User talk:Dinoguy2/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Palaeos page nominated for deletion

Dinoguy, the wikipage on Palaeos (which I didn't write btw, except for the references) is nominated for deletion, please go over there and add your vote! Thanks! M Alan Kazlev 22:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Feathered Dinos

I'm going to put some papers somewhere for you to help with the feathered dinos article, if you would like them? link to follow, password "eoraptor". Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 19:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• <https://www.bris.ac.uk/fluff/u/mg4882/hK6MiQMCihU5eqp0TSmvvwnK/> Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 20:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• • password should be "eoraptor" without quotes - works okay on my pc?Mikey - "so emo, it hurts"© 17:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Hadrosaurus article

First of, sorry to come directly to your talk page with this, but I'm very curious! :p

I was reading nl:Hadron and read there, literally translated : The name Hadron is derived from the greek word hadros, which means strong. So then I was reminded of Hadrosaurs and decided to check if this was consistent... now, I never studied Greek but I know how latin meanings have to be translated "depending on context", and this goes for other languages as well, but is wikt:sturdy a good translation?

After reading the rest of the article, I was very confused by this :

Despite the fact that the family hadrosauridae is named after this genus, there is no skull known. The skeleton is indistinguishable from that of other hadrosaurines.

and

In 1858, a skeleton of a dinosaur from this genus was the first full dinosaur skeleton found

This seems to be contradictory. On the talkpage this is mentioned as well, but it doesn't explain how it can be a "complete skeleton" if the skull was never found. If you could explain this in the article, I think that would clear things up a bit for many people.

Also something that me, as a casual dinosaur "lover", interests is where a skeleton was dug up, what it's notable features are (what makes it a different species from every other skeleton, I have trouble telling the difference between an albertosaurus and a T-rex for example). I make this suggestion to you because you seem to be the driving force behind the wikiproject dinosaurs, especially with regards to content policy. I read on some talk page that the standard that was aimed for was for "8th graders", I would make that 7 year olds and upwards. That goes for every wikipedia article, if you can read, wikipedia is for you ;) (imho). Regardless, I think a picture of the most complete remains and, if incomplete, a reconstruction that fills in the blanks (seperately so you can see at a glance what was found exactly) would be of benefit to ANYONE interested in Dinosaurs. It might even make people that aren't interested in Dinosaurs interested :p . Another list of facts that should be in every dino article is a list of locations where skeletons were found, how many, and how complete (approximately, because I assume this evolves rapidly, but it would be nice if we could see things like "oh this one was found only twice, and both times in patagonia" or something like "Hmm, this one was found all over the world but never more than it's toes"). The count is probably at best an approximation, due to the amount of skeletons stored in museum cellars that have yet to be positively identified as well as uncertain identifications, etc. In particular, in the Hadrosaurus article I couldn't find an unambiguous indication of how many skeletons were found in total, up until now. Again, this is just a suggestion, I have only glanced at a couple of dinosaur articles (The discussion about the feathered picture on the Deinonychus talk page made me cringe, it was clearly referenced and supported, just didn't fit in their narrow view of the world apparantly). This means you have a much better idea of what is contained in most articles, so if I'm suggesting something that is already being done, I apologize for taking up a good page of your time ;)!

Oh, and can you tell my why the Brontosaurus article isn't simply a redirect to the apatosaurus article with a merge of the content?! That seems like a prime example to me for a merge?

And something trivial : The mention of Jar Jar Binks seems rather pointless, since the similarities would have to do with the skull...which seems to be inexistant for Hadrosaurus, so what is this based on? Perhaps rephrase it to something like "Jar Jar binks bears resemblance to the commonly accepted depiction of a hadrosaurus"? That would make it more fitting for Hadrosauridae imho, since no reference is given that it was explicitly modeled after Hadrosaurus and no other duckbill dinosaur. Maybe they just crossed a reptile and a duck. Maybe this kind of info should be put on the jar jar binks page?

Is it explained somewhere why the skull is so often missing from skeletons? Rygir 23:33, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Amphicoelias

Would you be interested in submitting Amphicoelias as a Good Article? It's certainly comprehensive, and on an interesting topic. J. Spencer 18:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Dinoguy,

Hope you don't mind me butting in to reply to your query to J. Spencer. The GA requirements are listed at Wikipedia:What is a good article?. If you think a peer review would help, you can submit it to peer review, but no peer review is required. The GA review process takes a long time (because there are very few GA reviewers); up to a month, so the pace is pretty leisurely. The entire process is described on WP:GA and WP:GAC. Because the requirements for GAs are far less stringent than for FAs, a single individual can get any article up to GA status pretty easily. I have no doubt, for example, that J.'s Thescelosaurus will be approved, with perhaps only minor modifications that the GA reviewer will want made. Hope this helps! Firsfron of Ronchester 20:32, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

What the admin said :) . Seriously, I think it's a good article, and the process is pretty simple. J. Spencer 22:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll get started on the nom! Dinoguy2 22:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Paleoart

Did you draw those pictures of the Oviraptorosaurs? Benosaurus 00:05, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yup :) Dinoguy2 14:32, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Amazing! I would love to draw dinosaurs like that. What experience do you have? Benosaurus 03:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Spinosaurus

I can't believe someone would put something like that in the Spinosaurus article. I absolutely hate how everyone is always arguing about fights between Spinosaurus and T. rex.

Plus, Spinosaurus is cooler! Whoops! Don't pay any attention to that.

P.S. I'm only 14, and I don't write like that. But yes, most people my age do... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benosaurus (talk • contribs) 19:14, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Congratulations!

Amphicoelias made it to Good Article status! J. Spencer 03:05, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Dinoguy! Well done! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 03:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Cool! Thanks guys :D Dinoguy2 16:11, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Help

In Spanish Wikipedia, I'm colaborating in Allosaurus, that's why I did the size comparison. I want more information for Allosaurus and I can't find it. Where you got all the information for make featured articles? Dropzink 19:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks is a good website of abundant information that can help me in "Species", "References" and "Classification" of the article. But also I need "Description" and "Paleobiology", Dinodata and other techical sites can help in this? Dropzink 17:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that I don't have any scientific sources or books like this. Although there are collaborators in the spanish Wikiproject:Dinosaurs that study paleontology, and one of them can help me. Thanks for help. Dropzink 23:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Another question, how much it measures the Allosaurus's skull and how much teeth it have? Dropzink 18:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Rhabdodontidae vs. Tenontosauridae

Both of these families do not have articles on Wikipedia. I was about to create a Rhabdodontidae article, but then I looked at the Rhabdodon article (where the name Rhabdodontidae would come from). It says that Rhabdodon was a "Tenontosaurid." What's going on? Benosaurus 03:47, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Tenontosaurus

On the Tenontosaurus article, it places Tenontosaurus in the family Tenontosauridae. If Tenontosauridae doesn't exist, then in which family is Tenontosaurus designated? Benosaurus 01:40, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur barnstar

Hey Ive noticed your contributions to Jurassic park and have had a look at all your contributions to dinosaurs. I notice that no ones awarded you the dinosaur barnstar, with a name like Dinoguy, I think that deserves it alone! LordHarris 04:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even know that existed! Very cool. Dinoguy2 22:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, me & Sango123 created it a while back. Anyway, thanks for your picture on Archie (Archaeopteryx). It looks great, but if you create a better one using all the species (if you do), then replace the old one. I doubt that that would be needed though as I see no point in detailing the few cenimetres between the birds... I've been meaning to ask you for help on the article (Firsfron said you were into all that aves stuff), so if you could, it would be an honour. I've cleaned it up a lot (I've got dibs on noming for FA), but we've kinda hit a dead wall with references & prose. Anything you could do would be a great help... Thanks, :) Spawn Man 01:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Stockxcrocodile1.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Stockxcrocodile1.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 02:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brown_lizard.jpg listed for deletion

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as Image:Brown_lizard.jpg has been listed for speedy deletion because you selected a copyright license type implying some type of restricted use, such as for non-commercial use only, or for educational use only or for use on Wikipedia by permission. While it might seem reasonable to assume that such files can be freely used on Wikipedia, a non-profit website, this is in fact not the case. Please do not upload any more files with these restrictions on them, because content on Wikipedia needs to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License, which allows anyone to use it for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial.

If you created this media file and want to use it on Wikipedia, you may re-upload it (or amend the image description if it has not yet been deleted) and use the license {{GFDL-self}} to license it under the GFDL, or {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} to license it under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license, or use {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain.

If you did not create this media file but want to use it on Wikipedia, there are two ways to proceed. First, you may choose one of the fair use tags from this list if you believe one of those fair use rationales applies to this file. Second, you may want to contact the copyright holder and request that they make the media available under a free license.

If you have any questions please ask at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. Jesse Viviano 02:25, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Please do not upload any images from stock.xchng

I am sorry that I had to delete two of the images you uploaded. The problem with them is that they are under stock.xchng's license, which prohibits commercial resale of the photo. Since the license all content on Wikipedia is licensed under is the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), a license that permits unrestricted reuse, commercial and noncommercial provided that any works created from GFDL-licensed work and distributed must be licensed under the GFDL and that attribution is provided to the previous authors; photos that bar any sort of commercial reuse violate this license and are unwelcome on Wikipedia. See http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-May/023760.html on why these photos are now speedy deletion candidates. If you wish to upload an image from stock.xchng, please contact the owner to ask that the photo be relicensed using one of the free licenses listed here, or ask that the photo be released into the public domain, and use the tags listed here. After you get proof of relicensing (preferably in e-mail format), please upload the photo and the proof of relicensing to the Wikimedia Commons, where the image can be used by any Wikimedia project, not just only the English Wikipedia. Jesse Viviano 02:39, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Archie pics

Wow, great work Dinoguy. I have a suggestion, which may or may not be easy to do, in which case we'll go with what we've got. But what if you zoomed in on the human's foot area & then did the "allosaurus" thingy with the archies there. It would be larger so that you could see "what's going on" down there with the different size comparisons. If that doesn't work, then I think we should go with the 2nd pic, with the birds on the horizontal plane. The diagonal plane picture doesn't really allow the viewer to compare sizes, as it creates a kinda optical illusion since they're on that slope. If we could try & see what my above suggestion works out like (changing the scale of course down from 1 metre) & if it doesn't then I'll put in the 2nd pic. This is only if you want to of course... Thanks, :) Spawn Man 04:36, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Pretty damn near perfect. Ya know you can reply on my talk if you wanted... :) Thanks a lot DG. It'll look great in the article. Spawn Man 07:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Sinocalliopteryx

Hi! If you get a minute, could you send me the Sinocalliopteryx paper? My email address is easily found at my website. J. Spencer 04:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything from you, so like you said it's probably something with your connection. Here goes my credibility as a dinosaur webmaster and ref-obsessive, but I hadn't heard of the Yahoo group until you brought it up, so I just asked to join. :) J. Spencer 15:09, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Oryctodromeus

I filled it in with info from the paper and put it up for DYK; it's a cute little guy, and more interesting than my other suggestion for that day. J. Spencer 03:04, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Shanag

Be ashamed!!! Fossil range... Late Cretaceous?? :o Microraptor and Sinornithosaurus as... primitive dromaeosaurids?? :o Binominal name established by... Averianov & Dieter-Sues, 2007 and not by Turner, Hwang & Norell, 2007?? :o By the way - it should be Averianov & Sues, 2007 for Urbacodon - the surname is Sues, the first name's initials being H.-D. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.10.125.119 (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

Well, sometimes when copying and pasting taxoboxes into new articles, I forget to change the information (as you may have guessed, I did Urbacodon right before Shanag)... I notice you didn't correct my oversight, but thanks for pointing it out. And yes, they're primitive dromaeosaurids. Who says "primitive" is a dirty word? Dinoguy2 23:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nop - Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor and Shanag are the most advanced dromaeosaurids! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.10.133.232 (talk) 11:38, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

They are certainly the most basal... Nitron Ninja Apple 15:53, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Not according to every single cladistic analysis ever published on them... They always come out at the very base of the dromaeosaurid family tree, which makes sense, since they're also the earliest dromaeosaurids, and also very similar the the most primitive known troodontids, showing that they're close to the dromaeosaurid/troodontid split. Dinoguy2 00:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

An article which you started, or significantly expanded, Oryctodromeus, was selected for DYK!

On March 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Oryctodromeus, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! Nishkid64 03:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannotitan

In the Dinosaur size article, it is stated that Tyrannotitan chubutensis was 13.4 m long, whereas the Tyrannotitan article states that it could grow to 15.2 m long. Which is the real length? Benosaurus 19:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

photos

I want to have all your theropod photos on my User page. I copeied two.

Struthiomimus

Hi Dinoguy2. Can you say me if this image is correct, because in Spanish Wikipedia I'm doing larger Struthiomimus and in the section Posture I don't if the posture that depict that image is correct, similar to the "tripod pose". Cheers. --Dropzink 21:23, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I leave a comment here. --Dropzink 21:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Adventurer Hair Swap

Respectful greetings, paleontoatic. I re-added your removal from Guybrush Threepwood because Guybrush is clearly brown-haired in the MI1 and MI2 cover art, and in every version of both games that I've ever seen, magazine photos, walkthroughs and fan sites included. 1 2 3 4 Where the blonde Guybrush in MI1 picture comes from, I've no idea. If there's such a version, it's a clear minority. It might even be a later touch-up - my CMI manual has an image of a blonde Guybrush in an eariler game, in a situation where he obviously wasn't blonde, which has always struck me as a retcon. --Kizor

quote

Almost as bone chilling as this entry, from Spinosaurus:

though jp3 might say t rex would loose it is easy to tell the would not meet but if they did tyrannosaurus would win because why did the name spinosaurus king of the dinosaurs(tyrannosaurus rex meens that) if they thought it was stronger? because t rex was and still is the most fiersome dinosaur to ever walk the earth!! Yikes. Just yikes.

What was that from? 24.208.55.168 01:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone had added it to the pop culture section of the Spinosaurus article. It was quickly removed, of course! Dinoguy2 01:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

That is preety funny.24.208.55.168 22:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

You apparently have a big fan

I noticed this new user is a big fan of yours thought you might want to know. (and i hope this user is a real fan and not a vandal trying to impersonate you). MrMacMan ^Talk 19:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow that's...interesting ;) Thanks for the heads up! Dinoguy2 23:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha, that's hilarious. Sheep81 09:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Should we be worried? I mean, what happened to Dinoguy1 when you signed up? Samsara (talk • contribs) 02:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Dinoguy1 is a great man... a magnificent man. But he'll only talk to me. Best not ask too many questions, yeah? Dinoguy2 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Urrrgh...

Hey man, could you just read over what I have done so far with Antarctopelta and Sauropelta? Just tell me how much it sucks/doesn't suck quite as much as I thought. I feel like I need to go back to like 4th grade English, I write so terribly. Thanks. Sheep81 09:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm still working on Sauropelta so it's not done yet, don't worry. As far as Antarctopelta, the environment stuff was already in the article, I just fleshed it out and added some references. Glad to hear they are okay then. Thanks for checking!Sheep81 02:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I finished off Sauropelta for now too. Still looking for more stuff too as the entire article is basically based on Carpenter's work. Then again he has done most of the work! Sheep81 04:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Senter 2007

Did you get to see Senter's new coelurosaur phylogeny paper? Thought you might be interested. I just downloaded it so email me if you want it. Sheep81 03:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally, the oviraptor-therizinosaur group has been recovered in several other phylogenies, so I definitely agree with waiting on that. I was pretty excited to read through it for the first time today, kinda just skimmed through but looks like good stuff. Sheep81 04:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Tuatara

We've made some progress, but there is a lot left to be done. Can you help? Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I guess you're thinking about it? :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:04, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't tell us something about the plate tectonics of New Zealand, could you? Late Triassic to present? Did it get colder or warmer? See Talk:Tuatara. Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we seem to have fixed that problem. I noticed that your drawings look good. I was wondering if you would draw a tuatara skull for us. I can provide references to work from. Best wishes, Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

If you could give me a yay/nay/I have time in x days response, that would help. Thanks. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Were you going to give us a reference about this issue? Samsara (talk • contribs) 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaur grid diagrams

Hey, I saw you had done several other of the grid diagrams for some of the smaller coelurosaurs and was wondering if you had time to do some for the "Big 5" tyrannosaurs. Albertosaurus and Gorgosaurus don't have any... shouldn't be too hard, they're pretty identical. Tarbosaurus is grid-less too. Also, the ones currently on Daspletosaurus and Tyrannosaurus (made by some other guy... not DINOguy, let alone DinoGuy2) have a weird scale... on *D* each grid square is .6m on each side, and on *T* they are .9m on each side. Seems like it would make more sense to be a square meter like you have. Plus they have a comma instead of a period, which no English-speaking country uses (this is English Wikipedia after all). So I guess if you have time, could you do those too? I would do them but I'm not sure how you get the outlines you use... do you draw them yourself or are they clipart from somewhere? Thanks a million. Sheep81 03:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Haha, I definitely know all about lots of work (and procrastination too). No rush of course, but thanks a bunch for giving it a shot! Sheep81 04:17, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Well here's why I asked for this diagram: Daspletosaurus. Give it your best shot! Sheep81 03:06, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow I am greedy

Hey thanks a LOT for the tyrant scale diagrams. If you have time, I have just one more request (for now at least... MWAHAHAHAHA). On Talk:Sauropelta the GA reviewer suggested replacing the skeletal diagram with a Dinoguy2(tm) scale diagram... yes he actually mentioned you by name! You're famous! Anyway, if you have time on your hands, would you mind making a diagram for the article? There is a skeletal reconstruction in the article you could use, just add a second row of neck spikes below the current one (they face laterally I guess but maybe just a few points at the bottom of the neck so you can see they're there on the outline). The spikes would also be a little bit longer in the fleshed-out version, with the keratin sheath and all... maybe not as long as in Conway's picture (do whatever you like though). You can download some of Carpenter's papers from his page to help if you need it. Here is one with a full restoration you could use if needed (except add the extra neck spikes). Here is a more recent paper with an image of how the spikes would have looked. I can also email you both papers if you would prefer. Once again, I would really appreciate this, but I completely understand if you are busy or can't get to it right away. Thanks!! Sheep81 06:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FMNH PR308

Yep, that is good ol' PR308 in your picture. The skull is a cast though. Sheep81 06:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I was actually wondering this the other day but forgot to ask. Was it labeled as torosus when you went there or still as libratus? Sheep81 06:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the story is that since the AMNH thought it was libratus, they modeled the missing parts in plaster to make it more Gorgosaurus-like. Then apparently after it was sold everyone forgot which parts were plaster and assumed it was a complete skull. In the 1999 JVP article by Carr, he explains that the skull isn't as complete as everyone thought and shows which parts are plaster and which are bone. Like ALL of the Gorgosaurus features are plaster, haha. I guess since then they have remodeled the skull to look more like Daspletosaurus and then recast it? Kind of embarassing actually, haha. Sheep81 06:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Er... re-reading your comment it looks like you already knew this. Oh well, still a fun story! Sheep81 06:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting

I'm confused. I was pretty certain that dinosaurs weren't reptiles (could've sworn I read it in numerous books). I don't need to discuss all of actions, but I thoguht dinosaurs split off from archosaurs & that they were warmblooded (according to Bakker) & therefore couldn't be reptiles. Pterosaurs wasn't removed because they are classsified as prehistoric reptiles. I only left that quote on that guy's talk because I thought he might be making that asumption too. So now I'm pretty confused as I've always been brought up with dinosaurs being warmblooded, thus not being reptilian? Reply...? Spawn Man 09:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Origin of birds sourcing

If you wanna start with adding adding refs, help yourself from my sandbox. Though I didn't collect them for that article, there should be most of what's needed (they're for a future "Origin of modern birds" (or somesuch) article. Especially the van Tuinen et al (2006) and the Ericson + the other "grandes" (2006) papers should be good. Have still a few loose ends to tie up on the Passeriformes and hence haven't got to milk these refs... :( Dysmorodrepanis 13:47, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Gigantoraptor

Check this out.

I'd like to write the article for this one, but I cannot do it at the moment. I'd like to do it later, so could you keep it "on hold" for me? Benosaurus 15:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Too late; someone snatched it up already. Benosaurus 13:29, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Couple things

Hey, I went through the Velociraptor article tonight and tidied it up a bit (deleted a bunch of pop culture cruft, yay!). I left the taxonomy section (mostly) intact. But I was just wondering... do you think some of that could be moved to Dromaeosauridae? To my mind it kind of veers away from Velociraptor at the end and gets pretty general, but if I remember correctly you wrote it so I thought I'd defer to you. If you think it's good like it is I won't think twice about it.

I was also wondering if you want to work together and clean up Origin of birds... it's a pretty long article already, but I bet we could get it featured... would be cool to have a non-genus article featured eh? Sheep81 07:28, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

All right, I have been reading through OoB, and a couple things pop out at me. There is almost no mention of phylogeny whatsoever! Also, the article is one-sided, as it should be, since the evidence is one-sided, but to a fault. Feduccia, Martin, and Lingham-Soliar are not even mentioned! There should at least be a section addressing the BAND argument, I think. Needs copyediting and obviously a lot of refs are needed too (look at all the citation needed tags you put in). Overall, I don't think it reads very encyclopedically, so maybe we should even rewrite certain parts. Thoughts? Sheep81 07:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

A lot of the "Features" subheadings need quite a lot of expansion as most are one sentence long. Furculae should probably move up to that section as well. We are bone guys, there should be a lot more about the skeletal similarities than there is. Sheep81 07:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's fine, not a huge rush. I want to update Heterodontosauridae but I am dreading doing it for some reason. I'm also thinking about putting Daspletosaurus through peer review since I have the next two days off. So I've got other stuff to work on too. Sheep81 09:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Gigantoraptor/"mainstream opinion"

"mainstram opinion? I don't think ths has been known for long enough for such an opinion to have been published... original synthesis." - Come again? This is not Scansiopteryx. It's a basal oviraptorosaur (or oviraptorid?), and these have been around long enough that 90% of scientists agree that they're sister to either Avialae or Paraves. I'd call that "mainstream opinion"... and according to that, it shared a common ancestor with T. rex and Archie. Try maybe "New Perspectives on the Origin and Early Evolution of Birds: Proceedings of the International Symposium in Honor of John H. Ostrom."

Also, WP bars original research but the basic analysis was done in the paper. I'd argue that WP requires "original synthesis" (sometimes) because otherwise it would be a violation of intellectual property rights... if it can be sourced, it is not OR.)

The reason I put it in there is that about every news report puts the emphasis on "bird-" and not on "-like". Gregory Paul would disagree, yes, but who else would? I had been removing (parallel to you) the last paragraph (the speculative one, with the "challenges the mainstream evolution..."/Cope's Rule bit) and thought such a statement might clarify things for people who haven't read any of the more recent papers on theropod systematics and evolution, but just one of the G-raptor media reports... This thing is making more of a ruckus than the Yariguies Brush-finch, and I remembered with horror the trouble we had over at Birds with that "species" as everybody and their dogs suddenly referred to it... Dysmorodrepanis 11:32, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey cool

How'd you make this image? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Oviraptor_digital1.jpg I'm jealous. lol. --HoopoeBaijiKite 20:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Commas or parentheses for scientific name in opening sentence and elsewhere

(Now that was a long header wasn't it?) There's a debate here about commas versus parentheses for scientific names for organisms (well in this case birds). I'm not sure whether this has been raised elsewhere but would be good to establish once and for all here and could apply as MOS across all biology articles. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

The Amphibians and Reptiles Portal (P:AAR)

The Amphibians and Reptiles Portal I'm glad to announce that The Amphibians and reptiles portal (P:AAR) has been created and is ready for you to use. This portal covers any subjects related to amphibians, reptiles, herpetology, as well as WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles. Purposes of the portal to act as the "main page" for editors interested in amphibians and reptiles. The portal page should contain all the common and useful links to relevant articles, lists, categories, as well as the project tasklist. As this portal is your tool, please feel free to organize, modify, or expand the Topics, Categories, Lists, and Tasklist sections of the portal as you see fit. to lead potential AAR editors to WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles as well as to educate general readers. Feel free to add more items for the "Did you know..." section. Thank you for reading. If you have any questions, please leave them on the portal talk page or my user talk page. --Melanochromis

--Melanochromis 06:08, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Origin of Birds history section

Back from my vacation, I have started work on origin of birds again. I've rewritten the history section and I think it's now very complete. Mind critiquing it? I'm wondering in particular if it should be broken up by subheadings. Sheep81 00:20, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus/Edmontosaurus speed Don't you watch the news! Recent studies show its top speed was 25mph and it had a poor turning circle taking at least 2 seconds to do a 360 turn. Bamboozlingbert Also how do you make those size charts? Also in the My own Work did you make those models! If you did't where were they iv'e never seen them. Dinoguy Edmontosaurus was 13 metres just because that book says it was 12 they have found 13 metre specimens.

Dromomeron

Hey Dinoguy, thanks for the tip. I'll correct this in the next version. Btw, do you happen to have a skeletal rteconstruction of Lagerpeton? Not sure how much of this critter is actually known. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 21:44, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about removing the cite i forgot about that but its back on now Bamboozlingbert Edmontosaurus speed If you think edmontosaurus was slow moving then how do you explain healed tyrannosaurus tooth marks on edmontosaurus bone we both know it couldn't fight back and if it was slow moving how would it of escaped also like it says it had very powerful leg muscels and its legs were about the same size as tyrannosaurus and it weighed less then tyrannosaurus and all those things ive just said indicate edmontosaurus could at least move as fast as tyrannosaurus.

Reptile barnstar

Image	Name	Description
	The "Unofficial" Reptile Barnstar	The "Unofficial" Reptile Barnstar may be awarded to an editor in recognition of his or her knowledge and exceptional contributions to Wikipedia's articles on Reptiles .

Green Owl ^{Uh uh}

T. rex speed and dietary needs

I know these are two of the more controversial topics about the T. rex but I was wanting to get your imput on these topics.

First: T. rex speed. I've run into a few different speed models for the T. rex over the years and was wanting to get your view on the situation of how fast a T. rex truly could run. My own conclusion was that from a huge portion of the fossil record available and foot imprint spacing that the T. rex did in fact do a sort of pseudo-run and just not at full tilt like that of a medium to smaller sized theropod. It is just when I come down to the numbers portion where the actual speed measured is hard to determine. There have been various arguments that because of the size and posture of the T. rex that the dinosaur could not have moved very fast and turn quickly. Though on the other hand the posture of the animal is also very ostrich like to a certain degree and the ostrich can move very quickly and corner well yet is still a large bird. I'm not exactly sure where I stand on this subject and was wanting someone to help me think this through any help would be very much appreciated.

Second: T. rex feeding habits. I know there are a two sides to this debate: the scavenger and the hunter debate. Both sides of those debates seem to leave little room for biological middleground and it seems that many paleontologists see it as one way or the other. They seem to believe, for instance Jack Horner argues that the T. rex was a scavenger only and never did any hunting, that the T. rex can only be scavenger or only be hunter. I strongly disagree with both sides of the argument based on the grounds of dinosaur's skull and neck structure and other biological traits shared with animals today. The T. rex's skull and neck suggest that it had a monstrous bite strength and neck strength. If the T. rex was a slow mover and has that massive strength he could easily tear into hard jerky like flesh that has been sitting out for a while (not to mention the stomach to digest that kind of bacteria). At the same time the T. rex could also still hunt with that speed handicap because the strength could be used to take down prey quickly so that he would not have to spend energy catching the prey and taking it down in small attacks. Also if the T. rex had saliva that was comparable to a komodo dragon's the T. rex could bite the prey once and then let the bacteria kill the prey slowly so that he could later go and track down the prey and eat it after it has died or significantly weakened. Though, if the T. rex had speed on his side then he could easily kill his prey right then and there and not have to worry about finding his prey in a weakened state. Also I am forgetting to mention the idea that a T. rex may have traveled in packs with a few T. rexes rather than just traveling solo. If this is the case then wolf-like pack hunting would be possible and the argument, in my opinion, would add fuel to the hunter theory. All that said, those are a few arguments for both scavenger and hunter. Something else that comes to light are the natural clues we have available today such as hyenas which are both scavenger and hunter at times when the situation calls for it. I believe that herein lies the strongest argument for the T. rex being BOTH scavenger AND hunter. The argument that I have come to the conclusion is that a T. rex is fully capable to hunt at times and yet have the bacterial digestive capabilities when eating already dead and decaying flesh. That the T. rex is an opportunistic feeder and does not limit himself to just one type of feeding behaviour. I believe the T. rex fed based on neccesity rather than just one type or the other based on physiological and biological clues given to us in today's natural world.

I know there is a bit more I would like to add in this comment (I'm very new on wiki, this is my first comment ever on wiki) because the T. rex is my favourite dinosaur of all time and have studied him since, well, before I can ever remember (I'm 22 years old and I fell in love with paleontology and dinosaurs [late cretaceous therapods and extinction theory with regards to the KT extinction at Chixulub to be more precise] when I was one year old, I kid you not dinosaurs are my obssession.). But these are the two things that stuck out the most to me in my studies of the T. rex over the years and I was wanting to get other people's ideas and imput into my own ideas to see if any of them might be way off base or if I have applied outdated or flawed thinking into my own hypotheses on these topics.

Also, Dinoguy, thank you so much for your imput on dinosaurs in wiki. By the way, the comment on the spinosaur that you have in your "what wiki should require" section I found to be really hilarious. Though, when I understood what the person was trying to say I could sort of see what they were saying, the dinosaurs never would have met and have dietary needs that would have required different territories and different food types that would have prevented such an encounter. (Jurassic Park III was unbearable to watch and I almost walked out of the movie completely and I almost asked for my money back.) Though, I guess if they ever did have a confrontation I believe that because of the jaw strength and raw power of the T. rex that the T. rex would have "won," but because they never would have met up in the natural world that contention seems to prove irrelevant.

Again, Dinoguy thanks for your contributions to wiki!! Excellent work!!Very good but you didn't actually answer how fast edmontosaurus could move or if it could move faster,slower or at the same speed as t-rex.An before you go ranting on about how much of a big T-rex fan your are and how t rex should have beaten Spinosaurus bear in mind it was six metres longer than t rex and when it snapped its neck if it did grap hold of t rex in that way it could of broken its neck like or one swipe could have broken its neck or lacerated vital arteries thanks to its powerful arm and sharp claws.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stacy Glover (talk • contribs).

Possibly unfree Image:Velociraptor skeletal by Scott Hartman.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Velociraptor skeletal by Scott Hartman.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Calliopejen1 09:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Coelurosauria ref

Could you have a look at this article? There's a "Feduccia, A. (1993)" ref, but no full ref for it in sight... Circeus 17:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus Was the 13.7 metre Giganotosaurus a male or female or haven't the paleontologists found out yet

Barnstar

Hey Dinoguy, thanks for the barnstar. Most of the dinosaur images went through the image review I think, except some that appear to be personal requests posted on my request page and apparently not meant to be for wikipedia (ex: Spinosaurus, Edmontosaurus, or Huayangosaurus). If you notice any inaccuracy in my drawings (especially those that I am posting on wiki articles), please feel free to let me know. By the way, somebody requested Ianthasaurus but I could not find representation of this animal anywhere except for a skeletal drawing of the sail (I don't have access to Reisz's papers). Do you happen to have anything about it? Cheers. ArthurWeasley 02:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No content in Category:Ichthyornithiformes

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Ichthyornithiformes, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Ichthyornithiformes has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Ichthyornithiformes, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. CSDWarnBot 06:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Fossil range indicator

I'll continue the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_life#Graphical fossil range indicator to keep everything in one place! Thanks for the heads up. Verisimilus T 09:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus Size Chart

HI Its me bamboozling bert could you please make me a 13.7 giganotosaurus size chart with just giganotosaurus on if you could thanks also in your theropod size chart is the t rex 12 metres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Thanks for the chart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.38.157 (talk) 06:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Also i never knew the upermost estimates were 13 metres because sues the largest one and if i remember correctly sh was only 42 feet and if its the upermost shouldn't the giganotosaurus be 14 metres. If it is thn i looked incorrectly (i never anage to tell with graphs lol).42 feet is 12.8 metres and the largest giganotosaurus found was 13.7 shouldn't the largest estimate be bigger?KK thanks.Also someone hould edit the maximum height in the gig article as it states it could be 5.5 metres when its only 3-4 metres in the scale charts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On September 11, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mahakala (dinosaur), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. And DYK.........that banned sockpuppeteer Ekajati (talk · contribs) who was also blocked for personal attacks ironically named herself after a Tibetan deity Ekajati (which she wrote), a deity which was "one of the most powerful and fierce goddesses" and has 12 heads? Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hatzegopteryx

Yeah, sure. Will do. Thanks for all these info. What do you think about this reconstruction? ArthurWeasley 04:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Image:Brachiosaurus scale.png

Hi, had a look at creating vector versions of your dinosaur scale images (very cool btw). Made Image:Brachiosaurus scale.svg. Do you create the dinosaur images yourself? You list images as "based on an illustration by ДиБгд", but I can't find that user. Regards, Marmelad 15:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur Size

The original weight for the gig was 4.16-8 tonnes as soon as it changed to 6.2 can't it be 6.2 to 8 tonnes, closer to the first estimate and for you im gonna stop my long arguement about how t.rex was't 13 metres because i can't be bothered to keep having edit wars. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC) But alot of things about dinosaurs is purely speculation, can,t we specualte from evidence and knowledge from other theropods that giganotosaurus could have been 6.2-8 tonnes. also i thought the upper weight limit for tyrannosaurus was 7.5 tonnes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.40.195 (talk) 13:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Deinoychus speed

hi BB again, how fast would you say Deinoychus could run in mph? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.40.195 (talk) 13:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

=)

Sorry I dont have anything more substantial to say but I just have to say http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Largesttheropods.png is the funniest and yet educational image I have seen in a long long time. I doubt whoever designed that "hi!" pose for the human never imagined it would ever be used for a human surrounded by large predators. Maybe we can reinterpret it as a "goodbye" =) Haplolology ^Talk/_{Contributions} 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Deinoychus Feathers

Deinonychus doesn't have any smoking gun evidence that it did and if it did have feathered hands, face, neck and feet then surely that would cause a problem with feeding like todays birds as vultures don't have feathers on their feet,face and neck so rotting meat doesn't get caught in them so surely deinoychus sould be the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC) But Hawks,eagles,wolves and lions are different in the way they feed, Vultures really shove their head deep in the carcass, sometimes down the mouth or anus! While hawks and eagles an mammalian predators only tear away flesh whith their teeth and jaws/beaks, im not saying deinoychus and other dromies did this for sure but theres a good chance, in walking with dinosaurs, utahraptors are shown shoving their heads deep into a iguanodon carcass although they were completely featherless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Hi bb again if its not to much trouble could you make me a size chart with a 14 metre giganotosaurus and a 12 metre t rex. Also do you spell t rex T.rex or T Rex —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 12:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC) Also how fast would you a gig could run in mph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC) The charts for a dinosaur database but anyway what are the average estimates for a T.rex and gig and i though the smallest estimate for T.rex was smaller than 12 metres as i thought that was the average size. Also it bothers me if anyones working on dinosaur speed why do they just go for the T.rex? Also did you see the news article a few weeks ago about the newest T.rex speed apparantly its 18 mph they also did velociraptor (24 mph), compsognathus (40 mph), dilophosaurus(23 mph), allosaurus (21 mph) , an ostrich, an emu and a human maybe you should put that on their articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.46.145 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Also do you agree with me and believe the largest gig found was 13.7 metres or Steveoc 86 and believe it was 13.2 metres? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 21:02, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Then my original idea of size for the speed chart was largest estimate for gig and the medium-ish for T.rex also what do you say about putting the dinosaur speed on their articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 08:15, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Have you seen steveoc 86's pic of a deinoychus that had plenty of feathers but none on its face suggesting it could poke its head into a carcass (though im not sure the arms could bend like that.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Also on the dinosaur size article T.rex is stated as 6-8 tonnes but in the theropod database it is 5.7 tonnes should you edit it or not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 29 September 2007 (UTC) Then that means a gig could be 6 to 8 tonnes if another article is found also it was the theropod database that said gig was 4.16 tonnes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I found an article stating it was 6-8 tonnes its dinodata but i don't know how to cite it properly, could you tell me or do it for me thanks if you could do either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 18:05, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Thanks for citing it for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 2 October 2007 (UTC) Also would you say a gigs bite was to slice through vital veins and muscels in sauropods necks and legs or a different style of attacking if you have one please tell me. Thanks for all your help so far by the way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 16:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC) For gigs what would would you say were other prey sources because i think i need to brush up upon my South American herbivore dinosaurs, also how big would you say baby titanosaurs were to class as babies because a creature that big i would difficulty classing babies from adults lol.Also what about the titanosaurs and other sauropods unfortunate enough not to have armour at all? Hi bb again could you please answer my question because its been on here a while but if you didn't see it thats fine, but anyway on the mapusaurs article it states that it would the only other pack hunting theropod apart from tyrannosaurus, i never knew tyrannosaurus hunted in packs and i never knew of any evidence either could you please tell me if this is true or not because if no il delete it also would you say relatives of mapusaurus like carchs and gig hunted in packs? Ok thanks for the info and sorry about your computer hope its fixed soon!Hi BB again i was looking at pics of gigs on wikipedia commons and on the pic of a gig skull its said a gig could be 14.3 metres is this true enough to be on the dino size article or wrong? Also ages ago i was wondering on edmontosaurus speed and although someone gave alot of info nobody answered my question so would yopu say edmontosaurus could run at the same speed as t.rex or faster/slower?Also when you said other t.rex may have brought bck carcasses for wounded ones i believed t.rex could scavenge carcasses to survive or had a good enough immune system to overcome such wounds (knowing T.rex's lifestyle it could have been wounded everytime it went hunting)!Hi BB again was was wondering about that time i asked you about theropod height and looking at your scales i may be wrong but it looks like they are in a runnng pose, slightly crouched and if they were standing normally or walking they would be taller i could be wrong but i want to know what you think to this. Hi again, you stated that rexs didn't like to fight with their prey but would they have had a choice? Triceratops and torosaurus are far from defenceless although rexes may have gone for younger dinosaurs and angry mother is still a fierce enemey to be reconned with don't you think, also either its just me or is it that with the fossil skeletons of theropods like the pictures of sue and the gig fossil picture on the gig article that they seem to be taller than in your size scales, it probably me but again whats you view on this?KK thanks for telling me about the t.rex wounded by a triceratops, i never knew that also thanks fot showing me the person next to the gig was a little kid, i never realised that!Also i forget to say on the photo of a fossil gig skull its said that a gig could be 14.3 metres true or not again whats your veiw on this?Hi me again i was wondering about rex speed and when it was thought onl t be at 11mph it stated that this was still faster than triceratops i always thought triceratops speed was 15 mph also would have thought edmontosaurus would be faster/same speed as they were around 12,13 metres meaning they had the same/a bigger stride length thn most rex and should have been able to go faster as they were only 4.4-5 tonnes while rexes were 6-8 tonnes.Hi BB again this is just a thought that i want your view on, as young hadrosaurs were lighter than their parents would they have been able to run quadrupedally? Also would adult hadrosaurs be able to run quadrupedally, not running at their top speed bipedally just a very slow quadruped jog? Hi BB again with rex's new estimates of 18 mph what would you say would be reasonable edmontosaur/triceratops speed, also i read in a article about rex speed that edmontosaurus speed ould be around 15mph but what would you say?. Also in the edmontosaur speed would weight have made a difference as i said before rex's could have been up 6-8 tonnes while edmontosaurus were 4-4.4 tonnes. Also i ArthurWeasly has drawn an excellent pic of a gig which should replace the one currently on the artickle with the tail thats too flexible, is your computer still broke as you haven't replied in almost a month.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Pterosaurs

Hi DG2, I am trying to get a hang on pterosaur wings and would need a bit of your advice and enlightment here. Here is a sketch of a generalized pterosaur wing. I've also redrawn Hatzegopteryx with longer neck and bigger head but not really sure how it should have looked like in flight, especially the position of the legs. I've made another azhdarchid, Bakonydraco which is essentially known by a lower jaw and some postcranial bits, so the reconstruction is highly hypothetical but just want to capture the general idea of how an azhdarchid should look like in flight but with different position for the legs. What do you think? Thanks.ArthurWeasley 07:05, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey Dinoguy, many thanks for all these info, they are extremely useful for me to understand pterosaur (and especially azhdarchid, these are really weirdos of the cretaceous skies, aren't they?) anatomy a little better. I'll spend some time to digest them (the infos) and will come up with new and (hopefully) better drawings. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 01:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is v3 of Hatzegopteryx. What a strange looking creature! ArthurWeasley 06:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've updated the Hatz and added the image in the article. Thanks for all these comments. May be I should do Quetzalcoatlus next? Cheers. ArthurWeasley 05:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Taxobox and types

Hi, Dinoguy;

I've been using type species instead of biological type (type (biology) is a redirect to the latter) in the taxoboxes because it's more narrowly focused on type species than the other. I was just kinda wondering why you've changed some to the other link. J. Spencer 04:42, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

The issue should definitely be brought up to the project. Here are my thoughts:

It looks like dinosaur articles have been using a variety of type (zoology), type (biology), type specimen, and type species for the concepts type species and type specimen (and probably holotype as well in some case). "Type (zooology)", "type (biology)", and "type specimen" are all redirects to Biological type. I'd have uses of "type specimen" point to "biological type" unless the kind of type is known (if it's a holotype, as is probably true for 95%, "holotype" is most accurate), and uses of type species point to "type species", although "type species" is not a great article and "biological type" partially overlaps; the problem with the latter is you have to hunt to find the relevant information. J. Spencer 14:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

My pics

Where exactly do I put my images for voting? I can't seem to locate the "WP:Dinos". Scorpionman 04:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Dinoguy, I stumbled upon a couple of your articles just now (Avialae for example). Have you heard of Veropedia? It's basically a project that aims to build up Wikipedia's articles, then upload the finished products onto the Veropedia website where they can be preserved, and ultimately, get the stamp of approval from experts in the field, turning them into trustworthy resources. The FAQ explains it better than I do. Would you like to help out? – Steel 14:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC) (P.S. A lot of people get the impression from my explanations that Vero is a fork, and contributing to it will reduce the time they have to contribute here. It isn't, and it shouldn't. All the editing happens on Wikipedia and activity on Vero is, at its simplest, limited to uploading specific revisions of articles there.)

Avialae

Dinoguy2 (Talk | contribs) (7,447 bytes) (revise a bit. some editors seem to be slightly misinterpreting how Avialae is used vs Aves. Much of the recently added info may be better for the Aves article)

You have some great points here, Dinoguy2. You're right about putting some of this in Aves also. I take your point that a majority of Biologists include Archaeopteryx in Aves. I just wonder if most have carefully criticized that decision. I don't think it's a misinterpretation to discuss Gauthier's good points.

I was coming more from the phylocode perspective, of course, but I'm not dogmatic. It's just that Archaeopteryx was originally put in Aves because it had feathers. Now we know that all Maniraptora have them. Archaeopteryx is in Avialae because many think it could fly, but the latest report from the Thermopolis specimen (Hartmann, S, Re-Evaluating Wing Shape in Archaeopteryx: Information from The Thermopolis Specimen. Journal of Vertebrate Plaeontology Vol 27 suppl. no. 3, pg.87A ) is pretty insistant that there are no tertial remiges, that this lowers the efficiency of the wing surface, and that the ligamental stabilization of the shoulder is too primitive for powered flight.

It is clear, to me, that the Aves distinction is arbitrary, since Avian features are definitely a continuum. I like that the Gauthier system reflects the full diversity of the most recent discoveries.

I think that we should be clear about what the consensus opinion is, but a lot of top researchers have been convinced by Gauthier.

-jbrougham 216.73.250.92 19:34, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Microraptor

I disagree about the image. It does meet both the legal criteria for fair use, and Wikipedia's own guidelines for non-free content.

And the image is claimed by its creators to be a scientificaly accurate representation of Microraptor so it can be used in the ground movment section.

And the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. So I say lets take it up to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review because we clearly are not going to agree otherwise. Nubula 09:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Massospondylus

Hi Dinoguy,

I've been working a bit on Massospondylus, and would like some feedback concerning ideas for expansion, areas which need improvement, major errors, etc. And I know you're more into theropods, but with J working almost exclusively on ornithischians and Sheep gone for the past month, there's no one else for the saurischians. Could you take a look? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Images of Dino

You Dino Image review project is WONDERFULL !

Many thanks ! Yug 06:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC) (2005-2007 leader of the graphic labs)

Gig size

Hi Dinoguy this is just a thought i had about gig estimates, you stated they could be disproportionatly high because all specimens are very big, heres my thought. They could have been disproportionatly low it know its sound pretty mad and i think that too, but its just a mad though as there i so few gig specimens and the ones which have are hardly complete i find that very annoying, other theropods can have a reasonable stimate like allos and rexes because so many adult specimens of different sizes have been found. Thanks for you answer, i was wondering how big C-rex actually is because many sources say she's about 15-16 metres long. Also although no work has been done on gig speed, would you say a gig would be faster or slower than a rex? Hi me again although you said rex would have had more ornithimimid like legs would rex have had a longer stride?Also would a gig be taller than an rex as in your graph theres is no height difference between the 42ft rex and the 45ft gig but in the graph Steveoc made me a 12.5 gig apperead considerebly shorter in height than 45ft one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Hi Dinoguy, i think theres a link in the Dino Size section of my discussion page have a look through and you should find it, it has a number 2 with the link sign and is light blue so hopefully it stands out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Thanks for telling me, would a gig have been taller than a rex in hip height is nother thing i was wondering? Ok thanks for telling me, ui was ondering if the hip height for 14m gigs would be 3.5 metres like Sue's r smaller? Ok thanks for the estimate, by the way the size graph below is really good. Hi Dinoguy i was wondering about deinonychus and other maniraptorians and if they just came together to hunt as a pack or actually lived in packs, the same question goes for theropods such as carchs and gigs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Size graph

• 

I saw this image at the image review page it looks great, good work. :) 69.76.53.190 (talk) 21:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding with Predatory Sizes

Hi. Sorry for the late reply. In no way did I mean for any bias between Spino, T-Rex, or Giga. I'm also very into therapods even though I specialize in big cats. I understand that so far it seems to be Spinosaurus to be the largest my only concern right now it between Giganotosaurus and T-Rex mainly do to the fact that there hasn't been a fossil discovered of a Giganotosaurus that was specifically larger than the most recent tyrannosaur skeletons nor are they more heavily built. Longer than T-Rex yes without a doubt from what we have found but height wise wasn't T-Rex slightly taller? Mcelite (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Hey Dinoguy. I have a proposel that would like to put out because I feel it is of great importance, and more accurate wise.Mcelite 07:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite

Edmontosaurus

Hi dinoguy in the recent news new research on the edmontosaurus dino mummy has been veiwed. New research shows its tail and backside were alot larger than first thought and were more muscley and scientists beleive this helped it run faster to escape predators. Also if you have sky national geographic or doing a premiere programme about this called dino autopsy and another(although unrelated to the mummy)progamme before called dino death trap they ar this sunday 8 pm-10pm. Im not sure it was an edmontosaurus but on the news it said they thought it was a young edmontosaurus and they nicknamed it Dakota, i think they said something about more mucsle mass in its hind legs and rump giving it better accelaration and at its very fastest it could reach around 25 mph but im not sure, like you im really looking forward to the dino double on nat geo this sunday. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Arboreal Microraptor

Thanks for the quick action! J. Spencer (talk) 03:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I do have that article, but I didn't remember everything in the heat of the moment. Thank you for the offer, though. J. Spencer (talk) 15:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Bite Force

Hey dinoguy, everybodys always saying how T.rex should have killed spino in jurassic park, but what tests have actually been done for Spinosaurus bite force? 20ft crocs can have a bite force of over 2 tonnes while a rexes is estimates around 3-4 tonnes, a spinos jaws are bigger, although similar to a crocs and should have a huge bite force, but what would be a reasonal estimate for a spinos bite force? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bamboozlingbert21 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We don't have a complete Spinosaurus skull, but the jaws were half as thick as those of Tyrannosaurus, and its teeth were hollow and 7 times shorter, but more numerous. Spino may have had croc jaws, but Tyranno had super croc jaws. Eriorguez (talk) 17:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for hollow spinosaur teeth? I have a small Moroccan spinosaur tooth it's certainly not hollow. I don't know of any dinosaur teeth that are, but I'm not really a tooth expert. T. rex teeth were certainly "thicker", as they were d-shaped and designed for crushing, whereas spinosaur teeth seem adapted to piercing, and are similar in shape to crocs. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry then, I might be misinformed. In any case, is the filling sedimentary rock natured, or more like fossilified dentine? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eriorguez (talk • contribs) 18:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of animal pictures, articles

I just wanted to write back and thank everyone who's participated in the discussion about what kinds of animal pictures fit the requirement of encyclopaedic value, with specific reference to head shots, notably of birds; and also about whether the inclusion of some graphic information should be compulsory at FAC (distribution maps, various depictions of the animal).

I'm sorry that the discussion became derailed by User:Fir0002. I'll adhere to WP:AGF for the time being.

I thought I would sum up what we discussed:

• Head shots can be useful for birds that have distinctive colour markings or other features on the head, but makes less sense for others (Totnesmartin)
• Head shots are necessary when species are only distinguishable by their cranial morphology (Dinoguy2)
• Head shots are not of interest outside Craniata (Dinoguy2)
• MeegsC brought up the term "soaring" as a better description of where flight silhouettes would be useful; Casliber later referred to "raptors and seabirds" (I checked my bird books (n=4), and I see silhouettes or semi-profile views of the flying bird used in a much wider range of taxa, including ducks, pigeons, herons, cranes, storks, swallows, swifts, and probably others that I didn't memorise)
• Jimfbleak expressed the opinion that there can be no rule where exceptions exist. (I disagree. Rules could allow for exceptions, which just means we only have to discuss the exceptions, not every other case as well.)
• Jimfbleak said it may be better to use sparrows or pigeons for the size comparison. (I disagree: Not everywhere that has internet has sparrows and pigeons, and house sparrows at least are different sizes in different places)
• Jimfbleak expressed desire for restricting FPC to animals in the wild, and allow captive shots only for domesticated species.
• Casliber supported mandatory distribution maps
• Casliber opposed size comparisons for plants (I'm guessing this was pre-emptive, as nobody had proposed size comparisons for plants)
• I then suggested that a mechanism could be created for WikiProjects to set up their own definitions for excellent articles, and these could be showcased aside from the traditional Featured Articles and TFA; this proposal was mostly ignored by subsequent comments
• Firsfron expressed concern that there wouldn't be enough illustrators to create the required illustrations and raised further exceptions (which I regard as irrelevant because the proposal already allows for special cases to be considered differently)
• Firsfron suggested that if anything other than a distribution map was made mandatory, an illustration of a skull might be the best thing
• Sabine's Sunbird seemed to oppose distribution maps being mandatory on the basis that they took effort to make (I'm unsure that this is correct, and was left wondering what the HBW size comparisons were)
• Calibas was against "rules" (I don't see how we can carry on without some of the policies and guidelines we have)

In conclusion, most concerns were to do with allowing for exceptions, which is already the case in all guidelines I'm aware of, including the proposals discussed here.

To return to the original proposal, nobody has been able to make a strong general case for head shots in birds or any other larger taxon, a finding I interpret as meaning my personal guideline is sound. I hope others may find parts of it useful and adopt them. If you have any further comments on the FPC, FAC, or WikiProject content creation proposals, please leave them on my talk page. Thank you. Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

May I request you a favour for a size chart?

Well, I'm doing a school project about carnivore size, and I think a size chart would help me get some extra score. In any case, I'm perfectly aware of you doing those voluntarily and being able to refuse in any moment...

Anyway, may I ask for:

-Homo sapiens -Ursus maritimus -Andrewsarchus mongoliensis -Spinosaurus aegypiacus -Giganotosaurus carolinii -Tyrannosaurus rex -Allosaurus fragilis (Big estimates, incluiding Epanterias) -Torvosaurus tanneri

Anyway, I appologice if this is of any inconvinience, and I would be very grateful if you could do that.

Thanks for your time. Eriorguez (talk) 12:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey Eriorguez, how quickly do you need the chart? I can probably get one together in the next day or so. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I need it in about 20 hours from now, but take it easy, don't worry, and thanks again. (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing it, I appologice for any inconvinience or frustration I may had caused.Eriorguez (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, got an eight out of ten in that subject, with five out of ten being average. Thank you again. Eriorguez (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

T rex Leg Wound

Hi Dinoguy, i hope you saw the dino double andi thought it was pretty good whar did you think? here my qusetion, do you have any links to the rex leg wound from a triceratops as would like to have look at any articles you have, also i couldnt help notice your doing i size chart for the person above< whens its finished could i have a look? as i like your size charts and would love to see it. Thanks for showing me the size chart, i was wondering if there a 2 species of andrewsarchus as i could have sworn they bigger than a polar, or maybe that was just in walking with beasts. Wow, i guess we will only know its true size until more specimens are found, by the way, how did you find out bout the rex leg wound as i would like to know, also what did you think to nt geo's dino double?

Mahakala

Hey Dinoguy, thanks for pointing this out. I'll have to redraw this one anyway so expect a new version in the upcoming days... Cheers. ArthurWeasley (talk) 07:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

T rex Footprint

Thanks for putting in the information and my picture of the footprint. I read the paragraph and you mentioned a second footprint. Is this the one that for some reason was not confirmed by the guys when they were confirming the first that is right behind the first one (I've got a picture of this one too if you want it), or is there another track someowhere? Just curious. Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I guess patience is a virtue :). Just saw the next paragraph that you put in. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The second Philmont print is within eyesight and a long stride or two of the first and (to my untrained eye) looks pretty similar to the confirmed one. However, the Philmont guide told me that they had not confirmed that print to be Tyrannosaurus, but a lot of people thought that it was. I'm not sure why the original people did not confirm or deconfirm this, as it is right there. I'm definately surprised that they did not mention it in the article describing the print. Rufous-crowned Sparrow (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Maniraptora

Hey, I wanted to thank you for your persistent and unrelenting criticism on the Dromaeosauridae page. I feel it got much better and has a lot more info than it did. I sort of had a breakthrough when you made me understand that we shouldn't be writing little essays on these pages but, rather, we should be editing the pages as collections of carefully cited research with as little opinion as possible. This morning I checked the page for Maniraptora. Did you write a lot of it? It has a lot of uncited statements, and presents a lot of controversial ideas without much on the mainstream viewpoint. It could definitely benefit from the kind of criticism you focused on my contributions to Dromaeosauridae. I didn't just go in and delete everything like you did to my stuff on Dromaeosauridae, instead I look forward to seeing you improve the page a lot! Keep up the good work!Jbrougham (talk) 19:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Czerkases

Thanks for the tips on punctuation and italics. I will try my best. Did you know all that stuff that Nature reported about the Czerkases? Researching the Archaeoraptor article I learned a lot more about it. I used to think it wa a matter of incredible but illegal fossils, and the Czerkases saved them any way they could because they were too important to science for them to to pass up. Now it really seems they (and maybe Nat. Geo. put them up to it) were hoping they would make it big by describing some dubious and unethically obtained materials. I guess that's why their work is ignored by so many researchers - because they have a reputation as dirty, and no one else wants to touch them.Jbrougham (talk) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly, I agree that the Czerkases have incredible fossils. I adore the one of "Scansoriopteryx". I'm glad it didn't end up as a secret in someone's private collection. But, yes, they did publish on Scansoriopteryx in the Journal of the Dinosaur Museum, or so I learned at the ICZN website; http://www.iczn.org/BZNSep2004general_articles.htm quote;

In 2002, an issue arose concerning the name of a new fossil taxon that demands a re-examination of the Code’s rules concerning electronic documents. Zhang et al. (2002) erected Epidendrosaurus ningchengensis based on a specimen of a peculiar, small, theropod dinosaur from the Lower Cretaceous Yixian Formation of Nei Mongol Province, China. The paper defining and diagnosing the taxon was initially released in the on-line version of the respected journal Naturwissenschaften on 21 August 2002. Because hard-copy publication and distribution necessarily take more time than electronic publication, the print version of the same article (indeed the same issue of the journal) did not appear until 30 September 2002 (D. Czeschlik, pers. comm., 2003). At about the same time, Czerkas & Yuan (2002) erected Scansoriopteryx heilmanni for a very similar specimen from the same formation in neighboring Liaoning Province. S. heilmanni was published in the inaugural issue of The Dinosaur Museum Journal of the Dinosaur Museum in Blanding, Utah, an auspicious publication that meets all the regulations of Article 8 of the Code. However, because it was distributed (largely by mail order) from a single locale by a small institution, it unfortunately suffered a reduced distribution compared with Naturwissenschaften. Although there has been no formal, published (in any format) comparison of the two specimens to determine whether or not they represent a single species, they bear certain unusual, probably autapomorphic features that suggest that they do in fact represent the same taxon. The question is: which name – Epidendrosaurus ningchengensis or Scansoriopteryx heilmanni – is valid for this taxon?"Jbrougham (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hadrosaur

Hey Dinoguy, do you think the new evidence for hardosaur speed could have been in other hadrosaurs and dinosaurs or just in hadrosaurs or the dino mummy's species ( you were right they haven't found out what species it is yet). Also as it is almost here, Merry Christmas!

Sauropsida active again

I've been working on taxoboxes lately, and I found that the Sauropsida article has been reactivated. Should I still be changing links to Reptile|Sauropsida? J. Spencer (talk) 04:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the "redirect and pipe trick" solution. It might be worth asking again, since it's been a year, or checking with the editor who brought back the article. J. Spencer (talk) 04:58, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Squamate size

Hi, can do me favor? Can you make like size comparisons of squamates and related articles? If you could, great! Here are the list:

• Extinct squamate size comparisons
• Living squamate size comparisons
• Snake size comparisons
• Lizard size comparisons
• Mosasaur size comparisons --4444hhhh (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)