Phosphatodraco is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for
amphibians and
reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I take the point that this needs a taxonomic box, though the same could be said of any number of palaeontological articles. But how is this categorised wrongly? Why Tree of Life? I cannot find any
pterosaur article so categorised. If you are going to slap on a tag please explain yourself. --
Gazzster10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
As someone who uses English units, I don't know how long 39 inches is, but I can visualize how long 3 ft 3 is, so instead of doing {{cvt|98|cm}}, do {{cvt|98|cm|ftin}}, so it displays 98 cm (3 ft 3 in). Do this anytime you go over 1 ft (12 inches)
Dunkleosteus77(talk)20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Those are the first vertebrae of a complete neck, but they're not preserved in the specimen, explained under "Interpretations of cervical vertebra order".
FunkMonk (
talk)
00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Not sure how that would look unless unnecessarily wordy. This info isn't even in the sources, they assume the reader knows that something comes before C3. I had to use an unrelated source about pterosaurs in general to even have it in the article.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
maybe "as one (C5) broken in two or two (C3–4) different vertebrae", because I didn't really get what you were saying until I saw the picture way later down in the body
Dunkleosteus77(talk)20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Shuffled around: "Due to the fragmentary nature of the holotype cervical vertebrae, there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them as cervicals (abbreviated as C) 5-9 in the series, with the first preserved vertebra (C5) being broken in two, and others considering them C3-8, with C3–4 as two different vertebrae." But yeah, it is pretty hard to understand without an image, I actually created that image so I could keep track of the numbers myself, as such a diagram showing both versions doesn't exist in the literature.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"Controversial" is a pretty strong word, so the fact that they use that instead of just hinting there are different possibilities is notable.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Changed the one instance of this I could find, "close to 5 m (16 ft), based on comparison with other azhdarchids with preserved cervical vertebrae".
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
What is meant is from what view they are visible as preserved. Wanted toget away from the language of the source, which says "preserved in x view", but perhaps "visible" could work instead, so tried that now.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola and colleagues, which is shown in hind view" I think these kinds of things would go better in the caption
Dunkleosteus77(talk)20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"They expressed hope that their study would inspire more research into the lifestyle of azhdarchids besides just their flight capability." I don't get why this is necessary
Dunkleosteus77(talk)20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Phosphatodraco is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for
amphibians and
reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the
project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
I take the point that this needs a taxonomic box, though the same could be said of any number of palaeontological articles. But how is this categorised wrongly? Why Tree of Life? I cannot find any
pterosaur article so categorised. If you are going to slap on a tag please explain yourself. --
Gazzster10:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC)reply
As someone who uses English units, I don't know how long 39 inches is, but I can visualize how long 3 ft 3 is, so instead of doing {{cvt|98|cm}}, do {{cvt|98|cm|ftin}}, so it displays 98 cm (3 ft 3 in). Do this anytime you go over 1 ft (12 inches)
Dunkleosteus77(talk)20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Those are the first vertebrae of a complete neck, but they're not preserved in the specimen, explained under "Interpretations of cervical vertebra order".
FunkMonk (
talk)
00:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Not sure how that would look unless unnecessarily wordy. This info isn't even in the sources, they assume the reader knows that something comes before C3. I had to use an unrelated source about pterosaurs in general to even have it in the article.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
maybe "as one (C5) broken in two or two (C3–4) different vertebrae", because I didn't really get what you were saying until I saw the picture way later down in the body
Dunkleosteus77(talk)20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Shuffled around: "Due to the fragmentary nature of the holotype cervical vertebrae, there has been controversy over their order, the describers considering them as cervicals (abbreviated as C) 5-9 in the series, with the first preserved vertebra (C5) being broken in two, and others considering them C3-8, with C3–4 as two different vertebrae." But yeah, it is pretty hard to understand without an image, I actually created that image so I could keep track of the numbers myself, as such a diagram showing both versions doesn't exist in the literature.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"Controversial" is a pretty strong word, so the fact that they use that instead of just hinting there are different possibilities is notable.
FunkMonk (
talk)
19:56, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Changed the one instance of this I could find, "close to 5 m (16 ft), based on comparison with other azhdarchids with preserved cervical vertebrae".
FunkMonk (
talk)
01:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
What is meant is from what view they are visible as preserved. Wanted toget away from the language of the source, which says "preserved in x view", but perhaps "visible" could work instead, so tried that now.
FunkMonk (
talk)
22:53, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"The last vertebra is the C9 according to Pereda-Suberbiola and colleagues, which is shown in hind view" I think these kinds of things would go better in the caption
Dunkleosteus77(talk)20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply
"They expressed hope that their study would inspire more research into the lifestyle of azhdarchids besides just their flight capability." I don't get why this is necessary
Dunkleosteus77(talk)20:36, 17 August 2022 (UTC)reply