Talk:Deinocheirus

Old stuff

None of these images have the appropriate copyright status -- they may have to be removed. John.Conway 18:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The footnotes are a bit messed up. This needs the attention of somebody with technical expertise on footnotes. Das Baz, aka Erudil 19:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Das Baz (talk • contribs) Not "unsigned" at all. It was properly signed. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:56, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Dryptosaur

Is it possible that Deinocheirius is a dryptosaur? Like Appalachiosaurus and Dryptosaurus. I haven't seen a good picture of the original bones, but I have seen a model skeleton of a dryptosaur, and the arms are really long —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 23:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Haven't seen that proposed before. Dryptosaurids are generally thought to be primitive tyrannosaurs. The arms of Deinocheirus closely resemble ornithomimids (equal-length fingers, etc.), though it's also been proposed that they were related to therizinosaurs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Claws and Diet

Major theories:

• Claws were used to slash termite nests (Similar to modern Anteaters today) (Meaning it was an inscectivore)
• Claws were used to strip leaves off trees (Similar to the extinct Ground sloths) (Meaning it was a herbivore)
• Maybe all of the above (Meaning it was an omnivore)
• Claws were for defense
• Claws were used to slash prey or SLAY (Not very supported) (Meaning it was a carnivore)
• Maybe all of the above (DEFINITLY a omnivore)

Any suggestions? --Sneaky Oviraptor18^{talk edits tribute} 21:05, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Any sources for these? I know similar things have been proposed for therizinosaurs, when Barsbold considered Therizinosaurus to be a Deinocheirosaur (or vice versa? Have to pull out the papers), but how many have ever been proposed for Deinocheirus itself? Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:09, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, as much as I love Lambert, I have to say that I'm with Paul on this one.69.138.110.253 (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)Adam69.138.110.253 (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Therizinosaur?

I think it look more like Therizinosaur than ornithomimosaurian... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bella7790 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Therizinosaur claws are usually a lot longer. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

What about a giant compsognathid like sinocalliopteryx ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Longfinmako (talk • contribs) 22:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Unlikely, the arms resemble maniraptors more then a compsognathid, not to mention members of the Compsognathidae are last seen in the Early Cretaceous (more precisely, 108 mya), while Deinocheirus only appeared 70 mya, so unless there's a large ghost lineage of compsognathids that become ornithomimosaurian in arm design, it's more likely Deinocheirus is a ornithomimosaur then giant compsognathid. Though Funky, I would note not all therizinosaur claws are Therizinosaurus-proportion. Remember Nanshiungosaurus? --Raptormimus456 (talk) 18:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Deinocheridae

Is it still valid or is it within ornothimimidae? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 19:44, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Deinocheiridae looks to be valid (as a grouping of Deinocheirus, Beishanlong and Garudimimus, from the new material seen at SVP 2013). It also seems to be a sail-backed ornithomimosaur, too, so overall it was much weirder then we thought it was. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

New remains

Though they are not scientifically published, this should be enough for here: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/11/131104-dinosaur-hands-arms-body-mongolia/ I will edit the restoration once skeletals are released. FunkMonk (talk) 07:12, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

• OH MY DOG! http://www.infomongolia.com/ct/ci/7787 FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Saurolophus

It's certainly not a lambeosaurine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 17:26, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

That is most certainly true, but what does this have to do with Deinocheirus?--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the article somewhere; I can't be bothered to look through the article again, might have been removed.142.176.114.76 (talk) 22:36, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Description of hump?

I can't seem to find anything in the article that suggests a hump. Someone mind adding a brief blab with citation? Because I know the hump is present. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 04:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there has been no science published on it yet, we only know of it from "unofficial" sources, with pretty much no description. It will probably take years from now before it reaches the scientific literature. FunkMonk (talk) 04:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it mentioned in the recent article on the repatriation of the skull and foot? Newspaper articles at least pass the test of verifiability for a short blurb. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It was mentioned in the Switek article that is already cited, but for some reason that part wasn't added here, so I did just today. No real description though, just a mention. FunkMonk (talk) 11:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Took much less time than I thought.[1][2] But wow, almost no feathers on their restoration:[3] I will change our restoration, but keep the feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

right claws or left claws?

The article mentions that "both forelimbs excluding the right claws" were found in the holotype specimen, but the photos make it look like the *left* claws are missing. Is that right? Oconnor663 (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The describing article indicates the right claws as missing. The left claws were not found articulated, so it's possible that they were later re-identified. Alternatively, a mistake was made when the pictured mount was made :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

New information:

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-29729412

Date of naming

The article coining Deinocheirus (and Deinocheiridae) is marked as having been published in 1969 both on its own pages and on the journal website. However, the publication is currently marked here (and on many other websites) as 1970. What is the case? Albertonykus (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, it is usual to indicate the actual date of publication, i.e. when the magazine was distributed. This also determines priority. Often the "issue" of a certain month is only printed and posted many months later. Apparently, in this case it took place in 1970. At the time it was clear to all what the correct date was and it has been traditioned ever since. There are many such cases.--MWAK (talk) 20:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Deinocheirus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Deinocheirus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "holtz2004":

• From Tyrannosauroidea: Holtz, Thomas R. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; & Osmólska, Halszka (eds.). (ed.). The Dinosauria (Second ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 0-520-24209-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• From Alioramus: Holtz, Thomas R. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; & Osmólska, Halszka (eds.) (ed.). The Dinosauria (Second ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 0-520-24209-2. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• From Tyrannosaurus: Holtz, Thomas R., Jr. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In David B. Weishampel, Peter Dodson and Halszka Osmólska (ed.). The dinosauria. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 111–136. ISBN 0-520-24209-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Tarbosaurus: Holtz, Thomas R. (2004). "Tyrannosauroidea". In Weishampel, David B.; Dodson, Peter; & Osmólska, Halszka (eds.) (ed.). The Dinosauria (Second ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 124. ISBN 0-520-24209-2. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)

Reference named "hurumsabath2003":

• From Tyrannosaurus: Hurum, Jørn H.; Sabath, Karol (2003). "Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 48 (2): 161–190. Retrieved October 8, 2008.
• From Tarbosaurus: Hurum, Jørn H. (2003). "Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared" (PDF). Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 48 (2): 161–190. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• From Alioramus: Hurum, Jørn H. (2003). "Giant theropod dinosaurs from Asia and North America: Skulls of Tarbosaurus bataar and Tyrannosaurus rex compared". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica. 48 (2): 161–190. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 22:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

FAC stuff

IJReid, since this talk page is so short, we can probably talk about FAC stuff here anyway, and everyone is of course welcome to chime in. First iffy thing I noticed (apart from all the obviously outdated stuff, which means everything has to be rewritten) is that some sections, mainly description, go too much into issues that should be relegated to the history section. Stuff about how and when something was discovered does not belong there, description should simply be a description of the animal. I think I'll write what I can find about the skull, just to set the tone. Then there's the issue of taxobox image. I personally like the current one, since it's the holotype, which gave it its name, but the hands seem to be mounted inaccurately. Some mounted casts look better in that regard, but the photos just don't look so good. Also, thanks to Dinoguy2 for the updated size comparison! FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

• It seems the new description is quite preliminary, and that a larger paper will be published at a later date, just like with Spinosaurus. So I'm not sure if working on this for FAC may be premature? But then again, even Nigersaurus, which is now an FA, never seemed to get a very thorough description. FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I think the initial paper should be enough to get a non-technical description done. Fine details of the skull bones and comparative anatomy wouldn't really go in a popular encyclopedia article anyway. Stating that the head is toothless with a long snout, flat beak, and robust lower jaw, for example, should be enough for our purposes. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright. On that note, in this podcast[4], Darren Naish mentioned undescribed material that will make Deinocheirus even weirder. Anyone have an inkling of what this could be? FunkMonk (talk) 11:58, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

May have been the upcoming study on its brain size and structure that was presented at SVP. Albertonykus (talk) 22:01, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, then it probably won't change too much. By the way, seems several others are editing, anyone interesting in joining the group effort? There is no limit for number of FAC nominators. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm in. Read the abstract, and it would not change any info, just provide a little more to the paleobiology section. IJReid (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Heh, I knew! And if those abstracts are available on the net, I'd say they count as published... Not peer reviewed yet, but probably won't change much by then. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

• I think we can make fairly detailed descriptions, as long as we "translate" everything into sentences that most people understand, without using overly complicated anatomical terms and such. Instead of dorsal, we just say above, back, or on top, etc. I've tried to make a somewhat simple, yet detailed, description of the skull. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. Are we going directly for FA, or will we nominate for GA first? I will try to start some minor copyediting in the anatomical information. I don't think there is much more from the 2014 description apart from the description of vertebrae, which I think is too technical to summarize efficiently, and isn't that interesting. Btw, there are applications for access to ScienceDirect through the Wiki Library, might be interesting. IJReid (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, I think that would be quite a bit immature. There is more in the sources we can add, and the structure of the text itself is still just slapped together (I haven't done much work yet, but will soon, when I get myself together). And it definitely needs a GAN first. We need to summarise all relevant info from the various sources. A lot of it needs rewriting and trimming asd well, and the lead is incomplete. My Christmas vacation just began, so I'll do some polish the upcoming days... Anatomical details are fine, as long as they are explained well, see Nigersaurus and Paraceratherium. Older dinosaur FAs seem to have very light descriptions, but the newer ones with more detail have been accepted as well during FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 00:13, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• Another issue which would hinder FAC right now is inconsistency in citation style. For example, we should not spell out the first names of authors, all books should have isbn13 numbers, and images should perhaps have alt text. We also need consistency in spelling, I've used British English, not sure what the rest is written in. By the way, forgot to mention that I saw the holotype back in 1998, when I was 11 years old. here's my crappy photo of it:[5] I think the current taxobox image is fine, there is some DML suggestion at least that it was able to pronate and supinate:[6] Has also been suggested for other ornithomimosaurs.[7] FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm using Canadian English. They're quite similar, so I don't think there will be an issue. IJReid (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, and nice fixes! When the issue below is fixed, I'll go through the rest of the article, and it'll probably be ready for GAN some time next week. I'll list it for copy edit before that, as it's always a long wait... FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

• MWAK, I understand the formulation in the paper may be a bit iffy, but I'm concerned the replacement text is a bit too far removed from the published source? I don't think it would be "kosher" at FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 02:14, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I overreacted. There are two mechanisms. In the standard one, in fact the usual cable bridge metaphor, the hindlimbs are the equivalent of a single pillar, extended to above by the "hump". From this pillar torso and tail are suspended by means of a complex ligament and muscle system. The weight of the abdomen pulls the vertebral column downwards, curving it. Therefore the vertical neural spines on top of the vertebrae fan out. This is counteracted by ligaments between those spines. The longer the spines, the stronger the ligaments, the better supported the abdomen. But Deinocheirus shows a possible second mechanism: perhaps transverse ligaments from the sides of the spines supported the ribs or perhaps even directly the abdomen. In that case each neural spine is the equivalent of a pillar. The second mechanism should be mentioned, of course. In view of the possible confusion between the two mechanism, I feel it is best to discard the, probably not very insightful, "cable bridge" metaphor entirely and simply explain what happens in both cases. The suggestion that the hindlimbs would be suspended (the Pinocchio model) should, charitably, be ignored :o) (I know, it might work through elastic energy).--MWAK (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Fine with me, do you think you could come up with and add a text that is based a bit more on the wording in the paper? Then I guess it would be ok, because it is allowed to "translate" scientific language for the layreader. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Can't be too difficult. I just keep it very general :o).--MWAK (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

I just found a photograph of the forelimbs in excavation, but I'm not certain if it can be uploaded. On the last page of the narrative of the expeditions [8] there is a photograph of the forelimbs in situ. Would these be uploadable under a cc license, or not? IJReid (talk) 18:14, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, that journal isn't free, you may be thinking of Acta Polonica etc... FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I added back the other photo of the holotype arms, since well, it's the holotype (which alone gives it more reason to be in the history section than any cast), it is a good photo with a human for scale, and it has also been used outside Wikipedia. The many images of the arm casts can be replaced over time, as we will hopefully get photos of other elements. Also, I removed some stuff not mentioned in the papers. Where does it specifically say anything about new terminology? And note that it does not use either the words sail or hump. Holtz mentions a "sail" once, so we can use that. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Some more ref issues: journal article titles should not be capitalised, only book titles. And why where the cite DOI templates removed? They make it much easier to edit refs. The lead needs expansion, but that should be done when the article itself is written. And MWAK, the Dutch article states the element under the skull here is a neural spine[9], is that correct? Doesn't appear symmetrical? I'm hoping for a GAN by the end of this week, but may not be ready by then. FunkMonk (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

You're too clever by half, Funkmonk ;o). Indeed it's not a spine but a skull. Next good question: what skull?--MWAK (talk) 07:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a Gallimimus skull. Based on the skull measurement in the article, the smaller skull would be around 640 mm long, which is would give the animal a length of about ~7m the only ornithomimosaurians to reach 7m are Beishanlong, which is known from no skull, and Gallimimus, which is known from many specimens including skulls. IJReid (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

That was my first thought too when I saw the picture: they put a Gallimimus skull in front of it for comparison. But that can't be true: e.g. the Gallimimus holotype, from an individual estimated by Mortimer at six metres length, has a skull only thirty-three centimetres long! Also the morphology is very different. A Gallimimus skull has a concave top profile and a pointed snout, not overly flattened. But the skull shown has clearly a convex profile and a flat, wide, snout. It looks like nothing so much as a juvenile Deinocheirus. Then I thought: "Nah, that can't be true. Surely they would have made that public. It must be some deformed spine, with the neural channel giving the false impression of eye sockets". But on second thought I can't see that as a plausible explanation, unless it's a spine that was prepared to look like a skull, on the presumption it really was one.--MWAK (talk) 07:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Juvenile could maybe be it, Darren Naish mentioned some unpublished stuff that will make Deinocheirus "even weirder" in one of his podcasts[10], and I don't think he refers to the brain study abstract, as the findings there don't really seem unexpected. And by the way, Reid, I don't think podcasts can be used as sources, especially not when as "informal" as the Tetzoo one... FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Journal titles lowercased. I placed the cite doi references in the article as template:cite doi is supposedly no longer supposed to be used. If you want, I can revert my edits, but I have a different way to add references to the article that makes them very easy to edit and modify. Also, on the 31st and 1, I will be away from the PC, so I won't be able to help out with stuff. IJReid (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, maybe my ref editing is a bit primitive, and it is also the part I like the least, hehe. As for the time around New Year, I won't be home either... By they way, the Holtz article cites an Ostrom article that seems important, as the first suggestion that this was an ornithomimosaur, could be nice to find it... FunkMonk (talk) 04:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

The german article for John Ostrom mentions it under his selected publications, and has its full title, which the Holtz article and everywhere else I find this is lacking. This leads me to believe that someone on the german wiki has somehow gotten access to it, as it's unlikely that they just remembered it being one of his publications. Full article is: Ostrom, J.H. (19712). "Carnivorous dinosaurs" in McGraw-Hill Yearbook of Science and Technology for 1971 1971: 176–179. Another shot to get the full article would be to email Thomas Holtz to see if you get get it from him, as to cite it he probably had to have access to it. IJReid (talk) 15:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a task for the resource request? And cripes, hadn't seen the supplemental material to the Natur epaper, will have to look over this for additional info... My vacation just ended, so writing will be a bit slower from now on, but it will be done... FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the last step now would be to expand the lead. I would have it done by now but I know from personal experience that I tend to put too much info in it. The Nature paper itself has been used up, and the supplementary info for it mostly talks about discovery (added), distinguishing characteristics, and complex skull, vertebral, and limb morphology (to technical for laymen, especially the vertebral). The lead can be completed before the copyedit I believe, and once both are finished, this might be real close to GA standards. Before the copyedit comes along, I will read through it to see if I myself would pass it (I will try to avoid bias). IJReid ^discuss 15:33, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

If you do the lead now, I can just tweak the parts that are too long afterwards. I'm sure it's ready for GAN now, but not really for FAC. Info is there, but the writing itself is not adequate in many places, and lacks cohesiveness because parts have been written by different people over the years (especially the history section). There's also some dramatic build-up needed, as mentioned below. When aiming for FAC, it is usually good to have it at almost FAC level before GAN, because then there won't be too much left to fix once it is nominated for FAC. FAC criteria also seem to becoming stricter, a lot of stuff was changed there recently, so it would not be a good idea to nominate prematurely. FunkMonk (talk) 16:38, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've now GA nominated the article, though I'm still rewriting the history section, and will expand the article a bit with supplementary info from the 2014 paper, as well as expanding the lead a bit. But there's one final thing that I'd like to add to the article, but can't really find much reference to; the holotype arms, as well as other important Mongolian specimens, have been on a traveling exhibit for something like 20 years, and has been shown all over the world (even in my tiny country). It appears the specimens have therefore been unavailable for study for long periods of time. Could be nice with some info on this, people may also wonder why our photos of the holotype are from Spain... Know anything about this, IJReid and MWAK? FunkMonk (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)\

Haven't found anything on it. The best I could find was in a pretend discussion on Dave Hone's blog, "R: Tish tish. No matter. Well, stout yeoman, how about the manus of Deinocheirus if you please. C: Ah! It’s been in a traveling exhibition, sir, for two weeks. Was expecting it back this morning." IJReid ^discuss 01:06, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Heheh, weird! Since it isn't scientific information, even the DML could be used in this case. We don't need peer review for basic facts... By the way, what paper are the coordinates for the holotype site found in? FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I found this, which seems like an ad, but all we have: http://www.dinocasts.com/prod_catalog3_exhibit.asp?ObjectId=24 FunkMonk (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

• Now the article should be pretty much done, all it needs is formatting of three new refs, and some proof-reading... FunkMonk (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The references are done, and I fixed some redundancies. IJReid ^discuss 03:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Coolio! Now I'm fixing the last part of the lead, and then all we can do is wait for the GA review... And proof-read, of course. Hopefully more free photos will turn up too... The only part I'm uncertain about is the palaeoecology section, because I don't have access to most of the sources used. Not that there's anything controversial there, I'm just not sure how accurately they reflect the sources used. FunkMonk (talk) 03:53, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, isn't the skull in Munich a cast, IJReid? The photo is from October last year, and it (the uncropped earlier version) has photos of the repatriation ceremony (that happened in May 2014) in the background. Furthermore, the original skull seems to be broken in the middle, this one seems to have no break. FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know, but I would presume so. IJReid ^discuss 14:52, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

• Seems it'll take at least a month for this to get copyedited. Should we just go ahead and nominate it? I'll write a FAC "blurb" so we'll be ready for action... FunkMonk (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Just note to withhold or at least note less on grammar/other simple text errors until the copyedit is complete, as I suspect that there will be quite a few things to change. IJReid ^discuss 01:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Size estimates in Description section?

Why do we have a whole, long paragraph about the history of attempts to estimate the size under Description? Surely this belongs in the History section, because all those previous efforts and estimates were rendered moot by the discovery of complete specimens. It may be interesting as a historical curiosity to see the kinds of numbers people got when we only had the arms to go on, but that's about the only relevance these obsolete studies have. Same for the stuff about previous speculation on diet before the skull was known. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned in an edit summary that I would trim it down to much less soon. Will do so this week (to one third of what it is now). I think history should be for history of fossil discoveries and naming, about the physical material, not biological research as such. Stuff about anatomy and biology should be in those sections, even "outdated" views, but only after the current views are outlined. See for example the description section at Paraceratherium. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

The difference here is that Paraceratherium is still not known from complete enough specimens to have definitive proportions, whereas Deinocheirus now is. I don't see any point in including old speculation when new data has made it obsolete. It doesn't really matter what anybody prior to 2014 wrote about any aspect of this animal other than the arms, all those hypotheses have either been supported or refuted by newer specimens with better data. For example, I don't see a section on Size on the article for Earth discussing direct measurements and also Ancient Greek estimates, because anything other than modern estimates are a historical footnote. Similarly, the 2010 Senter paper on estimating hip height is irrelevant, because we now have complete hind limbs and can measure hip height directly. While their speculation on the high browsing ability based on that height may still have some relevance (and was actually a slight overestimate, the new specimen is larger than the type and still well short of 3.6m), it is still of questionable use because it does not take into account anything about the skull morphology (which may or may not be inconsistent with high browsing). Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

It will be short, nothing like it is now. It will be a paragraph at most, perhaps even a single sentence. It doesn't really matter whether Greg Paul changed his mind from 1988 to 2012, it would simply read like "when only the arms were known, size estimates ranged from x to y, based on various lines of evidence". Now incorrect ideas about say, Tyrannosaurus scavenging, Microraptor flying, and Diplodocus posture, are explained in their paleobiology sections, not in their history sections, and I think that's the closest to what we have for precedents. We don't really have many other cases like this, where there's a kind of "before 2014, after 2014" situation (apart from Spinosaurus, of course). So what I'll attempt to do is to first explain the current knowledge, and then, briefly, what was known before that, in the same sections. But let me do it first, so you can see what I mean, then we can discuss it afterwards, and revert if necessary. What I've focused on now is to get new info into the article, next (after I rework the old description of the arms, which is still the only description it seems) is to trim the old stuff. FunkMonk (talk) 20:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll wait and see how it ends up. But I will also note that those aren't really comparable examples, because issues of paleobiology are always to some degree hypothetical and subject to new data. Going from "no data, but estimates based on relatives say x" to "data says y" is about as objective an update as you can get. The only way we would ever really need to completely throw out something from the paleobiology section to the history section would be if a living specimen turned up (or if new anatomical data completely overhauled speculations about diet, like a presumed carnivore was found to have grinding teeth). Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I cut out most of the size stuff. Yet now I'm a little puzzled about Greg Paul's 2 tonne estimate for an animal he thought to be ten metres long. Was it some kind of mistake? Now I'll trim some of the palaeobiology stuff, and tweak the arm description, history, and classification. FunkMonk (talk) 00:03, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I assume that in 2010 he decided to simply extrapolate from weight estimates of smaller Ornithomimosauria. He estimated the weight of a seven metres long Beishanlong at 550 kilogrammes. A ten metres long animal of the same proprortions would then be about four times as heavy and weigh two tonnes. In 1988 he had assumed the proportions must have been radically different and this earlier conjecture eventually turned out to be correct.

As regards older research: of course the entire frame of the article had to be changed from "mystery dinosaur" to "solved mystery dinosaur". However, the reader must still be able to understand it once was a mystery and that indeed its notability very largely is based on this. The older studies are precisely what we need to provide this insight. Furthermore, such research deserves to be mentioned somewhere on Wikipedia and if this article is not the place for it, what is? Let's not descend too much into the "biology textbook mode". On the other hand, from a technical point of view this taxon is obviously hughely interesting because it is so apomorphic. A pity that the authors failed to fully translate this in the short interpretation allowed to them by Nature...The supplement partly compensates for this.--MWAK (talk) 08:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole mystery/enigma angle and early confusion will be dealt with once I get to the history section (though in summarised form)... The short Holtz article underlines this much more than the Nature paper. FunkMonk (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Number of significant figures in mass estimate

I contend that the 6.358 tonne mass estimate from the Lee et al. paper represents false precision, and that according to normal practice in science, as well as the relevant Wikipedia guidelines, the value ought to be rounded to 6.4 tonnes. That represents a difference of about 0.7%. Fluctuations in weight of individual humans, as well as larger animals like elephants (a male African bush elephant weighs around 5.5 tonnes, similar to Deinocheirus), can easily exceed 1% on a daily basis, so reporting a mass estimate to 4 significant figures does't make sense. Lee et al. cite Benson et al. as the source of the estimate. But Benson et al. just have bone measurements in their supplementary material, "Dataset S1". Evidently the mass estimate came from those measurements and an equation.

Benson et al. give a series of mass estimates for other dinosaurs in Table 1; all of these are given to 2 significant figures, and when they talk about error in mass estimates they cite Campione & Evans. Campione & Evans discuss mass estimate accuracies extensively and talk about a "25% mean prediction error" for estimates from bone measurements; this is incorporated into their Table 6. For example, their Brachiosaurus mass estimate of 35780 kg, corresponds to a range of 26840-44730 kg. Unless we provide an uncertainty range for the Deinocheirus estimate, using 4 significant digits is very misleading. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Those are just that, guidelines, not rules. I really don't understand the urgency of this. As I mentioned here[11], this needs a wider discussion before mass changes are warranted. I have little interest in the issue, but again, the fact that edit wars are going on with various editors over this should indicate that it needs some discussion in a more general venue. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Only 2 editors have opposed rounding off mass estimates. I have discussed the subject with one of them, and he has modified his position on the subject. That leaves a single opposing editor, Christina1969 (and his sockpuppets). If you think starting a general discussion will help educate Christina1969, please do so. All interested parties to the disputes are or should be watching this talk page. At this point, Christina1969 has never once posted on his own talk page or any other talk page, despite multiple requests to do so, so I do not know how to engage this individual, although I will keep trying.

In general, however, rounding off estimates that are presented with false precision should not require a discussion; it is an elementary edit, like correcting grammar, that normally does not engender an edit war . WolfmanSF (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Christina1969 has now at least started to post on the Dreadnoughtus talk page. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Deinocheirus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Right, I'll take a look at this and jot notes below. Will try and give it as big a shove as possible towards FAC. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:59, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll notify co-nominator IJReid! FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

rather than say " is a genus of large ornithomimosaurian dinosaur", how about " is a genus of large ostrich dinosaur" - no loss of accuracy and much more accessible.

Alright, though it may become a problem if changed in the rest of the article, as we have to distinguish between ornithomimidae and ornithomimosauria, which can both be referred to this way... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

My thoughts are that this only needs to be used in the lead, as it is inviting to laymen and is slightly summarized from its full form. IJReid ^discuss 14:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps even have ornithomimisaurian in parenthesis after the term? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, my thoughts were change in lead only as more clarity needed elsewhere. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

....and a few other bones of this animal were first discovered... --> "of this animal" redundant.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

.. and Deinocheirus was long thought of as an enigmatic dinosaur. - clunky. How about, "its nature remained a mystery" or something along those lines.

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

The tail ended in pygostyle-like vertebrae, which indicates the presence of a fan of feathers. - "indicate" as vertebrae is plural?

Fixed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Nature (journal) should be italicised?

Done. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

which was to include the supposedly related genera Deinocheirus and Therizinosaurus - I'd add a footnote here (using the efn|1= format) to clarify current thoughts on their (distant) relationship

Added a bit to the article, since it turns out it actually had a bit of support subsequently, and was not just a dead end... FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Be good if one of the sources used the term convergent evolution, which could be slotted in, but no bother if not....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't, but the arms aren't really that similar, they're just big, which was apparently enough to group them together back then... The hands and claws are very different. FunkMonk (talk) 13:46, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

aaah ok - good point - nix that then. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Map template file to be noted on File:Map mn umnugobi aimag.png?

I think it's this[12], by the same author? FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

yeah looks like it - just worth noting (someone makes me do it for all mine...) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Linked it. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Spell out file source on File:Deinocheirus mirificus forelimb.png (not just link)

Done. IJReid ^discuss 05:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, meant write out citation of this article Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:57, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Got it now. IJReid ^discuss 15:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality:

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects:

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - tight and well-written article. I think it is within striking distance of FA. Good luck. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks, Casliber! I've submitted this for copyedit, but it will probably take a couple months before it reaches the top of the list. Do you think it could be nominated without copyedit? FunkMonk (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Deinocheirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.dinocasts.com/prod_catalog3_exhibit.asp?ObjectId=24

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Skeletal restoration

File:Deinocheirus skeleton.jpg

Skeletal

We have a new skeletal, made by bricksmashtv and posted on deviantart as CC-BY 3.0 (license is in bottom of right sidebar). I think this should be cropped and placed in the article, but I think this should be done by FunkMonk, as it was mostly you arranging the images. Most other new skeletals by bricksmash are also CC-BY 3.0, such as one of Chuandongocoelurus I already uploaded. IJReid ^discuss 05:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

As with quite a few other of this user's images[13], it seems to be a very close derivative of a copyrighted work:[14] So I think it counts as a copyright violation, and has to be deleted... FunkMonk (talk) 07:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Deinocheirus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/9c/9ce46057-c8cc-45f2-95ae-767eb679dafd.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://vertpaleo.org/PDFS/26/265d9fae-ea72-4f37-83e4-ec38a880abe8.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140512213648/http://www.infomongolia.com/ct/ci/7787 to http://www.infomongolia.com/ct/ci/7787

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:28, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean by messy?

FunkMonk, I understand the source might not be believable and I considered long enough whether I actually need to include this estimate, but I did because unlike some other estimations by the book (e.g. size based on braincase or illium which admittedly is unreliable), this was at least based on complete specimens. But what do you mean by messy? I've seen this type of writing in other articles (namely Dakoratpor and some other articles). Yes I thought about putting it as a separate sentence, but if I include this estimate as a separate sentence, the article looks messier (in my opinion) because the 2020 paper doesn't show a higher estimation in this case. Then would it be better to not use it at all? Junsik1223 (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

The phrase "other authors" or "other people" or "other researchers" is in direct contradiction to wiki guidelines over specificity of authorship, and would be given a tag. Mass editing articles to include mass estimates is not helpful, especially when it comes with imprecision and improperly formatted references that others have to clean up. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

^ Yes, that's what I mean. And you say you were in doubt about adding it, and this is exactly such situations where you need to use the talk page first, especially when dealing with featured articles. So please remember this: when in any doubt, use the talk page to confer with other editors, or you just leave a mess for others to clean up and waste time on. These size estimate minutiae are really unimportant in the wider scheme of things, but when added they need to be written and formatted carefully. FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2022 (UTC)