Talk:Xenoposeidon

genus and species

I actually created seperate articles for the genus Xenoposeidon and the species Xenoposeidon proneneukus, but then I redirected the species article to the genus article, becuase that seems to be the normal wikipedia policy. I love starting new articles, and I have always been especially eager to start one on a newly discovered species of dinosaur! Grundle2600 07:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

• Has there been a species name ascribed to the finding yet? Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 01:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes: see immediately above. Not sure about the spelling, though. Firsfron of Ronchester 01:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Which is proneneukos, not proneneukus.--MWAK (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Family

The "new family" claim is based on a misunderstanding. Taylor and Naish intended this in an informal way and within a geographical context, showing you can never be too careful when dealing with journalists :o). The genus has not been ascribed to any family, conforming to modern enlightened practice--MWAK 09:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Grundle2600 09:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

... But I stand by the "new 'family'" claim so long as the word family is in scare-quotes. In so far as "family" has any biological meaning (and the Wikipedia is pretty Linaean after all), Xeno really doesn't fit any of the established families -- as we show by elimination in the paper. (Mike Taylor)

I think that "family" simply means that all members within the "family" have a common ancestor, and that the "family" branched off from all other "families" that are in the same order (or suborder). And it's nice to see you posting on this talk page! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:24, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, to be fair, "family" has just as much biological meaning as "genus"... ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:47, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

How about the word "group" as used in the paper. Their words'.......or, more likely, the first representative of a previously unknown group.'. Does "group" have as much biological meaning?Steveoc 86 (talk) 01:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"Group" works fine, and isn't as loaded a term. I haven't read the paper (wonky internet access at the moment won't let me download big pdfs), is the term 'family' used in the text? If so, I don't think it's a problem to use family, as an indicator of diversity. But I'm a notorious Linneaus fan I guess, so if you guys feel some other term is more appropriate, that's fine too ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case, even saying that it belongs to a "group" of its own would not adequately reflect the intention of the describers, which then apparently would be to emphasize its "morphological distance" from other known "lineages". After all, as direct ancestor relations are difficult to prove, almost all genera should be considered separate groups. If the fossil had not shown signs of this special xenoposeidontic grade, the claim would not have been made. On the other hand, perhaps this wasn't a sufficient condition: if the cladistic analysis would have shown the type was firmly placed within e.g. the clade Brachiosauridae, presumably it wouldn't have been made either. The paper indeed speaks of a new <<'family'>>; at least of those quotes it should be explained in the article why they are so scary ;o).--MWAK (talk) 08:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I've tryed to takle this issue, but it may be abit too close to the authors words in places. I feel it needs to be in there, it's what makes the vertebra special. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Pompeysaurus

Hi, Mike! Is there anything to "Pompeysaurus"? Someone added it to this article a couple of days ago, and I also found it here. J. Spencer (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

This is discused here..[1] it's basically a nickname from the press. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Mike Taylor here. The name "Pompeysaurus" was just some sub-editor's lame joke in a local newspaper headline. I would really like it not to be perpetuated at all. Thanks. By the way, there is A LOT more about Xeno now over at our blog SV-POW!, some of which may be appropriate to add here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MirkMeister (talk • contribs) 16:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A joke? That is pretty funny! Grundle2600 (talk) 16:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

If you could make one of your pictures of the vertebra available to Wikicommons, this would be most welcome.--MWAK (talk) 12:00, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned ALL the pictures on SV-POW! are available to Wikicommons. If I need to go through some registration process to make it so, I'm quite happy to do that: where do I go for this, and which specific picture or pictures would you like me to do it for? (Sorry, I am a newb, not a proper Wikipedian) MirkMeister 22:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a truly generous offer! First, let me explain the principle of Wikicommons: it is a common database of pictures allowing them to be easily inserted into the respective wikis of all languages. The most elegant solution would be if you would upload the pictures yourself, which is an easy process. To upload pictures there, the first step is to go to the main page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

and then register as a user in the same way you have registered on Wikipedia. Once you have logged in, you can upload pictures by clicking on the "upload file" link. You will be shown this screen: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Upload

on which in this case you would have to select the "it is entirely my own work" option, which will bring you to this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork

It will allow you to browse files on your own computer until you have found the relevant picture. When you have selected the file, clicking on it will make its name appear as both the source and destination file name; you might want to change the latter. You'll have to fill in a description, such as "Xenoposeidon vertrebra", and the date; but not the permission, which issue is covered by selecting the appropriate license from the list. Now if it were your purpose to ensure the largest possible distribution for your picture, you might choose to release it into the public domain; but I presume you would still want to be mentioned as the author, in which case one of the other options is better. All these however have in common that you basically consent to any legal scientific or commercial use. The only thing left to do will then be to use the "upload file" button. A picture file will be created on Wikicommons, the name of which put between double square brackets will make the picture appear in the article of any language. Further parameteres can be given, such as size, e.g. 300px, thumbnail mode, location in text and descriptive text, (all this in an arbitrary sequence) the end result looking like [[Xeno.jpg|right|thumb|300px|Xenoposeidon vertebra — but then with closing double square brackets also. It is best to immediately edit the Wikicommons file page to put it into the Category:Sauropoda (by simply putting this between double box brackets at the bottom of the page).

Of course, you could also give permission to upload the files from SV-POW via permissions-commons@wikimedia.org at this page: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload , using this template: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Email_templates

However, it is of course much more fun — and a lot quicker for all involved — to do it yourself.

As regards the question of which picture or image to select: you are infinitely better qualified than I am to judge this matter. But a picture of both the left and right side of the vertebra of Xenoposeidon would be nice.

Greetings, --MWAK 19:49, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xenoposeidon. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071222090536/http://scienceblogs.com:80/tetrapodzoology/2007/11/the_worlds_most_amazing_saurop.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2007/11/the_worlds_most_amazing_saurop.php

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)