In reference to the deletion of the Destron character named Archadis. This is a usage of it in popular culture as Beast Wars was spin series of Transformers, both of which are well known US cartoon series. You shouldn't just limit the popular culture references to just English, especially in this case as Beast Wars Neo is widenly known to non-japanese Transformers and Beast Wars fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.157.87.135 ( talk) 02:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw on the dinosaur size artical you were wondering were the 12m Anatotitan comes from, theres a ref for that size in the Complete Dinosaur 1997 by James Orville Farlow, M... K. Brett-Surman 1997. Although the book doesn't meantion were the size comes from, but shows GSPs skeletal reconstruction. You mention a 30 foot ref for AMNH specimin, I scaled a the GSP Anatotitan to a femur measurment (1150mm for that specimin) and got a similar result. I think the 12m size belongs to the A.longiceps specimin Marsh (1890) describes, an incomplete dentary which measures 'over 38 iches' ~965mm, complete he estimates about a meter long. Scaling GSPs reconstruction to have a dentary of that size comes out at about 12m. Is A.longiceps still considered a separate speces, do you have a copy of the Brett-Surman 1990 paper? I was going to put the ref in myself but im not shure about how to insert book refs, Amazon has two ISBN numbers for exarmple ISBN-10 and ISBN-13?? which would be used? Thanks Steveoc 86 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel ready (no-one's done much which could be good or....not)? Do you wanna do the honours of nominating? cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I also think those two categories do not have that much information. I agree they should be deleted. Daycamper4444 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
is User:BetacommandBot/Sandbox ok? βcommand 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the technology to list project articles by size available for other projects. WP:CHICAGO would like such a tool.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hi - thanks for fixing my mistake there - I've been fixing dead links and removed that section due to its dead link without noticing there was a non-web ref as well. (The link is working today anyway!). Cheers, ELIMINATORJR 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Firs;
Thank you very much for having a look at the article! I put an idea on what to do with the typos on the talk page.
J. Spencer 23:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I am going to be famous ;-). However, part of the credit should really go to Sheep who provided me with all the info concerning these critters. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started hacking at Lamby. I'll do do Ally asap, but given I have midterms and a paper to hand this week, editing might be rocky. Circeus 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey J., I had thought type species redirect to Type (biology), as did Type (zoology) last time I checked. However, now that I look again, they both redirect to Biological type. This article includes a section type species very similar to Type species. All this merging/splitting of articles on type is worrying, especially since so many articles link to them. Maybe WP Dino should take it upon ourselves to sort out this mess and use a bot to get all the type species and type genus links pointed to the right place. Dinoguy2 05:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the disambig help on Galapagos Land Iguana I'll use that same method on the other reptile articles I'm worrking on!-- Mike Searson 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi J,
You've re-added another clause to this sentence: The quarry is notable for several reasons: the majority of bones belong to a single species of large theropod, Allosaurus fragilis (it is estimated that the remains of at least 46 Allosaurus have been found there, out of at minimum 73 dinosaurs); the bones are disarticulated and well-mixed; and nearly a dozen scientific papers have been written on the taphonomy of the site, coming up with numerous contradictory explanations for how it formed.
Is there a way you can rework this sentence so that it isn't so long? Break it in half somehow so that it's not 74 words in length? I'm worried about the clarity of sentences which are so long and contain so much information that the original idea is lost to the reader by the end of the sentence. You start talking about the notability of the quarry (which might be more appropriate to an article on the quarry), then move to the number of Allosaurus in the quarry, and then go back to the reasons why the quarry is notable. I had removed part of the sentence as I felt it was just too long, but if the material about the quarry must be included, I think it should be broken down. Veropedia's sentence parser flagged this sentence and a few others; I left two, but this one is so long that I can't imagine it would be clear to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Ready? Also why is your talk page red? Sheep81 06:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Firs;
If you get a minute, could you move Dinocephalosaurus orientalis to Dinocephalosaurus? Someone suggested it on the talk page, but the genus name has a brief history (otherwise I'd have done it myself). J. Spencer 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
hi, My name is Sergio kaminski. I live in Porto Alegre and don't speak english very well. Thanks for change my article in exaeretodon. If you like paleontology see my article paleorrota. I don't know if i wrote correct, in english. Thank you.
hi, spencer, Thanks. I speak portugues and is very difficult for me know if I am writing clearly in english. I birn in Santa Maria and i collected 8 dinossaur. Actually I live in Porto Alegre but my parents live in Santa Maria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiokkaminski ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
hi,spencer,
I need your help. I created this page
Dinodontosaurus turpior. I need to improve page. I see the page Karamuru and I create one in portugues. Thanks
Sergiokkaminski (
talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(not a dinosaur but an odd large therapsid, related to the ancestors of mammals) yes I know. I forgot remove this line. Thanks, for your good job.
Sergiokkaminski (
talk) 13:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Firs;
Do you think you could re-upload Anasazisaurus? The version there currently has Utah's San Juan County linked instead of New Mexico's. Thanks! J. Spencer ( talk) 16:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we still need to put Mosasaurs in Category: Cretaceous animals if I've put Category:Mosasaurs into it already?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi J,
On talk:Dinosaur, you mentioned "gastromyths", indicating (I assume) dinosaurian gastroliths are non-existant. I hadn't heard of this before, and just a week or so ago, I added a section on Massospondylus about gastroliths (based on the 2007 Weems et al. paper). Has something since then been stated about gastroliths in dinosaurs? I'll remove the section if necessary (or could I possibly rework it so it states "the gastrolith theory has been discredited by so-and-so..."?) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, J. I really appreciate your time, edits, and comments. The paleoecology section is a great addition, and I'm really glad to have the Kayenta skull and other stuff finally clarified. You always seem to bring a balance to articles that are missing it. I'll take your advice and find a picky writer-type for the grammar. I don't know that a Massospondylus FA can be pulled off, but I'm willing to try at some point. The worst that can happen is that it fails to attract interest and fails the candidacy, right? Massospondylus is one of my favorite dinosaurs, and I agree with you that there's something endearing about it: for me, it's part Diplodocus, part ET. ;) Anyway, I sure appreciate your efforts. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added in the citations you requested. Cheers, David Fuchs ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you by any chance have a pdf copy of the reference you added to the Supersaurus page?
Curtice, B.; and Stadtman, K. (2002). "The demise of Dystylosaurus edwini and a revision of Supersaurus vivianae", in McCord, R.D.; and Boaz, D. (eds.): Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists and Southwest Paleontological Symposium - Proceedings 2001, Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin, 33-40.
Its one I've not read before. Cheers, Mark t young ( talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No prob, just caught that during random patrolling :) It's a cool paper in case you don't have it, freely available pdf through link. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience | |
for all the patience required in getting a huge article like Allosaurus all spruced up good 'n' nice for FA status cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
I'd respond to your query instantly except that I'm not going to make life easier for those (not you) who have twice reverted my edits to Dinosaur - if it were not for the reverts I'd have quietly corrected the item. But I've noticed your much more friendly and co-operative tone in our few discussions and the many well-earned congratulations in your Talk page, and I'll be very happy to co-operate with you on any other article if it is appropriate. Philcha ( talk) 16:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've just completed a major revision of Tyrannosaurus (""Locomotion" and "Feeding strategies"), for the reasons stated in Talk:Tyrannosaurus. I intend to revisit in about a week to polish the flow. Would you like to check it out? Philcha ( talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
On your user page, do the articles you've created in order of when you did them ascend or descend in regard to time line (IE, are the ones at the top the first or latest articles you've created?). And is your talk page meant to be red/green texted?
Anyway, I came to congratulate you on your success with Allosaurus, one of my favourite dinosaurs. I had been looking to get it to FAC myself, but you've done a far better job than I could have ever done. :) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 10:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for doing such great work on Allosaurus! It's amazing how diverse these genera were, from what we can tell. Wikipedia really owes its all to quality contributors like you. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi J,
I saw you're doing these all manually. You don't have to: you can use AWB, or I can do them, but there's no need to do them like that. Also, is there really a reason to remove the image parameters? It makes it easier to add an image if the image parameters are already in the taxobox. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-Sauropsida. Good question. Benton doesn't seem to use Sauropsida as a synonym for Reptilia, rather Reptilia is a paraphlyletic group that goes unranked and contains both Synapsida and Sauropsida, contrary to how most people use it. Maybe we should just switch back to class Reptilia if the Sauropsida article insists on treating it as a clade only. Actually, it seems Sauropsida doesn't discuss the situation in depth at all and consists of just a cladogram... should probably be redirected to reptile :) Dinoguy2 ( talk) 04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably, because I read that the Spinosaurus was a contender for JP IV. Also, your welcome for archiving the talk page. I'll be doing that for more dinosaur articles now. Limetolime ( talk) 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there are a couple of points in Dinosaur where I thought we were close to agreement but nothing's happened for a while: rearrangement of "bird-like features" and "Physiology"; and the short classification with brief descriptions. Have you had second thoughts, or have you just been busy with other things? Philcha ( talk) 12:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-- howcheng { chat} 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Archtransit ( talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand why you might not want to include them in the Category: Prehistoric reptiles of *****, but I think they deserve to be sub-categorized. Do you have an idea what to name it? I don't think we can just call it Category:Synapsids of ***** because technically that would include mammals, too, right? Any thoughts? Abyssal leviathin ( talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sheep & Spencer,
Thank you both for your wonderful clarification of the definition of 'Dinosaur'. There is a philosophical difference between what I call objective definitions and theoretical definitions. However, because the Wikipedia appears to discuss it nowhere, I left it out of my discussion.
It seems to me that whether 'Dinosaur' is an object (nominal or empirical) term or a theoretical (phylogenetic) term wasn't specified when it was first used. It has, I'm sure, been clarified since.
If I picture fluffy, crouched on the sofa, to be a cat, the 'cat' has an objective definition in zoology. The paleontologist hasn't this luxury, because 'hoppy' isn't with us anymore. We give his bones an objective definition and name, but now we give him (his ancestry, appearance, gait, &c) a theoretical definition, based upon 'correspondence rules' which really just connect properties of bones with theoretical inferences.
The practical difference is that names based on objective definitions never change. Zoologists base Fluffy's identity upon such an objective definition, so I know I have a cat. If 'cat' were instead based solely upon his skeleton and claudistics, one day I might learn in the news that the wrong metric was used in a cluster analysis, and fluffy is now a dog.
Paleontology clearly has problems zoology doesn't. But I'm not sure you're both right it using a theoretical definition to name a creature (as opposed to practice in zoology), though its name could change in the future. After all, no one (to my knowledge) has ever patted the skull of a Velociraptor and said 'Good morning, Hoppy!'.
My granddaughter is very happy.
Bruce Bathurst, PhD (Geologist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Bathurst ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Dr Spencer, Thank you very much for your kind note concerning what I thought was an outstanding discussion on defining dinosaurs. Your and Dr Sheep's (?) information was so valuable that I've saved it, to offer my granddaughter much later. Your article makes it very clear now that (though Pterodactyl may not have been one), some dinosaurs flew, for birds are believed their ancestors (see, I've accepted the phylogenetic definition!). A question posed on Dr Sheep's Talk page, apparently in response to the discussion, shows that some people misunderstood 'terrestrial dinosaur' to be merely descriptive, as in 'crooked politician'. You should be very pleased with your excellent contributions to the article. I know how much work clear writing takes, and I salute your contributing to the Wikipedia, which I consider the best product of the internet yet.
My granddaughter is now comfortable with some flying Mesozoic creatures both being dinosaurs and not. She tells me the dragons were likely not, since birds don't breathe fire. She has also learned to distinguish between the svelte Chinese dragon, who created whirlpools while trying to catch their tails (like her kitty cat), and the more stout European dragon, that St. George fought. She hopes he didn't hurt the dragon much. She & I give you our thanks & best wishes. Geologist ( talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah.. I'm a bit busy, anyway I will try to upload a next version. Thanks for the advice. Cheers!-- Dropzink ( talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank! I asked this because I'm confuse. The marine reptiles that lived the same time with dinosaurs (like Plesiosaur, Pliosaur, Liopleurodon), I though they're dinosaurs because their names and appearances are pretty much like those of dinosaurs. And the flying reptiles (like Rhamphorhynchus, Pterodactylus, Sacphognathus) were also look alike dinosaurs and lived same time. In Jurassic Park III, flying reptiles Pteranodon appeared along side with dinosaurs. That's why I though they're also dinosaurs. But they're all not.
My idea is that it will more and more impressive if they're included as dinosaurs. For the reason is that dinosaur not only lived on land but also in the sky and the sea. 96.229.179.106 ( talk) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dylan didn't release a recording, but the basement tapes are widely available/traded, and have a Wikipedia article that mentions the song. I reverted you edit, but added not released, fair enough? Pustelnik ( talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I understand now. I have also changed the internal link to Basement Tapes (Sessions), which lists each recording. Right now, this is separate from the album article. Pustelnik ( talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, as far as I'm concerned. Pustelnik ( talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: this edit.
I always thought curly quotes were preferable. I also felt that if the word italicized is right up against punctuation marks, those too were italicized (avoiding the top of a closed parenthesis, for example, from colliding with the slanted word). Anyway, just a thought. – TashTish ( talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again! I was thinking on the way I did my drawings, and I really don't like it, especially because they were created in Flash. Anyway I can use pencil drawing, it's difficult for me because I have a 10-year-old scannerXD So, it will be better if the Coelurus is task for some expert like Arthur or Steve by now. In something I want to work is in those Parasaurolophus skulls I left incomplete, when I finish the P. cyrtocristatus, don't forget in send me a skull or skeletal diagram of P. tubicen. Thanks. Dropzink ( talk) 08:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your additions to WP:LTA, I'm a big proponent of WP:DENY. I find when we start keeping huge lists of socks like at WP:LTA, they become shrines. When those shrines are taken down, the vandals sometimes lose interest and disappear. In some cases, I've kept lists in deleted pages where only administrators can see them - but at least they're still available. What do you think? — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's Bruce. Just wanted to assure your that my recent personal comments on the 'species problem' on the Dinosaur page in no way diminishes the great help you gave me, my granddaughter, and all teachers who consult that article before teaching children about dinosaurs. My comments will likely be removed, but it is very interesting to ask whether making 'dinosaur' a theoretical term is better than defining it traditionally, as all properties a set of specimens have in common. I think it is; but only a paleontologist 'will know for sure'. Thank you for your excellent, tireless contributions! Geologist ( talk) 19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Your English teachers must have really traumatized you :-) Philcha ( talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts they should have traumatized you a bit more - you just reinstated a split infinitive in Permian–Triassic extinction event ("to directly cause") :-) Philcha ( talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
re dannys dinosaurs link I didnt really look carefully - but i have a thing about ext links sitting in ref areas - thanks Satu Suro 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In general lone years should not be linked, but when they are part of a date 10 April 1962 they should - unless its a literal date in a quote, name of something , URL etc.. This is because it allows date formatting to work. Unfortunately these cite templates are currently rather complicated, and very widely used, so the fact that the date is sometimes linked and sometimes not, depending on the exact parameter used, will take a little resolving. There is an editor who has started working on this, however he is currently behind the great fire-wall of China. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 18:01 25 March 2008 (GMT).
Hi J.
thanks for adding all those taxoboxes on the new WP:AFC paleo-reptile articles! Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, a lot more similar articles have been submitted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-29 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today (what will be Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-30). Could do with a hand if you got the time. Thanks! :) KTC ( talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
Thank you for your dedication to upkeep of dinosaur-related articles! Bob ( talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
-- Wizardman 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever became of this? I have some ideas on improving the article. Let me know if you're interested.
BTW congratulations on all the recent awards. Philcha ( talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for adding that bit about procompsogonathuses in Biological issues in Jurassic Park. It nicely justifies a fact that would've otherwise been left dangling. The local gang has been able to get the article out of danger of being deleted, but as we're all a bunch of amateurs and I'm busy being largely incapacitated, that's about it.
And though I swear that this was not why I began this post, any other improvements you could make would be even more appreciated. The article is significant because:
Hi, sorry I reverted your edit, I'm sure my summary confused you. I had been reviewing prior edits by an IP which changed the established and cited measurements. Somehow I missed your changes altogether, but my revert affect your edits. Again, sorry for any confusion. Doc Tropics 04:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, J. Spencer, thanks for you comments, and sorry for my delay in getting back to you. I'm not familiar with the capabilities of bots, and how one goes about requesting that one be set up. Where would I look to bone up on this? If it worked well, I would imagine it could be quite useful, but it seems to me that it would inevitably do a partial job in some situations, so one would want it to tag articles it has worked on to alert people to that fact (the tag could be removed from an article after someone checked the distribution of daggers and made corrections if necessary). WolfmanSF ( talk) 06:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to get article Mystriosuchus ready for Good Article status, but I think there are multiple issues with the article. If you are interested in extinction-related articles, I'd appreciate it if you could lend a hand. I am asking all the users I can find who are prominently involved in the extinction-related wikiprojects. Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! ( talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 10:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi J Spencer,
I added it in as quite a few pages seem to start "... extinct genus ...". Personally I don't mind either way, but in the interests of standardising of pages I added it. That said, I have to disagree that it implies some abelisaurs are not extinct, but then I suppose it depends on how you read it. Cheers, Mark t young ( talk) 12:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for dealing with the dwarf Al article. I never realised there was a species of Allosaurus page. Cheers, Mark t young ( talk) 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that! :D Abyssal leviathin ( talk) 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for your support during my RfA. Failed in the end, but I got a lot of good constructive criticism from the process which can only be an improvement for me. Who knows, in the coming months after I've incorporated all this advice I may be successful. Cheers! Mark t young ( talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on his talk page have been very kind and measured. He's my son; he's only nine, he has some social challenges, and I set him up on here and then failed to monitor his progress adequately. I finally told him definitively the other day not to make any edits without consulting me (as I should have done in the first place), and that he can ask me all those questions on his talk page instead of the world at large.
One thing I've noticed on there is that a lot of people are awfully quick to fling the term "vandalism" around. Only the other day did I find the Wikipedia value about "assuming good faith," which I think is excellent, and violated with great frequency. Anyway, thanks again. AdRock ( talk) 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Firs;
Do you think you could provide me with the recreator of Haxsasauras (the original creator was User:TheHumbleTomato), and the creator of Haxassauras? We've got a serial hoaxer with this article, and I'd like to prepare a Checkuser report. J. Spencer ( talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi J,
Our article on Edmontosaurus currently states: "[...] Charles Mortram Sternberg named Thespesius saskatchewanensis in 1926, but this is also now considered to be a species of Edmontosaurus, namely E. saskatchewanensis" and then in the next paragraph states "Anatosaurus saskatchewanensis was sunk into Edmontosaurus as E. saskatchewanensis."
As you're sort of our resident ornithopod expert, I thought I'd ask if this makes any sense to you. I'm aware that there are many nomenclature tangles, but this seems to indicate that there were three different genera (Anatosaurus, Edmontosaurus , and Thespesius) which all had species named saskatchewanensis, and that they all three miraculously turned out to be the same species. Is some clarification needed here? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi J,
Firs told me that you'd have a paper out in the not too distance future. I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining wP:WikiProject Palaeontology/COI? Its a new endeavor I've created as on the metriorhynchid articles I've referenced one of my own JVP publications (just a poster abstract). I don't want any of us to fall foul of WP:COI, so I set up this latest action list. Cheers, Mark t young ( talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I had extended Leidyosuchus' range, as I saw that it was in the category of Paleocene Crocodylomorphs. So all of the Paleocene Leidyosuchus species have been moved to Borealosuchus?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
In reference to the deletion of the Destron character named Archadis. This is a usage of it in popular culture as Beast Wars was spin series of Transformers, both of which are well known US cartoon series. You shouldn't just limit the popular culture references to just English, especially in this case as Beast Wars Neo is widenly known to non-japanese Transformers and Beast Wars fans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.157.87.135 ( talk) 02:08, August 30, 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I saw on the dinosaur size artical you were wondering were the 12m Anatotitan comes from, theres a ref for that size in the Complete Dinosaur 1997 by James Orville Farlow, M... K. Brett-Surman 1997. Although the book doesn't meantion were the size comes from, but shows GSPs skeletal reconstruction. You mention a 30 foot ref for AMNH specimin, I scaled a the GSP Anatotitan to a femur measurment (1150mm for that specimin) and got a similar result. I think the 12m size belongs to the A.longiceps specimin Marsh (1890) describes, an incomplete dentary which measures 'over 38 iches' ~965mm, complete he estimates about a meter long. Scaling GSPs reconstruction to have a dentary of that size comes out at about 12m. Is A.longiceps still considered a separate speces, do you have a copy of the Brett-Surman 1990 paper? I was going to put the ref in myself but im not shure about how to insert book refs, Amazon has two ISBN numbers for exarmple ISBN-10 and ISBN-13?? which would be used? Thanks Steveoc 86 22:39, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Feel ready (no-one's done much which could be good or....not)? Do you wanna do the honours of nominating? cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
I also think those two categories do not have that much information. I agree they should be deleted. Daycamper4444 20:34, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
is User:BetacommandBot/Sandbox ok? βcommand 18:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Is the technology to list project articles by size available for other projects. WP:CHICAGO would like such a tool.-- TonyTheTiger ( t/ c/ bio/ tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
Hi - thanks for fixing my mistake there - I've been fixing dead links and removed that section due to its dead link without noticing there was a non-web ref as well. (The link is working today anyway!). Cheers, ELIMINATORJR 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Firs;
Thank you very much for having a look at the article! I put an idea on what to do with the typos on the talk page.
J. Spencer 23:41, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I am going to be famous ;-). However, part of the credit should really go to Sheep who provided me with all the info concerning these critters. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I've started hacking at Lamby. I'll do do Ally asap, but given I have midterms and a paper to hand this week, editing might be rocky. Circeus 03:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey J., I had thought type species redirect to Type (biology), as did Type (zoology) last time I checked. However, now that I look again, they both redirect to Biological type. This article includes a section type species very similar to Type species. All this merging/splitting of articles on type is worrying, especially since so many articles link to them. Maybe WP Dino should take it upon ourselves to sort out this mess and use a bot to get all the type species and type genus links pointed to the right place. Dinoguy2 05:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the disambig help on Galapagos Land Iguana I'll use that same method on the other reptile articles I'm worrking on!-- Mike Searson 00:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi J,
You've re-added another clause to this sentence: The quarry is notable for several reasons: the majority of bones belong to a single species of large theropod, Allosaurus fragilis (it is estimated that the remains of at least 46 Allosaurus have been found there, out of at minimum 73 dinosaurs); the bones are disarticulated and well-mixed; and nearly a dozen scientific papers have been written on the taphonomy of the site, coming up with numerous contradictory explanations for how it formed.
Is there a way you can rework this sentence so that it isn't so long? Break it in half somehow so that it's not 74 words in length? I'm worried about the clarity of sentences which are so long and contain so much information that the original idea is lost to the reader by the end of the sentence. You start talking about the notability of the quarry (which might be more appropriate to an article on the quarry), then move to the number of Allosaurus in the quarry, and then go back to the reasons why the quarry is notable. I had removed part of the sentence as I felt it was just too long, but if the material about the quarry must be included, I think it should be broken down. Veropedia's sentence parser flagged this sentence and a few others; I left two, but this one is so long that I can't imagine it would be clear to the average reader. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:21, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Ready? Also why is your talk page red? Sheep81 06:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Firs;
If you get a minute, could you move Dinocephalosaurus orientalis to Dinocephalosaurus? Someone suggested it on the talk page, but the genus name has a brief history (otherwise I'd have done it myself). J. Spencer 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
hi, My name is Sergio kaminski. I live in Porto Alegre and don't speak english very well. Thanks for change my article in exaeretodon. If you like paleontology see my article paleorrota. I don't know if i wrote correct, in english. Thank you.
hi, spencer, Thanks. I speak portugues and is very difficult for me know if I am writing clearly in english. I birn in Santa Maria and i collected 8 dinossaur. Actually I live in Porto Alegre but my parents live in Santa Maria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergiokkaminski ( talk • contribs) 14:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
hi,spencer,
I need your help. I created this page
Dinodontosaurus turpior. I need to improve page. I see the page Karamuru and I create one in portugues. Thanks
Sergiokkaminski (
talk) 04:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
(not a dinosaur but an odd large therapsid, related to the ancestors of mammals) yes I know. I forgot remove this line. Thanks, for your good job.
Sergiokkaminski (
talk) 13:39, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Firs;
Do you think you could re-upload Anasazisaurus? The version there currently has Utah's San Juan County linked instead of New Mexico's. Thanks! J. Spencer ( talk) 16:07, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Do we still need to put Mosasaurs in Category: Cretaceous animals if I've put Category:Mosasaurs into it already?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 18:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi J,
On talk:Dinosaur, you mentioned "gastromyths", indicating (I assume) dinosaurian gastroliths are non-existant. I hadn't heard of this before, and just a week or so ago, I added a section on Massospondylus about gastroliths (based on the 2007 Weems et al. paper). Has something since then been stated about gastroliths in dinosaurs? I'll remove the section if necessary (or could I possibly rework it so it states "the gastrolith theory has been discredited by so-and-so..."?) Firsfron of Ronchester 22:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, J. I really appreciate your time, edits, and comments. The paleoecology section is a great addition, and I'm really glad to have the Kayenta skull and other stuff finally clarified. You always seem to bring a balance to articles that are missing it. I'll take your advice and find a picky writer-type for the grammar. I don't know that a Massospondylus FA can be pulled off, but I'm willing to try at some point. The worst that can happen is that it fails to attract interest and fails the candidacy, right? Massospondylus is one of my favorite dinosaurs, and I agree with you that there's something endearing about it: for me, it's part Diplodocus, part ET. ;) Anyway, I sure appreciate your efforts. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:18, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I've added in the citations you requested. Cheers, David Fuchs ( talk) 19:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
Do you by any chance have a pdf copy of the reference you added to the Supersaurus page?
Curtice, B.; and Stadtman, K. (2002). "The demise of Dystylosaurus edwini and a revision of Supersaurus vivianae", in McCord, R.D.; and Boaz, D. (eds.): Western Association of Vertebrate Paleontologists and Southwest Paleontological Symposium - Proceedings 2001, Mesa Southwest Museum Bulletin, 33-40.
Its one I've not read before. Cheers, Mark t young ( talk) 23:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
No prob, just caught that during random patrolling :) It's a cool paper in case you don't have it, freely available pdf through link. Dinoguy2 ( talk) 03:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience | |
for all the patience required in getting a huge article like Allosaurus all spruced up good 'n' nice for FA status cheers, Casliber ( talk · contribs) 01:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC) |
I'd respond to your query instantly except that I'm not going to make life easier for those (not you) who have twice reverted my edits to Dinosaur - if it were not for the reverts I'd have quietly corrected the item. But I've noticed your much more friendly and co-operative tone in our few discussions and the many well-earned congratulations in your Talk page, and I'll be very happy to co-operate with you on any other article if it is appropriate. Philcha ( talk) 16:02, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I've just completed a major revision of Tyrannosaurus (""Locomotion" and "Feeding strategies"), for the reasons stated in Talk:Tyrannosaurus. I intend to revisit in about a week to polish the flow. Would you like to check it out? Philcha ( talk) 00:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
On your user page, do the articles you've created in order of when you did them ascend or descend in regard to time line (IE, are the ones at the top the first or latest articles you've created?). And is your talk page meant to be red/green texted?
Anyway, I came to congratulate you on your success with Allosaurus, one of my favourite dinosaurs. I had been looking to get it to FAC myself, but you've done a far better job than I could have ever done. :) Cheers, Spawn Man Review Me! 10:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks so much for doing such great work on Allosaurus! It's amazing how diverse these genera were, from what we can tell. Wikipedia really owes its all to quality contributors like you. – Quadell ( talk) ( random) 14:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi J,
I saw you're doing these all manually. You don't have to: you can use AWB, or I can do them, but there's no need to do them like that. Also, is there really a reason to remove the image parameters? It makes it easier to add an image if the image parameters are already in the taxobox. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Re-Sauropsida. Good question. Benton doesn't seem to use Sauropsida as a synonym for Reptilia, rather Reptilia is a paraphlyletic group that goes unranked and contains both Synapsida and Sauropsida, contrary to how most people use it. Maybe we should just switch back to class Reptilia if the Sauropsida article insists on treating it as a clade only. Actually, it seems Sauropsida doesn't discuss the situation in depth at all and consists of just a cladogram... should probably be redirected to reptile :) Dinoguy2 ( talk) 04:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Probably, because I read that the Spinosaurus was a contender for JP IV. Also, your welcome for archiving the talk page. I'll be doing that for more dinosaur articles now. Limetolime ( talk) 02:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi, there are a couple of points in Dinosaur where I thought we were close to agreement but nothing's happened for a while: rearrangement of "bird-like features" and "Physiology"; and the short classification with brief descriptions. Have you had second thoughts, or have you just been busy with other things? Philcha ( talk) 12:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
-- howcheng { chat} 19:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Elkman (Elkspeak) 05:00, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
-- Archtransit ( talk) 20:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I understand why you might not want to include them in the Category: Prehistoric reptiles of *****, but I think they deserve to be sub-categorized. Do you have an idea what to name it? I don't think we can just call it Category:Synapsids of ***** because technically that would include mammals, too, right? Any thoughts? Abyssal leviathin ( talk) 02:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Sheep & Spencer,
Thank you both for your wonderful clarification of the definition of 'Dinosaur'. There is a philosophical difference between what I call objective definitions and theoretical definitions. However, because the Wikipedia appears to discuss it nowhere, I left it out of my discussion.
It seems to me that whether 'Dinosaur' is an object (nominal or empirical) term or a theoretical (phylogenetic) term wasn't specified when it was first used. It has, I'm sure, been clarified since.
If I picture fluffy, crouched on the sofa, to be a cat, the 'cat' has an objective definition in zoology. The paleontologist hasn't this luxury, because 'hoppy' isn't with us anymore. We give his bones an objective definition and name, but now we give him (his ancestry, appearance, gait, &c) a theoretical definition, based upon 'correspondence rules' which really just connect properties of bones with theoretical inferences.
The practical difference is that names based on objective definitions never change. Zoologists base Fluffy's identity upon such an objective definition, so I know I have a cat. If 'cat' were instead based solely upon his skeleton and claudistics, one day I might learn in the news that the wrong metric was used in a cluster analysis, and fluffy is now a dog.
Paleontology clearly has problems zoology doesn't. But I'm not sure you're both right it using a theoretical definition to name a creature (as opposed to practice in zoology), though its name could change in the future. After all, no one (to my knowledge) has ever patted the skull of a Velociraptor and said 'Good morning, Hoppy!'.
My granddaughter is very happy.
Bruce Bathurst, PhD (Geologist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruce Bathurst ( talk • contribs) 20:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Dr Spencer, Thank you very much for your kind note concerning what I thought was an outstanding discussion on defining dinosaurs. Your and Dr Sheep's (?) information was so valuable that I've saved it, to offer my granddaughter much later. Your article makes it very clear now that (though Pterodactyl may not have been one), some dinosaurs flew, for birds are believed their ancestors (see, I've accepted the phylogenetic definition!). A question posed on Dr Sheep's Talk page, apparently in response to the discussion, shows that some people misunderstood 'terrestrial dinosaur' to be merely descriptive, as in 'crooked politician'. You should be very pleased with your excellent contributions to the article. I know how much work clear writing takes, and I salute your contributing to the Wikipedia, which I consider the best product of the internet yet.
My granddaughter is now comfortable with some flying Mesozoic creatures both being dinosaurs and not. She tells me the dragons were likely not, since birds don't breathe fire. She has also learned to distinguish between the svelte Chinese dragon, who created whirlpools while trying to catch their tails (like her kitty cat), and the more stout European dragon, that St. George fought. She hopes he didn't hurt the dragon much. She & I give you our thanks & best wishes. Geologist ( talk) 18:15, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah.. I'm a bit busy, anyway I will try to upload a next version. Thanks for the advice. Cheers!-- Dropzink ( talk) 23:52, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank! I asked this because I'm confuse. The marine reptiles that lived the same time with dinosaurs (like Plesiosaur, Pliosaur, Liopleurodon), I though they're dinosaurs because their names and appearances are pretty much like those of dinosaurs. And the flying reptiles (like Rhamphorhynchus, Pterodactylus, Sacphognathus) were also look alike dinosaurs and lived same time. In Jurassic Park III, flying reptiles Pteranodon appeared along side with dinosaurs. That's why I though they're also dinosaurs. But they're all not.
My idea is that it will more and more impressive if they're included as dinosaurs. For the reason is that dinosaur not only lived on land but also in the sky and the sea. 96.229.179.106 ( talk) 01:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Dylan didn't release a recording, but the basement tapes are widely available/traded, and have a Wikipedia article that mentions the song. I reverted you edit, but added not released, fair enough? Pustelnik ( talk) 21:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC) I understand now. I have also changed the internal link to Basement Tapes (Sessions), which lists each recording. Right now, this is separate from the album article. Pustelnik ( talk) 21:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, as far as I'm concerned. Pustelnik ( talk) 20:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Re: this edit.
I always thought curly quotes were preferable. I also felt that if the word italicized is right up against punctuation marks, those too were italicized (avoiding the top of a closed parenthesis, for example, from colliding with the slanted word). Anyway, just a thought. – TashTish ( talk) 00:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi again! I was thinking on the way I did my drawings, and I really don't like it, especially because they were created in Flash. Anyway I can use pencil drawing, it's difficult for me because I have a 10-year-old scannerXD So, it will be better if the Coelurus is task for some expert like Arthur or Steve by now. In something I want to work is in those Parasaurolophus skulls I left incomplete, when I finish the P. cyrtocristatus, don't forget in send me a skull or skeletal diagram of P. tubicen. Thanks. Dropzink ( talk) 08:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi. Regarding your additions to WP:LTA, I'm a big proponent of WP:DENY. I find when we start keeping huge lists of socks like at WP:LTA, they become shrines. When those shrines are taken down, the vandals sometimes lose interest and disappear. In some cases, I've kept lists in deleted pages where only administrators can see them - but at least they're still available. What do you think? — Wknight94 ( talk) 03:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's Bruce. Just wanted to assure your that my recent personal comments on the 'species problem' on the Dinosaur page in no way diminishes the great help you gave me, my granddaughter, and all teachers who consult that article before teaching children about dinosaurs. My comments will likely be removed, but it is very interesting to ask whether making 'dinosaur' a theoretical term is better than defining it traditionally, as all properties a set of specimens have in common. I think it is; but only a paleontologist 'will know for sure'. Thank you for your excellent, tireless contributions! Geologist ( talk) 19:53, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Your English teachers must have really traumatized you :-) Philcha ( talk) 14:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
On second thoughts they should have traumatized you a bit more - you just reinstated a split infinitive in Permian–Triassic extinction event ("to directly cause") :-) Philcha ( talk) 03:24, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
re dannys dinosaurs link I didnt really look carefully - but i have a thing about ext links sitting in ref areas - thanks Satu Suro 13:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
In general lone years should not be linked, but when they are part of a date 10 April 1962 they should - unless its a literal date in a quote, name of something , URL etc.. This is because it allows date formatting to work. Unfortunately these cite templates are currently rather complicated, and very widely used, so the fact that the date is sometimes linked and sometimes not, depending on the exact parameter used, will take a little resolving. There is an editor who has started working on this, however he is currently behind the great fire-wall of China. Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 18:01 25 March 2008 (GMT).
Hi J.
thanks for adding all those taxoboxes on the new WP:AFC paleo-reptile articles! Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 04:15, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Hi, a lot more similar articles have been submitted at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-29 and Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Today (what will be Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2008-03-30). Could do with a hand if you got the time. Thanks! :) KTC ( talk) 05:00, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
![]() |
The Fauna Barnstar | |
Thank you for your dedication to upkeep of dinosaur-related articles! Bob ( talk) 05:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC) |
-- Wizardman 15:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
Whatever became of this? I have some ideas on improving the article. Let me know if you're interested.
BTW congratulations on all the recent awards. Philcha ( talk) 16:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for adding that bit about procompsogonathuses in Biological issues in Jurassic Park. It nicely justifies a fact that would've otherwise been left dangling. The local gang has been able to get the article out of danger of being deleted, but as we're all a bunch of amateurs and I'm busy being largely incapacitated, that's about it.
And though I swear that this was not why I began this post, any other improvements you could make would be even more appreciated. The article is significant because:
Hi, sorry I reverted your edit, I'm sure my summary confused you. I had been reviewing prior edits by an IP which changed the established and cited measurements. Somehow I missed your changes altogether, but my revert affect your edits. Again, sorry for any confusion. Doc Tropics 04:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi, J. Spencer, thanks for you comments, and sorry for my delay in getting back to you. I'm not familiar with the capabilities of bots, and how one goes about requesting that one be set up. Where would I look to bone up on this? If it worked well, I would imagine it could be quite useful, but it seems to me that it would inevitably do a partial job in some situations, so one would want it to tag articles it has worked on to alert people to that fact (the tag could be removed from an article after someone checked the distribution of daggers and made corrections if necessary). WolfmanSF ( talk) 06:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am trying to get article Mystriosuchus ready for Good Article status, but I think there are multiple issues with the article. If you are interested in extinction-related articles, I'd appreciate it if you could lend a hand. I am asking all the users I can find who are prominently involved in the extinction-related wikiprojects. Thanks! The ''Gorgeous Girl''!!! ( talk) 04:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
-- BorgQueen ( talk) 10:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi J Spencer,
I added it in as quite a few pages seem to start "... extinct genus ...". Personally I don't mind either way, but in the interests of standardising of pages I added it. That said, I have to disagree that it implies some abelisaurs are not extinct, but then I suppose it depends on how you read it. Cheers, Mark t young ( talk) 12:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for dealing with the dwarf Al article. I never realised there was a species of Allosaurus page. Cheers, Mark t young ( talk) 23:16, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that! :D Abyssal leviathin ( talk) 04:01, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Cheers for your support during my RfA. Failed in the end, but I got a lot of good constructive criticism from the process which can only be an improvement for me. Who knows, in the coming months after I've incorporated all this advice I may be successful. Cheers! Mark t young ( talk) 07:23, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Your comments on his talk page have been very kind and measured. He's my son; he's only nine, he has some social challenges, and I set him up on here and then failed to monitor his progress adequately. I finally told him definitively the other day not to make any edits without consulting me (as I should have done in the first place), and that he can ask me all those questions on his talk page instead of the world at large.
One thing I've noticed on there is that a lot of people are awfully quick to fling the term "vandalism" around. Only the other day did I find the Wikipedia value about "assuming good faith," which I think is excellent, and violated with great frequency. Anyway, thanks again. AdRock ( talk) 15:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Firs;
Do you think you could provide me with the recreator of Haxsasauras (the original creator was User:TheHumbleTomato), and the creator of Haxassauras? We've got a serial hoaxer with this article, and I'd like to prepare a Checkuser report. J. Spencer ( talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi J,
Our article on Edmontosaurus currently states: "[...] Charles Mortram Sternberg named Thespesius saskatchewanensis in 1926, but this is also now considered to be a species of Edmontosaurus, namely E. saskatchewanensis" and then in the next paragraph states "Anatosaurus saskatchewanensis was sunk into Edmontosaurus as E. saskatchewanensis."
As you're sort of our resident ornithopod expert, I thought I'd ask if this makes any sense to you. I'm aware that there are many nomenclature tangles, but this seems to indicate that there were three different genera (Anatosaurus, Edmontosaurus , and Thespesius) which all had species named saskatchewanensis, and that they all three miraculously turned out to be the same species. Is some clarification needed here? Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi J,
Firs told me that you'd have a paper out in the not too distance future. I was wondering if you'd be interested in joining wP:WikiProject Palaeontology/COI? Its a new endeavor I've created as on the metriorhynchid articles I've referenced one of my own JVP publications (just a poster abstract). I don't want any of us to fall foul of WP:COI, so I set up this latest action list. Cheers, Mark t young ( talk) 23:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I had extended Leidyosuchus' range, as I saw that it was in the category of Paleocene Crocodylomorphs. So all of the Paleocene Leidyosuchus species have been moved to Borealosuchus?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 05:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)