" to show the animals properly... FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Recently the number of images being made has boomed, which is nice to see, but it does present problems. For example, User:Lusotitan posted the Rajasaurus section 5 days ago, but it now is already 10 headings away from the current section for Cetiosauriscus. This can cause images to be forgotten about, leaving them in a gray region between approved and unfinished. Perhaps it would be a good idea to somehow indicate if an image still needs feedback? I'm not sure if this would actually fix the problem. Thoughts or suggestions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Resolved
or {{done}} is added to a section once whatever the issue was has been fixed in some pages.[39][40] Perhaps we could have something like "approved"... Then we will be able to see which images need more feedback/fixes, if they are not tagged. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the page of that template, it seems almost like
Being worked on
was made for this page! This would be pretty nice, as I am still working on my Megalosaurus skeletal, which is pretty far up... I think I'll go add that unless anyone strongly objects. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah probably should. Should we make it so that resolved sections get archived as well into their yearly page, to reduce the overall page size? Or shall we still wait until the end of the year to archive? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Good question... I have no strong opinion, though it is of course "easier" to just do it yearly... Images that aren't done by that time can of course stay. I usually archive according to when the last comment was made in a section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, just wondering. I've also considered using the method that WP:RX does, to get ClueBot to automatically archive pages to a yearly archive once they are marked with a { {resolved} } or { {done} }. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
If it can be set up, it would be cool! Especially since the last few years, I've been the only one doing manual archiving... FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I have an idea how to set it up, I'll look a little more, then I'll add it. If it doesn't work I'll edit the page and remove the ClueBotIII template immediately ... IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, hope consolidating it with the old archives won't be too difficult... And by the way, this talk page itself could maybe also need archiving... FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that archiving right away might not necessarily be a good thing, as sometimes we go back to an older section and make further edits there. If everythin was archived immediately after it was done, then we would have to keep adding sections and make a lot of clutter. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There may be a point in that, for example I went back to Fred's Centrosaurus restoration long after it was approved because Mark Witton made a blog post about facial scales, couldn't have done that easily if it was archived immediately... FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
(Outdent) A bot would be a difficult thing to code, but you can try. The bot archived the wrong sections before because the {{done}} or
Resolved
tags need to be within the section, and apparently the section header doesn't count. For now, either the sections are archived after a tag is added, or after a year without comments or tagging passes. I could help write the code for a bot if wanted, to collapse all sections tagged with {{done}}IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Alternately, we can scrap auto-archiving/collapsing altogether, and just manually collapse sections when we add {{done}} to the section header. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Wait a minute, ClueBot just archived everything, but I'm not yet done with Megalosaurus, Scolosaurus, Omeisaurus, the other Megalosaurus, and I'm still waiting to have my Quilmesaurus get final approval. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I stopped the darn beast. Either it archives stuff into the wrong year or it archives the oldest discussions. I removed the template. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Do people think that we should archive this page here? I can add the archival template to test (should cause fewer issues than on the review page). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added it in, if it archives everything, revert and change the |age= to 2360. Tag anything you think can be closed, and if should be archived. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Problems with uploading new images
Hello guys! I have got a problem with uploading images. They have started a new system of uploading images on commons. How shall it be used? when I write which image I want to upload as a new image and write what I have changed, they say that there already is a version of the file. When I should upload new versions of my Scipionyx, it became 2 extra versions instead! And I had to write new categories, licenses tec. Can you help me? How shall I do so it just becomes a "New version" of the previous file? Conty 08:30 13 April 2010.
No, because that specific image was released into the public domain[41], so they don't have to credit him, but doing so would had been nice anyway of course... FunkMonk (talk) 11:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Whut
Slightly related, I discovered this weird meta thing, an image of Segnosaurus I drew and uploaded for Wikipedia years ago, now used in a Polish museums display next to actual fossils, and a picture of this display has then been uploaded to Wikimedia again... My mind is blown. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
Since there are so many articles that lack images, I was thinking of retooling some images I have made that are now slightly redundant, since the articles they are in now have more than one restoration. So what I was thinking is that I would delete a file and then reupload it under the name of a related animal, for example I would reupload the image I made of Coelurus as Mirischia, and then voila, all our compsognathid articles are illustrated. Anyone have anything against that? Other possible candidates for retooling are the Bambiraptor, Neovenator, and Caulkicephalus I made. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
Not opposed, but I would suggest some simple image manipulation to make the images at least a little different, because, you know. For example, a quick palate rotation or brightness/contrast adjustment. deBivort04:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
This size diagram indicates that Alamosaurus sanjuanensis was ~50 ft. A new paper, however, finds a specimen attributable with a cervical vertebra comparable in size to the enormous Puertasaurus. It needs to be amended and I have tried here with a basic photo editor. Thoughts? Taylor Reints (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
I thought about updating the image when I first heard of the new specimen, there are a few problems however. There are several reconstructions availible for the more complete smaller specimens, so size estimations are more certain. On top of that there is a publish figure with scale bar that can be used for reference and cited. The new paper describes only three incomplete bones that are refered to Alamosaurus, because of this, no reconstruction or total length estimates are given. I'm not sure what to do with this diagram, the scale of any silhouette will be basically made up. Sometime tomorrow I will add a note in the description mentioning the new larger specimen and clarifying the specimen that the silhouette is based on. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Lost contributors
We've just lost two of our paleoart contributors due to Wiki formalities, darnit.
Ouch. I'm not as active an illustrator as I used to be, but I still feel like an active member of the WP:Dino illustrators community. This is a serious blow. deBivort23:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, seems like the rest of us'll have to work overtime to keep up... I'd like to see more of your stuff, by the way! FunkMonk (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
proscribing problematic pronation?
Hi all - So, I wonder about removing images if they have known anatomical flaws? For example, most/all of the hadrosaur images I made have been removed for having pronated hands. A lot of skeleton photos have also been removed. Would it not be preferable to note in the caption that the hands were not pronated, but keep the illustrations? If a single flaw, even a comparatively small one, is sufficient to remove an image forever, this strikes me as a strong discouragement to image creation. I dunno, what do you all think? deBivort
Articulated skeleton, note that the palms do not face each other, unlike in theropodsImage that was removed, but note that radius and ulna don't actually cross
I've brought it up before: [43] I think we should at least discuss it before removing everything (especially since some featured articles have been left without taxobox images). I don't doubt the finding, but it isn't very obvious when a hadrosaur hand is pronated/not pronated, the figures in the paper[44] make this obvious. Key line: "and the palms face caudomedially, though more medially than caudally." It would not really be visible in a restoration, since most of the "action" happens inside (crossing of radius and ulna), and the palms would not face each other (see footprint diagram), as in other groups. Contrary to the situation with theropods and ceratopsians. So I think we should take the images on a case by case basis here. Albertonykus should be notified of this discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Gah, so sorry for the inconvenience! I should check the talk pages here more often. I concur that there is a good amount of leeway in the interpretation of life restorations here, and that a more detailed examination of each image is in order. The footprints (and the study itself) do appear to rule out a fully caudally-facing posture for the palms though, so I still support purging/editing images that unequivocally show the hands pointing backward. Otherwise do feel free to undo any of the damage I may have wrought. Curses! Albertonykus (talk) 11:59, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
No problem! Because some of the skeletons and restorations were wrong no doubt, I've not reverted ally our edits at all. For example, Debivort's image here[45] shows the thumb very far back on the right hand, which indicates the arm is rotated too far. Could you fix it, Debivort? As for skeletons, this[46] shows obvious rotation of the left lower arm, so I'll have to look for a new image it seems... FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Another thing, wrong mounts can be valuable from a historical perspective, for example the AMNH Anatosaurus skeletons. Such should not be used in the taxobox, however. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Yep, I tried to avoid removing mounts that were specifically captioned as being outdated/historical in the articles they appeared on. Albertonykus (talk) 14:44, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
But what do you guys think about the principle here. My instincts say that it's better to have an image with a minor known flaw(s) – while acknowledging the flaw in the caption – than to remove an image all together (especially in image sparse articles). After all, we know that the reconstructions have several to many flaws, we just don't know what they are at first. deBivort15:21, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Luckily, we have an abundance of hadrosaur images, so the only one that was left entirely "naked" was Secernosaurus. It was relatively easy to find replacements for the rest. But I'm tempted to say an article could have a slightly incorrect image, as long as it is the only one we have, until we can find replacements. In any case, I've restored most of the images that were removed, because they were not actually incorrect, per that paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
Whew, many thanks for cleaning up the mess I made. Will try not to perform wholesale overhauls like that under such ambiguous circumstances in the future. Albertonykus (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I made this attempt to fix it quickly, but does it look right? I've totally confused myself. [50]. Seems like the other leg is wrong now. Can you point me to a good example? deBivort23:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I think it's too drastic, you could move it just to the middle of the hand, like this[51] (roughly done here). The other hand looks fine. If you look at the footprints in figure 6[52], the hand isn't really turned so much. FunkMonk (talk) 06:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I agree that a slightly inaccurate depiction (particularly a museum specimen, whether it's an actual fossil or a cast) is much preferable to having no image at all. They should be marked in the captions as outdated, but there's no reason, IMO, to completely remove an image because of what appears to be a common problem found in many museum displays. Firsfron of Ronchester06:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It is quite puzzling how some museums have mounted their dinosaurs. As Mallison also pointed out for Plateosaurus, here's a Bactrosaurus where the radius and ulna do not only cross, but their connection to the wrist has been reversed![53] That is completely unknown in any animals, and is not just an outdated error, but a complete anatomical failure. FunkMonk (talk) 07:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Right, but if it's a choice between no image and an image where two bones incorrectly cross one another, I'm definitely in favor of retaining the image. Firsfron of Ronchester07:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Now we're on the issue of restoring hadrosaur hands, something just occurred to me which I have never seen addressed before. If the ancestral condition for archosaurs, and therefore dinosaurs (the condition is seen in theropods, ceratopsians, thyreophorans, sauropodomorphs, etc.), is to have clawless digit four and five on the hands, all restorations of hadrosaurs (disregarding the issue of whether the unguals were entirely covered in pads) with three hand claws would be wrong. If they had any hand claws, there would only be two, on digit two and three, since digit one, the thumb spike, was lost. The only artist I've seen restore it this way is Bob Bakker. FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm not clear on this and I haven't been able to figure it out from lit searchers (not that I have much lit on hadrosaurids unfortunately). I'm pretty sure I've read that footprint evidence shows three functional claws on the forelimb. Unless this is misinterpreted, it would probably mean that the claw was re-evolved or frame-shifted onto digit 4. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
It seems that even modern crocodiles have unguals on digit four and five, yet no external claw. The hadrosaur handprints I've seen just seem to show an elongated blob... In any case, such a fourht claw would had been very small:[54] Most restorations show all three at nearly equal size. FunkMonk (talk) 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Dinosaur spine flexibility
Exactly how flexible were Dinosaur's spines? I'd assume they would be mostly rigid, considering that Bird's spines are. But there is no specific guideline on the flexibility of their spines, have there been any studies trying to determine how much dinosaurs could move their spines? 50.195.51.9 (talk) 15:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
Well, in birds, most trunk vertebrae are fused together (sacrum and notarium), making the spine rigid. This is because birds don't like their spine bending downwards each time they make a wing beat. Non-avan dinosaurs usually don't fly, and most trunk vertebrae are free (moveable against each other). Its no problem to estimate the flexibility of the spine: the structures that limit flexibility are the articular processes (pre- and postzygapophyses), and by looking at these processes you will be able to draw conclusions about spine flexibility. However, some dinosaurs show additional features that make the spine more rigid, e.g. accessorary articular processes, ossified tendons, and stuff like that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on the article and to my surprise someone did hazard a full body image. Are such scant remains worth the bother? Or should we circumscribe the reconstructive efforts to what body parts have been reconstructed in the paper itself (in this case, the head)? --Dracontes (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, in any case, it seems to be tipping over. The uploader never posts his images here, and they usually have problems. I have no problem with hypothetical illustrations, as long as they don't have direct mistakes. But this one does. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Truly unique! Well, most images might stay accurate, as the feathers seem to only be on the head, neck, and forelimb, the regions that tend to be drawn with feathers. IJReiddiscuss22:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The images of Gojirasaurus, Tawa (dinosaur), Segisaurus, Camposaurus and others would be incorrect... Probably other primitive theropods would need feathers too. We can perhaps ask Tomopteryx to fix the Camposaurus, but the rest would have to be done by us. And by the way, Currie mentions in the interview that now not only one but four theropods with feathers are known form Dinosaur Park! FunkMonk (talk) 05:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Personally, I think the fossil in question looks like a compsognathid. It bares a particular resemblance to GMV 2124. So I'd wait for a publication before jumping all over this. That said, if you want me to change the Camposaurus I can. If this thing gets published and is a coelophysid then I'll more like just do a whole new image for the animal. Tomopteryx (talk) 10:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hindsight, I definitely think that is a compsognathid. Liaoning is nearly all Cretaceous deposits, and a coelophysoid from there would almost certainly cause a humungous ghost lineage. Also, coelophysoids tend to have longer snouts and flat skull roofs. IJReiddiscuss14:59, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Tend to doesn't mean always do, though; adaptation makes things look very different to others in their family. That, and there's already possible ginormous ghost lineages in theropods already (maniraptors, if Eshanosaurus is a therizinosaur) and the chances of fossilization is actually really low; so if it is a coelophysid, that merely means many coelophysid genera were around during the gap, but weren't fossilized. As for the specimen's identity, comparing the shape of the skull to both those of Coelophysis and Sinosauropteryx shows that the known elements have more similarities to the skull of Coelophysis than the skull of Sinosauropteryx; though it also seems to be slightly crushed, and a portion of the upper jaw is missing, so I'm not going to jump to the conclusion of "OMG CRETACEOUS COELOPHYSID" juuuust yet. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
When drawing to Lepidus, a friend gave me this link to the another discovery showing a ichnofossil of Eubrontes, showing that this had protofeathers [55]. --Levi bernardo (talk) 14:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Those Eubrontes were probably made by a dilophosaurid, and this has been covered on TetZoo. The identity of the marks as feathers has been questioned. [56]Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
There are several studies that relate to Eubrontes with coelophysoidea, here are three publications:
Harris et al., eds., 2006, The Triassic-Jurassic Terrestrial Transition. New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin 37. Milner ARC.
Harris JD, Lockley MG, Kirkland JI, Matthews NA (2009) Bird-Like Anatomy, Posture, and Behavior Revealed by an Early Jurassic Theropod Dinosaur Resting Trace. PLoS ONE 4(3): e4591.
Gierlinski 1997 What type of feathers could nonavian dinosaurs have, according to an Early Jurassic ichnological evidence from Massachussetts?. Przeglad Geologiezny. vol. 45. nr 4, 1997.
And Eubrontes is coelophysoidea for several reasons; Chronologically data especially in the upper Triassic to Jurassic, so basal Tetanurae Saurischia or discarded, was abundant at one with them and now comes a study that will try to show that their morphology is clearly coelophysoidea. --Levi bernardo (talk) 20:55, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Two Wikipedia images in Nature!
This figure is funny[57], they use a silhouette of my Aristosuchus for Dilong (which was based on the Coelurus skeletal by Jamie Headden), and Conty's silhouette of Dryptosaurus, though credited to T.M. Keesey (I guess because they found it on Phylopic?). So better upload some more images here! FunkMonk (talk) 01:55, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, my name is Midiaou Diallo. I usually specialize in either Paleoart or Speculative Evolution. I noticed the Wikipedia page for Troodon lacked any proper illustrations, thus I decided to make my own reconstruction of the animal. Two females playing in the snow. Scott Hartman's skeletal was used as a reference.The animals were given pseudo-beaks, hardened skin that has nearly fused scales, as true beaks aren't capable of overlapping teeth. This was done due to their close relationships with avians. Tongues were also given prongs towards the back, due to modern birds having odd integument placed on the tongues based on diet and size. Certain Troodontids, although possibly omnivorous, could possibly host said prongs (looking at you, eagles and herons).The claws are longer than in the skeletal due to them having keratin on them. Lighter color variation given due to winter season. Midiaou Diallo (talk)
Cool! Though I don't know much about the relevant climate, it looks anatomically correct to me. Hope to see more contributions, your gallery looks good! FunkMonk (talk) 23:22, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Now added to the paleobiology section. I moved the old restoration closer to the skeletal it was based on, which is kind of interesting to show, how the bones are fleshed out in a sense... Anyhow, feel free to post future works in progress on the "main" review page (this is only a talk page mainly used for discussing the review page itself). FunkMonk (talk) 23:40, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Cool. The easiest way would just be to make a Wikimedia Commons account and upload it directly there (so no one will doubt it is your image). FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
What to do about theropod lips
The theory about theropod lips[58] is sure to be treated like gospel (already is) once published, but will have wide ramifications if we "enforce" its findings. Personally, I'm not convinced (mole rats have exposed teeth covered in enamel[59], for example), as it only takes one exception to make their conclusion unreliable, and we need some confirmation from other researchers as well. Anyhow should we 1: Remove all restorations of dinosaurs without lips? 2: Only replace images that show exposed teeth if we have available replacements that show lips? 3: Use both until the theory has been dealt with by other researchers? I'm for 3... If 1 is chosen, this would logically extend to sabre-toothed mammals as well (or rather, all non-amphibious animals that have enamel covered teeth)... For the record, I of course believe that theropods could have had lips, I'm just not convinced that they should be depicted with lips. FunkMonk (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Dinosaur 'Lips' are going to be controversial until fossilized facial skin is preserved. I prefer lips for most theropods with the possible exception of spinosaurs, especially Spinosaurus. That said, I agree with option 3 for the time being, that we can include both. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
I think spinosaurs would be exempt due to their supposedly amphibious habits, according to that theory. But I think you'd need much more than just comparative anatomy to determine whether enamel needs hydration to exist... Experimental work, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
My reasons for Spinosaurus are actually to do this it's maxilla teeth, they jut out sideways at an angle. You can kind of see it in these pictures. [60][61][62] It's probably not impossible for soft tissues to cover them but I find it hard to imagine. It's teeth don't hang down vertically like most theropods which could theoretically just slide into a bottom lip, it would need a specialized lip structure to encase those teeth. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
Where do the lips go?
Makes me think of some pterosaurs as well. Didn't they have enamel covered teeth too? Some of those tooth configurations would be impossible to fully cover in lips... Not that I've ever heard anyone even suggest pterosaurs had lips? But that is a ramification of the theory; all teeth with enamel supposedly need hydration. FunkMonk (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
I was at the zoo a few weeks ago, and noticed that the canines of most of the Tasmanian devils there were poking out of the mouth of most individuals even when closed:[64] I wonder if that "hydration" paper will ever be accepted by a journal... FunkMonk (talk) 19:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
We should not rely on that paper at all. It has been stated by many paleontologists at many places that crocodilians do not have face scales, they have cracked keratin covering their face. So the "large flat scales" present according to this paper, and based entirely on crocodilians, is woefully incorrect. In addition the lacking of lips is only mentioned as impossible because theres no "room" for them between the "scales" and the tooth row, while "scales" could extend onto lips, and the attachments where lips would be are not covered. Luckily this paper is not published yet, so we can reasonably disregard it without worrying about OR. IJReiddiscuss22:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
They used the same kinds of bony landmarks that have for example been used for figuring out the facial integument of Pachyrhinosaurus. Though they may incorrectly use the word "scale", this doesn't itself invalidate the finding of the paper (which has been published in a peer-reviewed journal, not just this abstract). Whether these structures are called scales or cracks doesn't really change the fact that they exist on crocodiles, and could also exist on theropods. That said, it doesn't seem that either camp has a solid case at the moment, so I think it's a free-for-all until that pesky mummified theropod head is found... Though we might be more lucky with Burmese amber... Which leads me to this photo of a baby-bird of some sort in amber:[65] That's even more well-preserved than anything published so far, but I think it may be privately owned... FunkMonk (talk) 09:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Shortcut
I already brought this up on the image review page, but since many people use this page, it might be nice to have a shortcut. I have no idea about the rules for making shortcuts (not to mention if they even exist), so I will leave this up to other editors. Opinions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Inaccurate restorations published in CC-licensed journal articles
This is an issue I've been thinking about for a while, but the life restoration[66] in the recent, free Corythoraptor Nature paper made me want to bring it up here (it appears to lack primary feathers on the second finger, as would be present following phylogenetic bracketing). It happens depressingly often that peer-reviewed journal articles include life restorations that have anatomical inacuracies, at least in respect to what is the common consensus among the more life appearance-minded palaeontologists and palaeoartists. Wikipedia is always in dire need of free imagery, but sometimes these inaccurate images turn up in CC-licensed papers too, which means that even if we can legally use the images here, we may not want to do so, due to their apparent inaccuracies, which is of course an unfortunate dilemma.
In some cases, I have modified such journal images (like this Carnotaurus[67], by making the eyes smaller and removing the hand-claws), but such tampering could also seem like WP:original research; who are we to disagree with how an animal is depicted in a peer-reviewed paper, in images supposedly approved by the article's authors? This free restoration of Beibeilong also appears to show a pronated hand[68], but would be much harder to modify due to the style, but does this mean we shouldn't use it? Other images are so blatantly inaccurate that we probably can't use them for anything, for example these pachycephalosaur restorations[69] which don't even seem to match skeletal elements of the animals they are supposed to depict, in addition to other errors... So what to do? Scrap images even if they have minor errors? Is modification of such images "original research"? Any thoughts are welcome... FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I feel that it's okay to modify official reconstructions as long as there is no specific justification in the body of the paper for the way the reconstruction is made. See also Scott Hartman's commentary on schematic vs realistic skeletal reconstructions. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
We often need size charts and restorations for various articles that people are working on expanding, but it occurred to me that it would be rather hard to request a specific image being made. We do have an old "most wanted images"[71] section at the almost forgotten "signup sheet" page, but I think few people have it watchlisted or even kow about it, and requests placed there have been hanging for years now. So I was thinking that maybe we should use the review page, since this is what most people watch anyway. This worked when I requested a scale chart during the Stegoceras restoration review, for example.[72] A request for an image could be added to the list just like an image for review, but it could just be titled "Request: Somethingsaurus size chart" or "Request: Somethingsaurus life restoration" to differentiate from restoration reviews. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
We never had a description of what this page was for, so I added a little intro, including the possibility of "requests", with this edit:[73]FunkMonk (talk) 02:57, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Approved Images Category
Category:Approved dinosaur images does not seem to be used, unless we only have 6 accurate images. Should we start using it again, or possibly create a reviewed paleoart template on Commons, just not do anything, or do something completely different? (It seems like now would be a good time to make these descisions, as WP:DINO is having a bit of a remodeling!) --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Since you can follow the links for pretty much every reviewed image back to this review page if you click on them, I think the category is a redundant left-over... Especially since images that are inaccurate are now tagged as such on Commons, so we already have an exclusion method... FunkMonk (talk) 23:59, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, here is an interesting article about restoration advice given to Julius Csotonyi by Royal Tyrrell Museum researchers:[74] Look at the notes on the images, reminiscent of the stuff you'd see on our review page, and seems even the "pros" get stuff wrong at first iteration... FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Acta Palaeontologica Polonica
I don't know if this has been discussed before, but I noticed that articles on Acta Palaeontologica Polonica are released under CC BY 4.0 [75]. Surely that means we can use images from them freely here? So long as it's properly attributed etc... or am I missing something? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
Colouring and removing background from preexisting images
OriginalEdited
I've come across plenty of times where people have taken current life restorations, and edited them to remove the background, or add colour, and then uploading them as a new file. I'm pinging users specifically involved MariomassoneSteveoc 86Tomopteryx just to name the ones I can remember. I think we should try to create a policy on such occassions, such as requesting to the original author for an update to colour or remove an off-white background, or overwriting files instead of creating many duplicates (not all of which are accurate). IJReiddiscuss04:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Technically, the licence of a given image on Commons dictates what's allowed to be done with it. Only images that can be "remixed" or modified are allowed to be uploaded there. So permission ins't really needed, but one can always ask. FunkMonk (talk) 07:07, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
In my case, I'm doing it to illustrate cladograms, and thought that the original uploaders wouldn't have time to do so. Sorry if this has caused alarm. Mariomassone (talk) 07:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind if my images get cutout and coloured, so long as they don't introduce inaccuracies. I like to be informed just so I know if I update an illustration I might have to update other 'spin-offs' as well. I think that it's best if the duplicates serve a purpose; obviously, I think we should reduce the number of duplicates but I like what mariomassone is doing with the cladograms. I wouldn't want users just arbitrarily cropping and flipping if it wasn't adding anything of value. Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the colouration, maybe just dial them back so they look more natural; reduce the Saturation a little and maybe reduce the opacity of the overlay. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I do like consistency and standardizing. I like when things all face the same way, it pleases my OCD. ;) When placing an image in an article you can decide for example what side the image alignes to, or how big the thumbnail is using certain wiki codes; is there wiki code to flip and image without permanently changing the file? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
There is a MOS guideline at least that says the subject of an image should preferably face the text, so there is some use for flipped images in that regard. But I'm pretty sure there's no automatic way to flip images... Also note, when Carnotaurus was on the main page, one of the admins actually uploaded a flipped version[77] of one of the restorations to be displayed there... FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
On this note, the pose was originally more standard running pose, as you can see in the earlier version of the file I just restored:[78] Maybe I should revert back to the old version? Anyhow, feel free to use the old version and flip it if you want, Mariomassone, then we have both anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Nice the old version wasn't made in vain after all! I reposed many illustrations a while back (to differentiate them more from the skeletal diagrams I based them on), but in hindsight, some of the new poses are a bit too "unusual" to show the animals properly... FunkMonk (talk) 00:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Recently the number of images being made has boomed, which is nice to see, but it does present problems. For example, User:Lusotitan posted the Rajasaurus section 5 days ago, but it now is already 10 headings away from the current section for Cetiosauriscus. This can cause images to be forgotten about, leaving them in a gray region between approved and unfinished. Perhaps it would be a good idea to somehow indicate if an image still needs feedback? I'm not sure if this would actually fix the problem. Thoughts or suggestions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
{{Resolved}} or {{done}} is added to a section once whatever the issue was has been fixed in some pages.[79][80] Perhaps we could have something like "approved"... Then we will be able to see which images need more feedback/fixes, if they are not tagged. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Looking at the page of that template, it seems almost like
Being worked on
was made for this page! This would be pretty nice, as I am still working on my Megalosaurus skeletal, which is pretty far up... I think I'll go add that unless anyone strongly objects. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:53, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah probably should. Should we make it so that resolved sections get archived as well into their yearly page, to reduce the overall page size? Or shall we still wait until the end of the year to archive? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Good question... I have no strong opinion, though it is of course "easier" to just do it yearly... Images that aren't done by that time can of course stay. I usually archive according to when the last comment was made in a section. FunkMonk (talk) 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Ok, just wondering. I've also considered using the method that WP:RX does, to get ClueBot to automatically archive pages to a yearly archive once they are marked with a { {resolved} } or { {done} }. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
If it can be set up, it would be cool! Especially since the last few years, I've been the only one doing manual archiving... FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I have an idea how to set it up, I'll look a little more, then I'll add it. If it doesn't work I'll edit the page and remove the ClueBotIII template immediately ... IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, hope consolidating it with the old archives won't be too difficult... And by the way, this talk page itself could maybe also need archiving... FunkMonk (talk) 00:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I think that archiving right away might not necessarily be a good thing, as sometimes we go back to an older section and make further edits there. If everythin was archived immediately after it was done, then we would have to keep adding sections and make a lot of clutter. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:46, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
There may be a point in that, for example I went back to Fred's Centrosaurus restoration long after it was approved because Mark Witton made a blog post about facial scales, couldn't have done that easily if it was archived immediately... FunkMonk (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
(Outdent) A bot would be a difficult thing to code, but you can try. The bot archived the wrong sections before because the {{done}} or {{resolved}} tags need to be within the section, and apparently the section header doesn't count. For now, either the sections are archived after a tag is added, or after a year without comments or tagging passes. I could help write the code for a bot if wanted, to collapse all sections tagged with {{done}}IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Alternately, we can scrap auto-archiving/collapsing altogether, and just manually collapse sections when we add {{done}} to the section header. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Wait a minute, ClueBot just archived everything, but I'm not yet done with Megalosaurus, Scolosaurus, Omeisaurus, the other Megalosaurus, and I'm still waiting to have my Quilmesaurus get final approval. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Yeah I stopped the darn beast. Either it archives stuff into the wrong year or it archives the oldest discussions. I removed the template. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Do people think that we should archive this page here? I can add the archival template to test (should cause fewer issues than on the review page). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I've added it in, if it archives everything, revert and change the |age= to 2360. Tag anything you think can be closed, and if should be archived. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:40, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
More problems with archives
The redesigning of the archives is certainly a bumpy path, and I have found another big problem. There is now a table with a file cabinet on top with a list of all the archives below it. If you click on one of them, you will find the problem pretty quickly -- it then shows a bunch of redlinks in the same spot, because it can't find archives of the archive. Does anyone know how to fix this, if it even can be fixed? --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
Since we've opened up to the idea of archiving right away, it has led to some changes, and I would like to bring up something that's kind of bugging me. The 2017 archive has been built up gradually, so it is out of order (for example my Pentaceratops section comes before my Omeisaurus section, even though they did not come in this order). I was wondering if it would be okay to fix this, and what other people thought. Sorry to bring up so much stuff, but I guess that's what happens when major changes to a process are made... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Go ahead and fix it if you want. I think this is a first-time thing because its the first year we've had over 100 images reviewed (hurray), so we have had to archive them before the year end in order for a reasonably-sized main page. Feel free to reorder the archives if you want. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, this is of course a consequence of archiving after an image has "passed", and not chronologically. Not sure what can be done about it. As for the many images under review this year, I wonder if this page has been advertised on Deviantart or something, since so many new artists are showing up? FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
The only artist submitting here that I know personally is DaCaTaraptor, the others (Fanboyphilosipher, Atlantis etc) I don't know how they came here. However, I don't think their arrival is a bad thing, we just need to figure out a better archival system, perhaps we go back to the half-year archives from long ago? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I posted some images here in that monstrous section I added, that may have helped get at least some of the authors aware that this page exists. It's good to get more contributors, perhaps we will get even more images this year... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Notice on revisions deletion
Just so people aren't as alarmed as I was, the revisions containing the image of the featherless Tyrannosaurus model were deleted, because the image was deleted and the user vanished. Not sure why, but it happened, so I'm letting people know. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:37, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Silhouettes and Cladograms
Currently we have been flipping life restorations to face this way --> and addded them to cladograms. However, we have a nice picture for Deltadromeus, but its feet are obscured. Would it be okay to use the silhouette from the size comparison I created and use that instead of a life restoration? If so, then that may help our "mission" a bit. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:55, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I don't think we should use life restorations that aren't in straight lateral view, because if the point is to compare the taxa it doesn't work because of the difference in perspective. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
Uploaded and added it. Here's a sample of how it looks:
Oh, FunkMonk, we actually do have a silhouette repository: [82]. It could useneeds some expansion and more accurate images. (This comment is only here on the cladogram to avoid formatting problems with the images.)
Yeah. I think somewhere it was mentioned one silhouette per family would be good, maybe start with that. Sauropods and ornithischians need them more than theropods. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Since Deltadromeus came up, I'd like to chip in I feel silhouettes/restorations on cladograms should only be used when the taxon is reasonably well known. The idea, I would think, would be for quick and easy comparisons to relatives and showing variation in different parts of the tree. If that variation is based on guesswork (ex. someone comparing [[Limusaurus] to Deltadromeus), then this is perhaps misleading, as there's no context of how much of the species is actually known, unlike the respective articles. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
In such cases, they could be made as ambiguous/generic as possible. No giant fantasy crests for Deltadromeus, for example.. FunkMonk (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
But why use an image at all for such taxa? Given Deltadromeus a head at all, for example, is implying important knowledge we don't have. That's fine on its own page, but for cladogram pictures, it seems counter-intuitive. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:21, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
The body of Deltadromeus is fairly well-known, so it is similar to most sauropods, where I don't think anyone would argue we can't restore them if we don't know the head. But something with an ambiguous phylogenetic position and known from bones that don't tell us anything about the body shape, such as Tachiraptor or Camarillasaurus, I'd agree, we wouldn't have anything proper to show. FunkMonk (talk) 17:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
A Problem with the image review page
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I've noticed a glaring issue with the project page that I realized a while ago but never mentioned it up until now. It's amazing to see so many new dinosaur images for articles being uploaded by tons of people, especially in the past few months. However... At the moment we have 33 sections for images currently under review. And from what I've noticed, with every new section added the ones previous get forgotten and aren't discussed about for weeks or months even. It also doesn't help that some of these sections are either quite long or they include galleries of almost if not over 50 images; It's practically a traffic jam in there. Not to mention a lot of them are just a few minor fixes from being approved for articles, which is kind of frustrating to look at.
At first I thought we could limit the number of reviews that could be going on at a time, although that would just cause congestion of a different type and might discourage people from submitting pictures so it's probably a bad idea.
Does anyone have any efficient ideas for how to solve this? Perhaps collapsing them or categorizing them so that we don't just automatically scroll down to the last few ones? I'd like to see this issue resolved, Thanks. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)00:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I think collapsing them would just serve to hide them even more so nothing would get done. Best thing we could do is have some sort of focused elimination drive where we all add comments from top to bottom to images we have something to say about so they can be archived, and tagged as inaccurate or added to an article. Some sections have the problem that they are still supposedly being worked on. Also, not that we should do anything about it, but some people only add images but don't review, which also increases the backlog. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
One thing we could do is to archive sections that seem to have stalled. The artists can always just make a new section when they get to updating their images. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I looked around the Image with comment templates category, and found this
Yeah, in the end, it's up to the individual artists themselves to keep track on what they're working on. Not that we should archive stalled sections quickly, but if an artist hasn't responded for months, it is probably time to archive. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
I just archived a lot of sections that seemed to have been stalled or completed. We also need to remember to tag inaccurate images with the tags, a few were left untagged even though they were decided to be inaccurate. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
PeerJ Paleontology Section Cover Image
Thought that you guys might like to know that Lady of Hat's Nanshiungosaurus life restoration is now the cover image of PeerJ's paleontology section[83]! Nice to see one of our images in a scientific journal! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
Interesting, I think Farke used one of her other images for another dinosaur website once... Yeah, see upper left:[84] I've seen Wikipedia paleoart pop up many weird places... So this is one of the more respectable venues, hehe. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
Not really dinosaur-related, but since we're on the topic of Wikipedia images in weird places, I found this[88] tumblr post noting (rather humourously) how similar my Sawfish tooth comparison looks to some... inappropriate objects. I had someone on instagram comment the same thing about it on my post. Does it really look like that? If so, I can change the color scheme. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:37, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Ouch, if you scroll down, Cryolophosaurus is also shown instead...Why did they choose the two pictures in the articles that show different genera? I'll try to ping Adam Cuerden, who seems to have edited the page. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Yikes, Cryolophosaurus?! Sinosaurus I can understand (the whole D. sinensis deal), but I am curious as to how Cryolophosaurus got in there as Dilophosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I would guess it is because the skeletal mount image of Sinosaurus is on the Dilophosaurus article, don't remember if the Cryolophosaurus is as well. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:31, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Both are, but they're clearly captioned as something else. I guess this should be brought up on the signpost talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 14:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
I take full responsibility. The Signpost newsroom moves at high velocity when it's close to publishing and insufficient care was taken in selecting images for the featured content illustrations. Hey, if anybody wants to help out, there are lots of openings. Anyway, thanks for pointing out the error. If we have more dinosaurs in the future, I'll ask for help. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for fixing, Bri. Usually, such mistakes can be avoided by looking at the captions or file names. FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks good and certainly has differences from Hartman's and Paul's so I'd say go for it. Might wanna crop out the text though. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Archives need splitting
It appears the 2018 archive for the image review page has grown far too large (at least for what my computer can handle). Every time I try to open it, the page freezes and only loads a quarter of the way down. Could somebody be kind enough to split it by sets of months or something? As was done with the older archives? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Doesn't freeze for me, I think it would be a bit of a hassle splitting already archived pages, but maybe we can make a new archive page for the rest of the year. FunkMonk (talk) 22:45, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, just tried it again and it's working fine now. But I'd still go with that idea of yours. After a while, giant archives like those are annoying to navigate and edit, sometimes slowing down or freezing your browser. The good news is that means a lot of images have been reviewed this year, I haven't been around here for all that long but it looks to me like there's more submissions on this page now than ever. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼00:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I don't know about everyone else, I just found this page by chance! But it does seem like we're gonna end up with 200+ sections by the end of the year (!), and based on the sudden growth that's occurred just during the time that I joined (man, was that really less than 2 years ago?), I predict that we'll get even more next year, so we may want to consider following what was done in 2006, with monthly/seasonal archives. We're at 160 sections now (with the new Tsintaosaurus review). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:23, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
By contrast, 2012-2013 had so little that it could be combined into one archive[92], which is shorter than the 2018 archive for the year so far. But yeah, if anyone is up for splitting, feel free to go ahead. Personally I think monthly is a bit too little, but whoever does it gets to decide. FunkMonk (talk) 14:16, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
The split is done, I divided it by three archives of four months each. The pages are still quite large, but certainly more manageable I think than before. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼16:23, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
These art review pages are getting a bit out of control lately, so maybe we should have some delegates that routinely archive processed reviews, like they do at WP:FAC. Any volunteers? FunkMonk (talk) 07:43, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I think instead of archiving once a review is completed, like we did for a bit (and took way to much effort). Perhaps around once a month we archive all completed reviews. I will probably create a new archive for the later 2018 sections (based on months) and I'll add the ld sections to it, but I think I'll be more likely to occassionally help out instead of be the regular archiver. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:54, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I just looked for sections to archive, but one problem seems to be that sections go stale, and therefore can't be considered completed... People should perhaps be encouraged to go back and finish those entries... FunkMonk (talk) 00:49, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea. Also, if someone wants to continue wiht an old work, they cna just make a new section if the old one has been archived. We need to put everything that hasn't been approved into the inaccurate categories, though, which we often forget... FunkMonk (talk) 13:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Is there a way to change the file type (I can go into GIMP and convert an XCF to a PNG, does an equivalent exist for 3d models?)? Didn't know that 3d PDFs didn't work here, but that explains why lots of people don't like them... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
There was some discussion of which 3D models that work here:[95] Should probably be possibly to open 3D pdfs in some 3D programme and export the models to a suitable format, but I don't know what programme that would be... FunkMonk (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Brachiosaurus Project
[96] I've not posted anything for quite awhile, because I'm working on this, have a cold, and have been incredibly busy in real life (the first reason is the only one I enjoy ;) ). The thing I've been working on is a Brachiosaurus skeletal, and above is the completed Bigfoot pes. I'm not sure about how some of the bones should be oriented, so I used my best guesses and Hartman skeletals as a guide. I've started on the holotype specimen (I may have to rely on Taylor's skeletal, since I can't find references for D9, D11, and the ribs, or lateral views for the humerus and femur. I posted this here since it's going to take awhile to do and I don't want to clog up the main review page. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:45, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
I have the first three dorsals articulated and uncrushed: [97], in addition to D10 & D12 (still not sure where to find the remaining dorsals. Has my attempted de-crushing been successful? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Is there a paper that states the uncrushed vertebrae looked like that? I'm a bit hesitant to assume the bones are crushed, because they still articulate with each other. But if its published then it should be fine. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:32, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Since the frontal views of the centra seem to be kind of distorted ([98]), I thought that they needed to be de-crushed (also, I unfortunately have no clue as to how to de-crush things in the first place). Here are my resources:
For the OK Metacarpal, BYU Cervicals, holotype humerus, femur, and remaining dorsals, and other Felch Quarry skull parts, I'm relying on the Taylor skeletal and whatever random Brachiosaurus pics I can find on SV-POW. I've completed the caudals and am working on the sacrum currently. I'll post a link to another image once I've finished with the detailed figs in the Taylor paper. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Here are all of the holotype's bones: [100]. White is based on the big figures in the Taylor paper, blue is based on the skeletal in the Taylor paper, and green is based on SV-POW. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:23, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Potter Creek material now. Is the scale bar in Fig. 4 of this paper 1 meter long? Also, is it known how much of the illium is restored and how much of it is original? Also, do any lateral views of the humerus and ulna exist? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
It's almost impossible to know whats real or not, because Jensen restored the bones *before* describing the material. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Here's my current progress: [101]. Same color key as before, with these additions: red="Ultrasauros" yellow="Potter Creek" cyan="OK Metacarpal" violet="Bigfoot". Additionally, I have the Jensen/Jensen rib, Potter Creek Metacarpal, and posterior BYU cervical drawn out, but not scaled. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:56, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Return of Wikipedia restorations in unexpected places
Thought it'd be interesting to note that I recently found out (by YouTube comment[102]) that my Ichthyovenator restoration has been used in a game ([103][104][105]). I don't play Roblox, but it was pretty cool to see my design used in another form of media like that! They could've given me credit though, at least for the coloration. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼01:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Aww, seems they used the version from before I completed the row of spikes... I also saw Bogdanov's old Spinosaurus image (where I had fixed the pronated hand) in a store next to North African spinosaur teeth they were selling... FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Here is a video by the Natural History Museum in London which uses a bunch of Wikipedia images, unfortunately also a few inaccurate ones:[106]FunkMonk (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear, hahaha, it's pretty cool they use them for motion graphics! I see a blurry version of my old Appalachiosaurus in there, one of the first drawings I did for Wikipedia, if not the first... They even use the old, outdated Charles R, Knight Tylosaurus, yikes... FunkMonk (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
Haha, weird, but then again, it is based very closely on Jaime Headden's skeletal, though with a Limusaurus head... FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
2019 Archives
Yes, archives again... before we start archiving things from 2019, I think that we should discuss how we're going to do it. Should we do it by year, third of the year, or month? Also, since we're well into February, perhaps we should start thinking about archiving some of the January stuff. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:21, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps Winter, Spring, Summer, and Fall archives?
Hmm... how are we going to do winter, since January and February are located at the start of the year and December is located at the end of the year? Otherwise, it does seem like seasonal's are best bet. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Considering how most December sections have fallen into 2019 just because of time they took, I think seasonal is good. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
review of most-wanted illustrations
I realize that the list of "most-wanted illustrations" on the main Project page is kind of arbitrary, and I'm running out of dinosaurs I can see myself that need more images. Where should I start looking to find the most important pages to create images for? Currently I've been going through the lists of articles by class and working on the highest-class ones without images, but I don't know if that's the best thing to do... Audrey.m.horn (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I'm baffled by the current wave of vandalism on this page, which should be fairly obscure by site-wide standards (I'm not pointing fingers, though I'm tempted to do so in light of recent events)... Perhaps a few days of protection would serve to dissuade whoever's responsible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:57, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
It should be pointed out that this set of IP's isn't just vandalizing here (they inserted gibberish into some archives, at WP:PALEOART, broke the taxobox at Aeolosaurus, and vandalized several of the description pages of my images on Commons). However, this page does seem to be their primary focus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:01, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
For priorities sake I've requested for page protection for here, but banning IP's should probably begin, to save even the archives from this shit. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:06, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Just so we're all on the same page, do we think the Ip user is Bubblesorg? If that's the case wouldn't it be best to get an admin to Checkuser? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
WP:PALEOART's being attacked with more frequency, and several image pages are getting vandalized, too (they're mostly mine). The fact that this vandal's using multiple IP adresses is making it very difficult to stop them. Is there a way to somehow get all of them banned in one shot? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
They are also vandalising articles and talk pages. I don't have much experience with reporting, though, maybe someone else does? FunkMonk (talk) 22:47, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
If we're dealing with a vandal using either multiple IPs or a morphing IP, we should petition WP:Requests for page protection and have this and the other target pages semi-protected. And we could also petition individual admins to range-block the vandals if they're using a specific range of IPs, too, if it's that bad.--Mr Fink (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
There's not really a reason to not have the page permanently semi protected, for up to a year. As there is no real reason for ip users to contribute here. Sorry for the colourful revert edit descriptions, I just got very bored having to tediously revert seven edits in a row Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
It's a serious problem, so we really should have the pages semi-protected for a long while, at minimum, a month. That way, if it's just some vandal with a new hobby, it will get bored and move onto something more constructive with its time. If the vandalism resumes as soon as the semi-protection expires, then we know it's a bigger problem, and should react accordingly.Mr Fink (talk) 00:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The archives should be permanently semi-protected, there's no reason for people to edit them at all. I suspect that the vandal is someone who was or is a user. possibly someone like User:Lapitavenator, as this is a really obscure part of the encyclopedia for someone to just randomly find. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I've already requested for blocking this IP, so other steps can probably be taken in the interim. Additionally, I have rollback rights so I can rollback multiple edits with a single click if needed. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
I don't seen why the block should be 72 hours, clearly this user was back after 3 days of semi-protection last time. Given the relentless vandalism from multiple Ip adresses, the block should've been permanent. The semi-protection of the main page should be at least a month long, if not indefinite. Hemiauchenia (talk) 09:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Backlog on the paleoart image review and merger proposal
Forgive me for posting this discussion here rather than the paleo image review talk page, but I've noticed that there is a significant backlog on that page, and very little discussion going on in general. I bring this up here because I think it may be wise to merge the paleo and dino image review pages together, to bring more attention to the non-dino imagery. I've also started the discussion here because no one has looked at the paleo image review talk page for months, and I would like active discourse on this topic. I think combining the two pages into one (or at least allowing non-dino art to be discussed here) would be healthy for the projects and the artists. I know quite a few good artists who have been disappointed in Wikipedia because their art is ignored on the review page after we direct them to it. What does everyone else think of this idea? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:09, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think that would only make the backlog even longer, since even more entries would be on the same page (which is a reason why the general paleo review page was started to begin with). Not sure how it would help? The main problem for me is that the long pages make it hard to get an overview, and merging certainly doesn't change that. I think a much more effective way to go about is more effective archival. If we say, archive something after a month or less, then each page will have a faster turnover. The underlying problem is of course that someone has to do the archiving. I've done it yearly for several years straight on both pages, but I can't do most of the work alone anymore (there are much more entries now, so the task is simply too overwhelming), so others have to step in, and we would have to do it much more often anyway. As a start, it would probably be good for people who submit images for review to archive them themselves once they have been answered, or have some kind of moderators/coordinators do it. Or better yet, we all take a jab at it once we see a review looks done or has stalled. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
And see also this older discussion[113] where slow archival was also pointed out as the problem leading to long pages, which resulted in a short lived faster archival scheme that seems to have died because, well, someone's gotta do it. Maybe we simply need a bot to do it if a section doesn't get responses after a month? FunkMonk (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I should clarify that I am not arguing for an immediate merger of the pages, backlog and all. Instead, I am proposing that the best option would be to take care of the current backlogs first, after which the two review pages could be merged so that the images get more discussion and are archived quicker, preventing another potential backlog. I'm also not confident that a bot would be effective, because it would not distinguish between resolved discussions (where the image has been approved or definitively rejected) and unresolved ones (where it has not been approved but may be after a few tweaks). If an unresolved discussion is prematurely closed and someone eventually needs to open it again, then that would require another section and even more backlog. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
That still leaves the main problem, though; who will do this quicker archiving? We need some kind of maintainable system for that in place first, because we'll need that whether we merge or not. And why would a merged page necessarily lead to more discussions? If you look at the archives, there were lively discussions on both pages until some years ago (the dino review always had more entries, though). I think the main reason why we don't see that anymore is the sheer size of those pages, which will only be longer after a merge. FunkMonk (talk) 00:01, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
If I knew wikibots I could help, but I don't. I did do some of the bulk archiving earlier, and I was planning to the rest of 2019 stuff starting in december, but I can always just cut the flab out of the pages now. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
And yes this most recent one was a ridiculously large archival for a single go. If I removed anything people wanted, just add a new section. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}02:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate all of your efforts to trim the backlog. The only reason I haven't done so is because I was not sure I was qualified. Nevertheless, there is still an issue of a lack of attentiveness to resolving many discussions so that they are suitable for archiving. That's the fundamental problem I was hoping to solve by placing the non-dino paleoart in a more well-traveled area, the dinosaur art review page. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the backlog, would it be a good idea to have a more organized way of indicating whether a conclusion has been reached? As it stands, it seems that a lot of discussions peter out without a clear conclusion. Like, perhaps people should be encouraged to state whether they support or oppose the inclusion of an image, and if multiple people support it and all objections are addressed, the discussion can be considered closed and moved to the archive. If the backlog issue can be satisfactorily addressed, I support the uniting of the paleoart and dinosaur art review pages. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Oppose merge, support faster archiving - if the problem is that sections are overlooked, we need to figure out what the cause is. It would appear the main problem is long pages, but I don't see any compelling reason given for how making them even longer (by merging two review pages that functioned rather effectively for years until now) would solve this problem. The solution is faster archiving of stalled/finished entries, so that the pages will be shorter and easier to get an overview of. That is the same conclusion that has been reached at various points at WP:Featured Article Candidates, where there is also a problem of long nominee lists that lead to older entries being forgotten. A support/oppose system could work, but only if enough people vote for each entry, which leads us back to the root problem again. I also think that pretty much the same editors have both review pages watchlisted already, but we probably have more experts on dinosaur anatomy than general animal anatomy around, which leads to more stalling on the palaeo page, giving the impression that it is overlooked. I often see entries there where I don't know what to say because I don't know much about invertebrate anatomy, etc (I can't be the only one). If we placed them in the same review page as dinosaurs, you can be sure they will drown in dinosaurs and be even more overlooked. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe that some kind of support/oppose system could at least help, by making it clear which ones can definitely safely be archived. It'd still leave at least a few that don't get voted on, but those could just be handled the way things are currently handled. Maybe rather than support/oppose, it should be accept/revise/reject? Ornithopsis (talk) 19:32, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, we should probably be more liberal with handing out the "inaccurate palaoart" tag on Commons to prevent images being used if they are not corrected. But I think the general "grading" idea is good, we just need fitting terminology. FunkMonk (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm glad that this discussion is taking place, at this point we're moving towards a better solution than a merger, based on the arguments you all have outlined. I also think that Ornithopsis's accept/revise/reject system would useful, where we wait until several editors clearly state that they approve or disapprove of a piece of art before it gets archived. If it's not too obtrusive, maybe we can formulate a system where we send out an open invitation for review whenever a new piece of unreviewed art is posted. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
A little note, I've made sure when I archive sections to tag images who were had unresolved points as inaccurate, or left the sections up if editors might still revisit them. At the end of this archive tho (December) I'm planning to put everything in the archives unless it is currently in review, accurate or not, regardless of editor. Basically clean the page out entirely. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I've been expanding Segnosaurus lately, so I was searching for photos of the fossils and stumbled on images of this life-sized puppet[114][115] that is apparently walking around in the UK. Am I kidding myself, or is it based on my ten year old Wikipedia restoration down to the colouration and pattern of feathers and skin? The image was also on a bootleg poster[116] of Wikipedia images that was sold outside a Walking With Dinosaurs show years ago, so maybe there's a connection... FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I think given it's the #1 image result for Segnosaurus, I think it's pretty likely they took at least some inspiration from your image. Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery after all. It's always nice to see the impact our work has on the wider world. At least it includes feathers, as most of the other top search result images show an outdated scaly look. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hehe, that also means I have to take responsibility for that overly scaled head (that pattern is also extremely close in the puppet, which is a give away)... But hey, it was 2008... Too bad they didn't include the beak. I'm thinking of giving it an overhaul, but I wonder if scaly heads are completely out of the question? FunkMonk (talk) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Just goes to show the importance of making sure Wikipedia's reconstructions are accurate and to try to avoid starting anything that could become an especially outlandish art meme... As for the scaly head, it certainly isn't wrong, I'd say, but neither is it likely. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I certainly wouldn't have made the head that scaly today. And another inaccuracy that might be traced back to the drawing, the puppet only has three forwards facing toes, though therizinosaurs had four. In the drawing, I drew it so that one toe on each foot is hidden/overlapped by other toes, but it looks like there are only three toes... I think I'll make the fourth visible to leave out any doubt. FunkMonk (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
The Olorotitan in question.Wouldn't be the first or last time something like this has happened. It was recently discovered that Dmitry Bogdanov's Olorotitan restoration was similarly used as the basis of various large animatronics from China. Oddly, many interpreted the crest as something akin to a ceratopsian frill [117]Monsieur X (talk) 03:56, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, there was an Ampelosaurus toy based on his restoration too[118], the funny thing is it has since been modified so extensively that you wouldn't be able to make the connection anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Guideline to level of speculation?
We have had some cases where some user-made restoration went into All Yesterdays style WP:original research, or showed abnormal animals (such as albinos), or only the heads of animals when only the body is known, etc. I wonder whether we should have some guidelines along with the ones we have already on anatomy that advise against some of this, and to what level we should speculate, given that our purpose is to reflect published ideas, and to show what a typical animal might probably look like. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Some thoughts on injured animals: Certain specimens definitely show certain injuries (i. e. broken finger in Dilophosaurus, infected toe in Allosaurus, bitten face in Sinraptor, horn-induced puncture wounds in Triceratops, battered tail in Edmontosaurus) so these would definitely be okay to include. Some injuries, like face biting-induced ones, would probably be acceptable in species where they're not known as they are pretty widespread. However, showing, say, Tenontosaurus with an amputated tail would be unacceptable, as this is an excessive and unknown mutilation that greatly detracts from what is known about the animal. Giving animals elaborate speculative soft tissues is problematic as it suggests that we have hard evidence of this (not to mention that it can produce images alarmingly reminiscent of Peters' wierd skeletals). I'd reccommend avoiding too many depections of swimming dinosaurs unless it's been suggested for a group (i.e. Spinosauridae) or is based on trackways, as it may appear to reinforce outdated ideas. I'd definitely avoid drawing only unknown regions of dinosaurs, after all, remember what happened for Deinocheirus and (twice for) Spinosaurus! Also, for example, doing a head-only restoration for Diplodocus would reinforce the misconception that we have definite skulls for it. Sorry for such a long comment. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Some very good points there (long comment warranted), and in the examples you mention, they all have in common that we have evidence for these sorts of injuries/behaviours, and a typical tyrannosaur may probably not even have had a squeaky clean, smooth face (based on their common bite marks), just like certain whales almost always have their heads covered with crustaceans. I'll try to write some possible guidelines down once we get some more views. FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I think that there should be a hard rule against speculative pathologies and other 'unusual' traits, with the only allowable depictions thereof being if there's a reliable source specifically indicating a particular pathology was widespread in a population or clade or depictions of specific individuals with known pathologies or other unusual traits. That seems most in the spirit of Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines, IMO. Furthermore, within those categories of allowable depictions, we should consider whether it's useful to include the depiction: for instance, if we only have one life reconstruction in an article, it really should be a typical individual, not a pathological or otherwise unusual one. Also, I think we need to enforce the phylogenetic bracket rules more strongly—"it's speculative!" shouldn't be enough of a reason on its own to include a feature totally unsupported by both known anatomy and the phylogenetic bracket. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:01, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
I see no issue with minimal pathologies or unusual traits that do not detract from the overall appearance of the animal. Scratches and minor scars are almost guaranteed throughout life, we have examples of osteoarthritis etc that would limit joint motion, filaments on taxa that are unlikely to have full body feathers (most ornithischians, basal theropods etc) are fine. I would draw the line at injuries that are prominent and life-threatening (broken fingers okay but broken limbs no) unless they are known from fossils (like "Labrosaurus"' jaw). Display tissue should be avoided, but some known display features (ceratopsian frills, theropod tail fans) can have more variation. Depictions should be realistic, but don't have to be "perfected". IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}19:58, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
How about: "Images should not speculate far beyond what has been indicated by reliably published sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features and behaviours should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues." This could also be relevant for WP:PALEOART. FunkMonk (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
Sounds good, the only objectionable thing that I can think of about it is that "far" is subjective (I can't think of a better alternative, though). I do wonder if the All Yesterdays movement may have gone too far recently in some ways. And I strongly agree with Ornithopsis that "it's speculative!" is insufficient justification of novel features. Adding it to the paleoart review page is also a good idea. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 11:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
How about "unnecessarily"? I think it would be subjective either way, unless we are really harsh, and then we couldn't add any speculative colour or integument at all, which would be going too far... For example, there is no evidence of iguana like spikes on the backs of theropods, but they are often depicted with them. FunkMonk (talk) 19:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, "unnecessarily" sounds good (I agree that subjectivity is unavoidable). (To go even further, we have no hard evidence that Argentinosaurus had skin, eyeballs, or even a head, but there's good reason to speculate that it did :) ). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I know you're being somewhat facetious, but there is an obvious and meaningful distinction between "not directly attested but unambiguously supported by all available indirect evidence" and actual speculation, and it doesn't do any good to equivocate the two. Regarding the example of iguana-like spikes on theropods, their presence is ambiguously suggested by phylogenetic bracketing (a type II inference), as both ornithischians and sauropods have examples of species with such structures, and the theropod Carnotaurus appears to have ossified such scales. As far as speculation goes, I think we should be careful to follow what is allowed by the phylogenetic bracket (i.e. only type I and II inferences) except in cases where we have reliable sources suggesting otherwise or in cases where such speculation is unavoidable due to the constraints of the artistic medium (for instance, we have to speculate on color patterns for the vast majority of dinosaurs in order to be able to depict them in color illustrations at all). As far as my point about pathologies earlier, I think the rule should be no obvious and prominent pathologies or developmental abnormalities unless the illustration is meant to be a specific individual with known pathologies or there is a reliable source indicating the pathology was widespread within the species or clade. Minor scars and such which would be common in any wild animal are fine. Overall we need to keep in mind that we're illustrating an encyclopedia, not exhibiting our art. Ornithopsis (talk) 22:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
How about "Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy." FunkMonk (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
I mostly like this wording, but I also agree with Ornithopsis that "overly speculative" should be rigorously defined in terms of the phylogenetic bracket (and type I/II inferences, if not too opaque). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The problem is phylogenetic bracketing is either still subjective, or what we use for everything already. For example, the ancestral condition of dinosaur feathers is currently rejected, but the presence of a single triassic feathered taxon in any of the main clades of dinosaurs or just outside would mean ancestral feathers are far more likely than a lack of them (see rauhut and foth book or barrett twitter convo). So in this case we can follow what we know now, or follow preexisting educated guesses. That choice is still subjective. Most aspects of phylogenetic bracketing are not that controversial, but the non-controversial stuff is already clear cut for us to handle. Where there is controversy, introducing an unneeded middleman in the form of potential phylogenetic bracketing can cause more problems and drive away potential artists. If there's nothing that makes it inaccurate beyond doubt, and potential inaccuracies are subjective even in literature, I see no reason to reject art we need. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:03, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Also, the whole issue with lips shows the limits of phylogenetic bracketing (birds, crocs), and that subjective choices have to be made in any case. "Speculative" here is not meant only in terms of physical features, so I think specifying phylogenetic bracketing would go too much into detail for this paragrapgh, since many of the more specific points already on the page do go into more detail about bracketing. FunkMonk (talk) 06:12, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If we're going to go against the phylogenetic bracket, we had better have a reliable source indicating that doing so is justified, is all I'm saying. On the issue of lips, not only are there sources out there supporting their presence in dinosaurs, I would argue that the phylogenetic bracket is actually ambiguous (for instance, how do we know the beak doesn't incorporate lip tissue? There are no teeth to be covered, after all). So lips aren't an example of the kind of problem I'm talking about here. The phylogenetic bracket for filaments is also ambiguous. Pterosaurs are filamentous, ornithischians are ambiguous, theropods are ambiguous, sauropods are scaly. If the phylogenetic bracket unambiguously rejects particular anatomy, there had better be a good reason for including it. Yes, this rule is already present, but it's often ignored, so I think it needs more emphasis. As for what to include in the guidelines, I'm pretty much ok with what you've suggested, FunkMonk, although I'd suggest adding a reminder that Wikipedia's mission is to create an informative encyclopedia, not to showcase paleoart. No matter how artistically interesting a piece of paleoart is, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia if it fails to effectively illustrate what the organism in question is likely to have looked like (or acted like, etc.) unless it has historical value. Perhaps phrased more diplomatically than that. Ornithopsis (talk) 09:17, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Maybe by adding something like the following to the above: "Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork." FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Interesting to know about the "iguana spikes," I never realized that before. I think that we've had to say the latest addendum more than once before during a review, so making it more prominent may save some repetition. (Also, while we're on the topic of modifying the criteria, "Othnielia rex" should probably be changed to Nanosaurus agilis. Then again, why this and Megalosaurus in the first place? It seems kind of random.) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I noticed that on the main project page (WP:DINO), it is stated "Please consider submitting new images for peer review at the WikiProject Dinosaurs Image Review" - this makes it sound like it's optional. I'm wondering if this should perhaps be changed to "New images should be submitted for review at WikiProject Dinosaurs Image Review" to make it less ambiguous? However, some things, like photographs of fossils, don't get sent through and honestly probably don't need to in most cases. Skeletal diagrams, size charts, life restorations, anatomy diagrams, and the like all do need to get approved (by us or the peer-reviews reviewing the literature) before added to articles. I'm not sure exactly how to elegantly (and diplomatically) phrase this - any ideas? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
What about something like "amateur paleoart, diagrams and skeletals must be submitted for review at WikiProject Dinosaurs Image Review prior to being added to articles" Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I think we should restrict it to user-made restorations, but make for example restorations from journals and photos of skeletons and models in museums optional. FunkMonk (talk) 22:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
I think that could be added, but maybe worded more concisely? I added the suggestions I made earlier to the guidelines, maybe oddly placed?[119]FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Vidal et al. 2020 Sauropod posture
Something to be aware off, a new paper (creative commons) on sauropod posture in Spinophorosaurus with implications for other sauropod restorations. [120][121]. Basically the tail is interpreted as coming off the sacrum roughly horizontal to the ground, which combined with a lower scapular position makes for steeper sauropods. Hartman had started doing something similar to his hadrosaurs a few years back. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah talking with vidal on twitter there seem to be two-ish correlates for posture, the first caudal being strictly horizontal and the head of the scapula being anterior to all dorsal ribs with the sternum ventral to all ribs. This is going to mean quite a few updates to non-macronarian eusauropods, the macronarians seem to survive because most reconstructions already have these two traits. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}21:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I guess I'll have to go through and update all my dicraeosaurid skeletals... and Diplodocus... and rebbachisaurids... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Most of the sauropods I've done here are shown from oblique angles, so the position of their backs are not very apparent, so might be ok (the same is true for most of our skeletal mount photos). But this Opisthocoelicaudia is shown in profile[122], I wonder if its back is raised enough?. FunkMonk (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that this research would have a drastic effect on Opisthocoelicaudia, Hartman's current version can be seen here [123], it looks like the scapula is about right. My only concern is that there is no 'wedging' on the sacrum, if there is meant to be wedging, this would have an effect on the angle of the base of the tail. I'd have to research into this more and see if there are better images of the sacrum to know whether this is wrong in the skeletal, not preserved, or Opisthocoelicaudia is just an odd one. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh, I never saw Hartman's skeletal before, but luckily it doesn't look too far off. I guess Opistho was an early example of a sauropod getting the steep treatment, and I based the pose on that 2007 study:[124]FunkMonk (talk) 14:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Dicraeosaurus got a boost
Here's the new D. hansemanni - it's... weird. Dicraeosaurids seem to be outliers in humerus/femur proportions though... Does this look okay? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Did you take into account the fact that the dorsal vertebrae are wedged so that the dorsals curve downward somewhat in Dicraeosaurus? Yours doesn't look quite as curved as Vidal et al. seem to indicate in Fig. 3. As for the humerus-femur proportions, dicraeosaurid proportions are perfectly typical of diplodocoids in general in that regard. I also note that the chest looks a little shallow to me and you seem to have not included the pectoral muscles in the silhouette. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
Seems we might wait a bit before going completely onboard with this then, as there are already a bunch of caveats showing up. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I also want to point out that Scott Hartman himself has said that most of his non-diplodocoid skeletals already effectively took the sacral wedging into account to some degree, and since his style is widely mimicked I suspect many people have already taken it into account subconsciously somewhat. To some extent, this paper is just quantifying the artistic shift from droopy retro sauropods to a more modern look that's already occurred. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I've noticed that it's pretty common for the artist of a life restoration to be credited in a caption of an image (i.e. "Life restoration by First Last"), sometimes with a year. While I can see why we might want to do this with someone like Charles Knight or Julius Cstonyi, I'm wondering what we think about doing it for amateurs. The author information can be found just by clicking on the image, so this would seem to render it unnecessary. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it should only be done for very notable artists, it's not really about credit, but to put the images in a wider context. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Vandalism... Again
The protection on this page has expired, and the previous IP from Ontario is back. They also vandalized several images on Commons a bit earlier: [127]. Should we request page protection again? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
So yet again we have a gigantic backlog, and both here and at WP:PALEOART the main problem for me at least is that it's hard to figure out which sections to archive, because often an artist stops responding after a while, even though corrections have been promised, or reviewers stop replying, leaving nominators unsure of what to do. What to do with such cases? Just tag the images as inaccurate and archive them? Because the current situation is kind of untenable. FunkMonk (talk) 18:52, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Since we aren't supposed to edit archives, wouldn't just posting a new section be better? Perhaps some indication of continuation could be added in these cases? Also, what should we do with an image if its section gets archived with no feedback? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:47, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Personally I've "resurrected" an archived section once because I didn't even notice it had been archived. I think we can make our own rules in that regard, as this review page is unlike anything else on Wikipedia, but in regular articles it is discouraged to edit archived sections. FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Haven't been able to edit much recently due to everyday work and life, but my 2cents is more or less that I archive when something is concluded to either be inaccurate without a response for >3months or deemed accurate. Sometimes things are archived too early but I don't really see an issue with copy-pasting the archived section back (and removing it from the archive). On a similar note my Spinophorosaurus will be making a return soon at least in a preliminary form. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:27, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
I think Kevmin's automatic archiving at WP:paleoart has been a success, perhaps we should implement it here? I'm not sure we can easily consolidate the old yearly/monthly system with that of the archive bot (as was done at paleoart), so maybe we just need to let it start from scratch with a new archive 1. FunkMonk (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I tried to implement it, but with the current setup, it seems very difficult to make it fit... Because the old manual archives are in a template, and I assume the bot can't be set up to archive elsewhere than the talk page itself. SO we would need to add the new archives above or below the template somehow... FunkMonk (talk) 11:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
I don't have the expertise to figure out bots or how they function, it may be because the bot is trying to archive from the namespace instead of talkspace. Would be better off asking someone who actually knows how the archival process works instead of just learned from trial and error of copying other peoples like I did. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}05:11, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@FunkMonk: There was an error in the archive bot code, it did not have the prefix "Wikipedia:" for the target archive page, within the settings for the bot. Hopefully, it will work for you now. Funandtrvl (talk) 01:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Invitation to participate in research to understand how you work with media
Greetings everyone!
If you work with media files — either regularly or occasionally — we want to invite you to join a research session to help us understand this process and the challenges you face during it. To participate, we ask that you first complete this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.
You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.
This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.
I have some images of mounts and fossils from the CMNH that I can upload (in particular, I'd like to replace this awful image...) but I just realized that I don't actually know what our policy is on museum images. Does freedom of panorama apply? I have intentionally tried to avoid photographing murals and sculptures. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:25, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Fossils are not copyrightable, so that should be fine. There may be an issue with heavily restored skeletons, as there is some art in that, but those parts could fall under de minimis (or that's what I always try to convince admins if it is brought up, hehe). FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
In addition, I think that publishing such photos is hugely beneficial for the museums themselves. People primarily go a museum to see the original of what they already know/have seen before. If there wouldn't be any pictures of the Mona Lisa available, then I bet that much less people would go to the museum to see it. Unfortunately, not every museum understands this! I think that mentioning the museum in the image captions in the Wikipedia articles (which we usually do) is a good precautionary measure, and interesting for the readers as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The US has no freedom of panorama laws. De minimis only applies to objects in a photo which are clearly not the main focus, not the case in this instance. There is only 1 court case I'm aware concerning the copyright of fossil casts Black Hills Institute v Fort Peck Paleontology Inc. where Fort Peck made exact copies of Black Hills' Stan and Sue casts. Verdict favored Black Hills because fossils are often incomplete and disarticulated, and require artistic and technical skills to reassemble, making the final product an original and copyrightable work. So, there is legal precedent for the copyright of casts, fossil reconstructions, and skeletal reconstructions User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk16:55, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, so if for example only parts of a skeleton are reconstructed, and a photo shows the entire skeleton, you can't say any one of those reconstructed parts, say, a skull or the feet, is the main focus, and de minimis applies. That is very different from selling casts commercially. FunkMonk (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
No, even the reassembly of a complete skeleton from disarticulated pieces may be subject to copyright, because they included not just inferences of what incomplete bones would like, but how all the bones connect with each other as artistic work. They seem to be defining a reconstructed skeleton as an original sculpture, best outlined in points 18, 19, and 20 User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk17:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
But it is a very specific case, about casts and specific mounts in particular, not photos of them. I'm not sure I see how it would apply to photos in practice. It is the same for taxidermy, which is possibly even more artistic, but I haven't seen anyone restricting photos of such. I'm sure there must be some Commons discussion of this. FunkMonk (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This is the closest I can find:[128] It would appear to depend on to what extent a specific mount is copyrightable. Sue's skull is a sculpt I believe, so there is considerable artistic input. But if we do want some final word on this, it would have to be brought up and discussed on Commons. But I still don't think we can apply the verdict about cast copying to photos. FunkMonk (talk) 17:15, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
The quotes from the courts are of the opinion it has to do with how realistic or detailed the mounts are. Here, we can demonstrate that at least Sue and Stan are protected by copyright, and by extension we can't be sharing any derivative works without Black Hills' permission, but I seriously doubt any organization's gonna enforce that User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk17:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think it depends on a number of factors that are not covered by the court case, for example, unreconstructed parts of the skeletons simply aren't art. If we assume Stan's skull isn't reconstructed, a photo of it would not be affected. And we do have photos of Sue's original, unreconstructed skull. Even if a cast isn't allowed to be copied and sold, I don't see how people would be prevented from releasing photos of it. Also, we do have photos of Stan casts in European countries with freedom of panorama at least. But I think it's a pretty unexplored area copyright wise, with no clear answers. And I think we can be lax about it here unless specific cases are brought up by supposed copyright owners. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I just did a Google image search for the new genus Brighstoneus to see what it looked like, and was pretty surprised to say the least that one of the main results[129] is a version in The Sun of my old Camptosaurus Wikipedia illustration (uncredited, of course) with the head of Brighstoneus badly photoshopped on it, and placed on a modern photo of a beach full of people?! FunkMonk (talk) 07:39, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems that more often than not, images added for review are found to be inaccurate, but then archived without the inaccuracy tags being added, and therefore hard to identify again. So at least if you put up an image someone else made for review, remember to tag it as inaccurate if it is deemed as such and doesn't get fixed... FunkMonk (talk) 23:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
I like image review as a resource, but it should not be a requirement
Deleting image submissions because they have not been reviewed on this page is absurd, and constitutes an unknowable rule. Images should be reviewed like any other edit, i.e., on their merit. John.Conway (talk) 16:48, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
All paleontology editors here would tend to agree, but we have had problems with the wider Wikipedia community which has pretty strict conceptions of what constitutes WP:original research. It came to a point where some non-paleo editors even demanded that no user-made images should be allowed, and after various heated discussions (examples:[130][131][132][133]), we came to the compromise that review and sourcing in image descriptions should be required. So taken to the extreme, we could end up with no user-made paleoart here at all if we didn't budge a bit. Also note that no images are downright deleted on these grounds, only removed from article-space until they have been reviewed (and sometimes not even removed). FunkMonk (talk) 17:01, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what to say except this is dumb, and stupid rules like this are completely ruining wikipedia editing. There is no way I'm going to escalate this to the top, so that's that then. John.Conway (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Just chipping in to agree with John. Contributing to Wikipedia takes time and effort that I could be fruitfully investing elsewhere. I'm happy to to that when it has some positive effect, but if what I contribute just gets tossed out, why would I bother? Well. I wouldn't. MichaelPTaylor (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
We agree that it is quite nasty, but as FunkMonk mentioned our hands are kind of tied here. Luckily the review process generally doesn't take long, and it does help to improve the quality of the images we feature. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:15, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
We once tried to argue that WP:pertinence applies to user-made paleoart, but it was not enough for everyone. Again, no one in the paleo projects disagrees with this, Wikipedia is just pretty rigid when it comes to sourcing, and that's the framework we have to work within. But in any case, I don't see how that's much different from regular journal peer review? FunkMonk (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
To add to this, the reconstruction was removed (as stated in the edit summary) because it was problematic. Valid concerns were raised at WP:DINOART and it has since been reuploaded. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 18:33, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, didn't see what this was really about until now, uh, the hand is upside down, guys. That's a pretty legitimate concern, no? This and other issues with the skeletal are getting improved as we speak, thanks to the review process. FunkMonk (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Much better, and that's what the review page is for, to iron out such issues before images go to article-space and potentially mislead readers. So while it may seem like one has to jump through a lot of hoops, that's not the point at all. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
The fact that other editors require us to have this image review process shouldn't be too much of a problem, as images that don't pass review generally wouldn't be ones we would want to include in articles regardless. In fact, the Bolong skeletal in question is a good example of why the image review process is valuable, as the image has several significant inaccuracies that might have taken some time to catch otherwise. Ornithopsis (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Whether that is the conclusion you take away from this conversation is up to you. My point is that, if the image review process had been properly followed in the first place, we would have been able to go over the problems with your Bolong skeletal before it was uploaded to the article and, hopefully, improved it. If you had been unwilling to improve it, we would not have been able to use the image because of those problems, but so far you have made some significant progress on improving it and in the end it may end up as a valuable addition to the page. Ornithopsis (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Resolved
Being worked on
Resolved
Found in the Morrison Formation.
Stale
Yes I agree with this, merging the two feeds seems like a good idea if there's no attention on the wikiproject paleontology feed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:31, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
![[2]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AmpelosaurusDB.jpg){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Probactrosaurus_v3.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Edmontosaurusskel.jpg){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Anabisetia_saldiviai_copia.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:BarsboldiaDB.jpg){kind=link}
![[11]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/835/screenshot20130106at618.png/){kind=link}
![[12]](http://oi47.tinypic.com/2j4prgp.jpg){kind=link}
![[14]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bactrosaurus.JPG){kind=link}
![[15]](http://archosaurmusings.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/img_9489.jpg){kind=link}
![[21]](http://d29jd5m3t61t9.cloudfront.net/dinosaurhome.com/images/fbfiles/images/spino_eyes2.JPG){kind=link}
![[22]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/bKp3aQnGHHk/maxresdefault.jpg){kind=link}
![[23]](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d5/a2/d8/d5a2d8d4233a00f1c11691eb7e73d320.jpg){kind=link}
![[25]](http://www.skynews.com.au/content/dam/skynews/news/national/tas/2017/07/18/skynews_738383422.jpg/_jcr_content/renditions/skynews.img.1200.1006.jpeg){kind=link}
![[26]](http://i.imgur.com/vfCscjB.jpg){kind=link}
![[28]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carnotaurus.png){kind=link}
![[29]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Reconstruction_of_Beibeilong_embryo_in_ovo.jpg){kind=link}
![[30]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Pachycephalosauridae_head_butting.png){kind=link}
.png){kind=link}
![[38]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Indosuchus.jpg){kind=link}
![[96]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-GFjDYuihSzA/XB0k8BR4xcI/AAAAAAAAAew/f3mWVY5XRTYihID6RKeJBvk4lHMKn5BawCLcBGAs/s1600/Brach-Bigfoot1.png){kind=link}
![[97]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-jJmrmHrFpcQ/XB1Q2YBUK3I/AAAAAAAAAe8/_NQ8FW0t6RkKRS1IYXafrms2zDdpP4SZACLcBGAs/s1600/Brach-Holotype-AntD1.png){kind=link}
![[98]](http://www.miketaylor.org.uk/dino/brachio/images/figures/Taylor-SVP-Brachiosaurus-fig1-dorsals-R3.jpeg){kind=link}
![[99]](https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-vF-KoF63gTs/XB-1uXmwbhI/AAAAAAAAAfM/lFcUmn9plaIogqhfYKT5-WI8Gq3wNQMBQCLcBGAs/s1600/Brach-Holotype-Verts1.png){kind=link}
![[100]](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_V-3donNGBQ/XCO4D7FTSnI/AAAAAAAAAfc/iKo1hh_rWb0L9cTfJ7qLDpJXDadQrAbCACLcBGAs/s1600/Brachiosaurus-altithorax-holotype-complete.png){kind=link}
![[101]](https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-akPhMqmmcz4/XCfP0QrvMYI/AAAAAAAAAfo/DLgCQnatR98vLD7rE3YhYU9r96dfmTKUACLcBGAs/s1600/Brachiosaurus-Selected-Remains-01.png){kind=link}
![[116]](https://i.imgur.com/7CXwkn7.jpg){kind=link}
![[122]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Opisthocoelicaudia.jpg){kind=link}
![[124]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Opisthocoelicaudia_posture.svg){kind=link}
