![]() | Dinosaurs Project‑class | ||||||
|
Time to archive this page? If others think so I'm happy to implement it. Debivort
Hey all - I'm going to be away from my scanner through the 4th of January, so don't think I've left the project if I don't post any new sketches. Happy Holidays! Debivort 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In case you guys haven't seen this site, which just came back online, it's an excellent compilation of skeletal reconstrcutions from a variety of artists. [1] Dinoguy2 05:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The addition of this image [2] has pointed out a pretty glaring omission in our current official image guidelines--we should have one to the effect of "Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geogrphic range" under Criterion for removing an image. The image in question was captioned as Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Othnielia rex, two animals which did not live together. Since Todd Marshall is a well-respected paleoartists, I suspect one of the species is mislabelled (it's probably meant to depict Torvosaurus), but I think this would be a good policy to have in writing. Dinoguy2 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Are we not using the approved images page any longer? Should we splice those images back into the archives and then delete the whole page? Sheep81 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should have some kind of category on Commons, or a tag, to denote images that have gone through review without objection or have been modified until they passed a consesnus. Especially considering a number of good images are not immediately placed into an article, so if somebody's looking through commons in the future, we could easily distinguish which images are good enough to be used in articles, and which are not (maybe a "historical interest" tag as well, for antique reconstructions or reconstructions meant to depict outdated concepts?). This would also help us know when we can move a discussion from this page to the archives. Any thoughts? (I have no idea how to make tags myself, for the record ;) ) Dinoguy2 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just created category:Approved dinosaur images with link in the image review page and on the wikiproject dinosaur page (should be one on the Portal as well, i think). This should be easy to maintain as you just a have to place a category tag on the picture once approved. Might want to create subcategories for images with historical values and those for comparison charts. ArthurWeasley 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the images created by User:DiBgd? Check out his user contributions. A lot of herps and synapsids, but a few dinosaurs too. Some awesome stuff in there. One of his pictures is in Lambeosaurus. I think it's gorgeous. Sheep81 06:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think you need the artist permission for a review, but she/he would probably appreciate receiving feedbacks. I've just tagged approved the Lambeosaurus pic. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
While browsing the lovely gallery of approved images, I came across [:Image:Sketch plateosaurus.jpg]. It passed image review in the past, but I gather a new study precluded pronated hands in plateosaurs. So, if nominated now, this image probably wouldn't pass. Do we want a delisting procedure to take images out of the approved category, along the lines of WP:FPC? Cheers, Debivort 06:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a request for our awesome artists to mull over. I was looking at Fredrik Spindler's image in the Species of Psittacosaurus article, and while it's nice, it's copyrighted and fair use, not technically in the public domain. So I was wondering if any of our Project artists would like to try to make a PD replacement to show the variation in this genus. What I'm thinking is a series of pictures of the heads of the different species, as opposed to having them all one one image. Then we can place each image by the appropriate species. A profile shot for each one, or maybe one shot from the side and one from the front? We could also gather all the individual images and paste them onto one image for comparison, if somebody wanted. I know other dinos have no images, and Psittacosaurus has several, but I think it would be cool. Just throwing something out there. I've taken the liberty of uploading a bunch of images so that they can be used as a reference. You can contact me on my talk page for help if you want!
Sheep81 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
OK all - I guess I am not entirely sick of hadrosaurs. I have an idea to do a "sweeping panorama" style drawing of a herd of hadrosaurs moving across a plain with hills in the background. So, with this in mind, I have some questions:
1) Which species has the most evidence about herd behavior? 2) What type of biome would they live in? 3) Where are dinosaurs' genitals? Do they have cloaca(s)? 4) What were herd sizes? 5) Did herds mix species, as on the Serengheti? 6) If so, what other species would be there?
Guess that's all for now. Debivort 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So, into which approved categories should the composite diagrams go? They are both scale diagrams and reconstruction-style pictures. Debivort 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey all - is there any information concerning the dates of branch divergence in the hadrosaur family tree image? Debivort 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey all - the Hadrosaur family tree was promoted to Featured Picture status with unanimous support! Woot woot! A round of applause for all your absolutely essential input on the image. Debivort 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey all - are the approved categories still active? Haven't notice any new additions there. Debivort 06:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this an accurate reconstruction, off of which a new one can be modeled? It looks pretty ridiculous. Debivort 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Just learned of a poster presented at SVP on a find that will be officially published next year (never too early to incorporate into illustrations and keep them from becoming quickly out of date, hey?). Apparently, they've found a beatifully preserved and articulated Triceratops specimen with extensive skin impressions that I suppose could be incorporated into other ceratopsian species as well. The belly of Triceratops was covered in the familiar long, smooth, rectangular scales seen on the bellies of crocs, squamates, etc. The upper part of the body had typical ornithischian small, pebbly scales interspered with many larger scutes that have distinctive "nipples" in the center! Apparently the authors suggest that these might have formed the base of hollow psittacosaur-like quills. Interesting stuff, just thought I'd throw the heads up if anybody planned on drawing ceratopsians in the future or modifying older drawings. Dinoguy2 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Skeleton mounts are probably the least accurate form of "paleo-art" out there, because they're so difficult to change or reposition. Should we hold photos of mounts to the same standards as other images? For example, the classic pair of Anatotitan at the AMNH clearly violate what we now know about the way hadrosaur tails flexed or were held in life. Should the photo of that mount be in the taxobox, or relegated to the historical section? Dinoguy2 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I emailed Scott Hartman whilst doing the melanorosauus pic, and one thing I did wrong was having the shoulder blades too far apart. I sent a photo of a mount to him and he hacked it up to show what the shoulders should look like, he also kindly drew were some of the muscels go, This is Camarasaurus the origanl [12] and the altered with muscles [13]. He also said to, 'look at how David Krentz sculpted the muscles on his antedilluvial triceratops at his website for a good example of how the shoulder muscles look (www.krentzpresentz.com), but not his earlier pieces' Some may already know this but I thought it might be usful. [14] Steveoc 86 ( talk) 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
When some of our images have been transferred to commons, their en.wiki image space pages were deleted, along with categories, such as category:approved dinosaur images, etc. Please check your older images to make sure they are still in the approved categories! de Bivort 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I found this site, and the guy who owns it says all the images are free to use, as long as the site is credited. [15]
I've sent him an email asking what license he wants them uploaded under, and if he took the pictures himself, which I assume he did. Funkynusayri ( talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I'm no creationist myself, I simply found some of his images through a Google search when searching for Epigaulus/Ceratogaulus. I've already uploaded one image of a mammmal from his site, which was in the public domain due to age, and if you see on the right, you'll have to click on the image, then click on the source link, which is simply a direct link to the image, not the page itself. So to enter the actual site, you'd have to remove a lot of characters from the URL, and it's not as if most people would care to do that. I think that's a pretty small "price" to pay for having images like this [17] for example.
I thought I should consult you guys about it first, of course, as I realised it might be a problem to some. But again, the credit is rather indirect, it's just a direct link to the image under the source parameter, and maybe his own name in the author parameter. Funkynusayri ( talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that I think it would be "bad" if you uploaded some of your own images, that would be cool in any case! Anyhow, it's not even certain that he would allow his images to be used here on Wikipedia, which many creationists believe is biased in favour of "evolutionism", or so I've heard... I have asked him about this in an email which I'm waiting for a response to, however. Funkynusayri ( talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been scavenging Commons for pictures of dinosaur skeletons the last few hours, and have added pretty much all the ones with proper descriptions I could find to articles. But there are three images I found that show unidentified dinosaurs, so if anyone is able to identify them, it would be pretty cool. I'm not asking for "original research", I just imagine that some of you might be familiar with these exact replicas and therefore know what they are. Shown on the right. I've put them into the "unidentified dinosaurs" category on Commons as well. Funkynusayri ( talk) 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things: It looks like the hands of some of our ornithopods could stand a tweaking (see Talk:Parasaurolophus#image taxobox): specifically, the Parasaurolophus and Lambeosaurus taxobox images have separate fingers, when the three load-bearing fingers should appear to be one unit. Also, the Lambeosaurus image has the loose finger on the wrong side (pinky instead of thumb).
Coelurus could use a revised or new taxobox image, since the old one is not proportionate according to current reconstructions (see here and at the end of this pdf). I left a message at Dropzink's page, since he created the original image, but he's been editing sporadically since the end of August both here and at Commons. J. Spencer ( talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody think they would be able to make a scale chart of all the different Spinosauridaes? I think it would make a great addition to the article. 72.133.252.224 ( talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone got one? I found this [24], but what should the missing pieces, like the skull, be based on? Funkynusayri ( talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
We have a lot of images of sculptures and models taken at museums and such, which could turn out to be a problem. An image I had uploaded from Flickr somehow ended up on the main page when the article about Jurassic Park was shown there, the image was of a model Tyrannosaurus from the Universal Studios theme park, the fact that it ended up on the main page drew some attention to it, so an admin started this [25] discussion on the talk page of the image, and nominated it for deletion. If the same applies for all other sculptures and models, we might have a lot of copyright violations... I sure won't do anything about it, just warning that it might become a problem in the future. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I found this very cool image on Flickr and uploaded it to Commons, but it is extremely frustrating, because, well, there's some guy blocking view of the tail. So what should I do, crop out the man and lose the tail, or let him be, as some sort of size indicator? FunkMonk ( talk) 06:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Could we have a section with links to sites with good skeletal drawings? Could be cool and easier if we had such a collection somewhere on this page. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
[34] [35] [36] [37] FunkMonk ( talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Everyone - Happy New Year!
So, things have quieted down here, in part because a lot of the artists, myself included, have wandered off. How is the overall project going? How many genera remain unillustrated? If the number is non-astronomical, should we shoot for complete coverage?
Cheers. de Bivort 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you come across anatomically incorrect dinosaur images on Commons that should not be used on Wikipedia, be sure to put them into this category: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Anatomically_incorrect_dinosaur_restorations
Likewise, this category[ [39]] is for historical dinosaur drawings that have become obsolete due to newer research. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, recently occurred to me that there's an aspect of reconstruction we haven't really been taking into account when vetting images of quadrupedal dinosaurs... footfall formula. All vertebrates walk the same way. From a standstill, the legs proceed left hind, left fore, right hind, right fore. This really only becomes an issue when depicting an animal with one foot off the ground, but I only just started checking and found one (already corrected, [40] see file history). Apparently 50% of reconstructions in museums get this wrong (more for horses in art, here's a recent paper discussing the issue [41]), but maybe we can buck the trend. So cue Randy Newman... left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot... ;) Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This came up at Dinoforum regarding the privately owned, undescribed specimen of Prenocephale recently added then removed from that article.
Basically, should we have a policy on the use of photos displaying specimens that have not been scientifically described? There are many, many images from places like the Hong Kong Science Museum which displays such images. This can be especially problematic as many undescribed specimens in Chinese museums tend to be liberally enhanced (sometimes that's part of the reason they've never been described). Another issue is verifiability. 90% of the fossil shown on the Confuciusornis page have not been described, but are labelled not only as Confuciusornis but C. sanctus specifically. No doubt this is correct as those are very common, but what of rarer and easily misidentified species like Sinosauropteryx and Microraptor (each have unpublished specimen photos in their articles)? This can be especially problematic for private specimens that have never been seen by a scientist, such as the Prenocephale, but have been classified to genus and species level, based on diagnoses that are not available anywhere (basically, it's all necessarily OR on someone's part).
So what should be done? Remove all such images, or make a distinction (between private specimens, museum specimens, and specimens currently being studied by someone or in an unpublished thesis but not yet formally described)? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like the The Open Dinosaur Project [43] has used Lady of Hats' Wikipedia restorations of Styracosaurus and Abrictosaurus as their logo, pretty cool! FunkMonk ( talk) 08:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw the Walking With Dinosaurs Live show thing this sunday in Copenhagen, and when I left the building it was in afterwards, a British guy outside was selling bootleg WWD posters, but the fun thing is, these posters were two sided, and on the other side it had paleoart solely made by WP Dinosaurs contributors! The Segnosaurus I did was there for example, among other stuff, I'd like to list all the stuff on the poster here, but don't remember (Lady of Hats' Megalosaurus was there too though) and didn't buy it, because, hell, I ain't gonna buy something I drew myself! FunkMonk ( talk) 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Just found this, not sure what it's all about, but the captions are incredibly lame: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] FunkMonk ( talk) 18:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
In case someone hasn't noticed, there's now a paleoart review page similar to this one over at the paleontology project, take a look if you know anything about non-dinosaur anatomy of extinct animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review FunkMonk ( talk) 20:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh oh! Don't blame me, Funk inspired me to look into this after tagging the Sapeornis model for deletion on Commons. He cited freedom of panorama doesn't apply to works or art/sculptures/models etc. The problem is, freedom of panorama doesn't apply to anything in the US unless photographed in a public space. The AMNH is a private institution, and furthermore, this is their photo policy: [51]. All images uploaded to commons must be available for commercial use, which is a violation of museum policy. Obviosuly this will vary from museum to museum. And the NMNH is a govt institution, so everything there is automatically public domain. Can we re-upload the amnh images to Wikipedia, rather than commons, with a non-commercial tag maybe? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I really think we should have a section devoted to this, maybe on the to do list page, which otherwise really isn't used for anything anymore. Then one could just glance over that list before putting an image up for review, and already have many mistakes eliminated, and we'll prevent redundancy on the review page. It should cover everything, and would continually grow as new info comes along. Reason this sounds so urgent is that I just looked at this professional Caudipteryx restoration [53] by Michael Skrepnick which is wrong on quite a few levels. It's getting a bit creepy, because I see obvious mistakes in almost all the dinosaur paleoart I look at nowadays. Damn, we need some kind of police to govern this! I've started the section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/To_Do_List#Guidelines_for_dinosaur_restorations FunkMonk ( talk) 06:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Guys - I've been away from this project for a while. Kind of had a low wikipedia activity level. But, I'm back and while I'm going to work on the two images that were left on my to do list, I was very inspired by attempt at photorealism, and would like to give that a try. Can you all suggest an animal that would benefit from such an image? de Bivort 19:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Paper here. Seems that blues, most greens and even whites in birds are due to the structure of the barbs in a feather, not to pigment. Obviously this may not hold true for white in protofeathers as we know animals with monofilament integument can be white (mammals), but the fact that no blue or green mammals exist appears partly due to the fact that no pigments are present to produce these colors. Therefore any recons of blue or green feathered dinosaurs on areas of the body lacking barbs and barbules are likely incorrect. As a side note, I like that the blue-priducing layer of the feather was, in 1866, termed "email." :) Dinoguy2 ( talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Colour of Sinosauropteryx: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_sc/us_sci_dinosaur_color FunkMonk ( talk) 18:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In case someone doesn't know it, there's a nice tool in Photoshop called "replace color", so instead of removing images with wrong colours, simply replace the colour. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
As it seems, EVERY SIGLE IMPORTANT DINOSAUR HAS BEEN ILLUSTRATED. Outside that (and this review) realm, a mammal would be nice. Machrauchenia? I have a book saying Schlermolochus might have flown. Any feed on that? The suggestion was made because of its long limbs. My work here is done, so I guess it's time to put up MP for good, or this month. School is almost over, so I might return in June. Does anyone need anything else to do?-- O V I R A P T O R 1 8
A new coelurosaur has been described in Siberia. Info at Nobu Tamura's website: [62]. I wonder how MMartyniuk or Conty is going to go on this one, if they do. -- Sneaky Oviraptor18 talk edits tribute 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
![]() | Dinosaurs Project‑class | ||||||
|
Time to archive this page? If others think so I'm happy to implement it. Debivort
Hey all - I'm going to be away from my scanner through the 4th of January, so don't think I've left the project if I don't post any new sketches. Happy Holidays! Debivort 20:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
In case you guys haven't seen this site, which just came back online, it's an excellent compilation of skeletal reconstrcutions from a variety of artists. [1] Dinoguy2 05:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
The addition of this image [2] has pointed out a pretty glaring omission in our current official image guidelines--we should have one to the effect of "Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geogrphic range" under Criterion for removing an image. The image in question was captioned as Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Othnielia rex, two animals which did not live together. Since Todd Marshall is a well-respected paleoartists, I suspect one of the species is mislabelled (it's probably meant to depict Torvosaurus), but I think this would be a good policy to have in writing. Dinoguy2 17:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
Are we not using the approved images page any longer? Should we splice those images back into the archives and then delete the whole page? Sheep81 07:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking we should have some kind of category on Commons, or a tag, to denote images that have gone through review without objection or have been modified until they passed a consesnus. Especially considering a number of good images are not immediately placed into an article, so if somebody's looking through commons in the future, we could easily distinguish which images are good enough to be used in articles, and which are not (maybe a "historical interest" tag as well, for antique reconstructions or reconstructions meant to depict outdated concepts?). This would also help us know when we can move a discussion from this page to the archives. Any thoughts? (I have no idea how to make tags myself, for the record ;) ) Dinoguy2 05:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I've just created category:Approved dinosaur images with link in the image review page and on the wikiproject dinosaur page (should be one on the Portal as well, i think). This should be easy to maintain as you just a have to place a category tag on the picture once approved. Might want to create subcategories for images with historical values and those for comparison charts. ArthurWeasley 23:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Has anyone seen the images created by User:DiBgd? Check out his user contributions. A lot of herps and synapsids, but a few dinosaurs too. Some awesome stuff in there. One of his pictures is in Lambeosaurus. I think it's gorgeous. Sheep81 06:15, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Nah, I don't think you need the artist permission for a review, but she/he would probably appreciate receiving feedbacks. I've just tagged approved the Lambeosaurus pic. Cheers. ArthurWeasley 18:17, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
While browsing the lovely gallery of approved images, I came across [:Image:Sketch plateosaurus.jpg]. It passed image review in the past, but I gather a new study precluded pronated hands in plateosaurs. So, if nominated now, this image probably wouldn't pass. Do we want a delisting procedure to take images out of the approved category, along the lines of WP:FPC? Cheers, Debivort 06:41, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
I have a request for our awesome artists to mull over. I was looking at Fredrik Spindler's image in the Species of Psittacosaurus article, and while it's nice, it's copyrighted and fair use, not technically in the public domain. So I was wondering if any of our Project artists would like to try to make a PD replacement to show the variation in this genus. What I'm thinking is a series of pictures of the heads of the different species, as opposed to having them all one one image. Then we can place each image by the appropriate species. A profile shot for each one, or maybe one shot from the side and one from the front? We could also gather all the individual images and paste them onto one image for comparison, if somebody wanted. I know other dinos have no images, and Psittacosaurus has several, but I think it would be cool. Just throwing something out there. I've taken the liberty of uploading a bunch of images so that they can be used as a reference. You can contact me on my talk page for help if you want!
Sheep81 03:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
OK all - I guess I am not entirely sick of hadrosaurs. I have an idea to do a "sweeping panorama" style drawing of a herd of hadrosaurs moving across a plain with hills in the background. So, with this in mind, I have some questions:
1) Which species has the most evidence about herd behavior? 2) What type of biome would they live in? 3) Where are dinosaurs' genitals? Do they have cloaca(s)? 4) What were herd sizes? 5) Did herds mix species, as on the Serengheti? 6) If so, what other species would be there?
Guess that's all for now. Debivort 02:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
So, into which approved categories should the composite diagrams go? They are both scale diagrams and reconstruction-style pictures. Debivort 01:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey all - is there any information concerning the dates of branch divergence in the hadrosaur family tree image? Debivort 14:30, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Hey all - the Hadrosaur family tree was promoted to Featured Picture status with unanimous support! Woot woot! A round of applause for all your absolutely essential input on the image. Debivort 19:43, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Hey all - are the approved categories still active? Haven't notice any new additions there. Debivort 06:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Is this an accurate reconstruction, off of which a new one can be modeled? It looks pretty ridiculous. Debivort 07:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
Just learned of a poster presented at SVP on a find that will be officially published next year (never too early to incorporate into illustrations and keep them from becoming quickly out of date, hey?). Apparently, they've found a beatifully preserved and articulated Triceratops specimen with extensive skin impressions that I suppose could be incorporated into other ceratopsian species as well. The belly of Triceratops was covered in the familiar long, smooth, rectangular scales seen on the bellies of crocs, squamates, etc. The upper part of the body had typical ornithischian small, pebbly scales interspered with many larger scutes that have distinctive "nipples" in the center! Apparently the authors suggest that these might have formed the base of hollow psittacosaur-like quills. Interesting stuff, just thought I'd throw the heads up if anybody planned on drawing ceratopsians in the future or modifying older drawings. Dinoguy2 04:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Skeleton mounts are probably the least accurate form of "paleo-art" out there, because they're so difficult to change or reposition. Should we hold photos of mounts to the same standards as other images? For example, the classic pair of Anatotitan at the AMNH clearly violate what we now know about the way hadrosaur tails flexed or were held in life. Should the photo of that mount be in the taxobox, or relegated to the historical section? Dinoguy2 23:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
I emailed Scott Hartman whilst doing the melanorosauus pic, and one thing I did wrong was having the shoulder blades too far apart. I sent a photo of a mount to him and he hacked it up to show what the shoulders should look like, he also kindly drew were some of the muscels go, This is Camarasaurus the origanl [12] and the altered with muscles [13]. He also said to, 'look at how David Krentz sculpted the muscles on his antedilluvial triceratops at his website for a good example of how the shoulder muscles look (www.krentzpresentz.com), but not his earlier pieces' Some may already know this but I thought it might be usful. [14] Steveoc 86 ( talk) 19:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
When some of our images have been transferred to commons, their en.wiki image space pages were deleted, along with categories, such as category:approved dinosaur images, etc. Please check your older images to make sure they are still in the approved categories! de Bivort 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I found this site, and the guy who owns it says all the images are free to use, as long as the site is credited. [15]
I've sent him an email asking what license he wants them uploaded under, and if he took the pictures himself, which I assume he did. Funkynusayri ( talk) 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I'm no creationist myself, I simply found some of his images through a Google search when searching for Epigaulus/Ceratogaulus. I've already uploaded one image of a mammmal from his site, which was in the public domain due to age, and if you see on the right, you'll have to click on the image, then click on the source link, which is simply a direct link to the image, not the page itself. So to enter the actual site, you'd have to remove a lot of characters from the URL, and it's not as if most people would care to do that. I think that's a pretty small "price" to pay for having images like this [17] for example.
I thought I should consult you guys about it first, of course, as I realised it might be a problem to some. But again, the credit is rather indirect, it's just a direct link to the image under the source parameter, and maybe his own name in the author parameter. Funkynusayri ( talk) 03:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Not that I think it would be "bad" if you uploaded some of your own images, that would be cool in any case! Anyhow, it's not even certain that he would allow his images to be used here on Wikipedia, which many creationists believe is biased in favour of "evolutionism", or so I've heard... I have asked him about this in an email which I'm waiting for a response to, however. Funkynusayri ( talk) 03:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been scavenging Commons for pictures of dinosaur skeletons the last few hours, and have added pretty much all the ones with proper descriptions I could find to articles. But there are three images I found that show unidentified dinosaurs, so if anyone is able to identify them, it would be pretty cool. I'm not asking for "original research", I just imagine that some of you might be familiar with these exact replicas and therefore know what they are. Shown on the right. I've put them into the "unidentified dinosaurs" category on Commons as well. Funkynusayri ( talk) 16:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
A couple of things: It looks like the hands of some of our ornithopods could stand a tweaking (see Talk:Parasaurolophus#image taxobox): specifically, the Parasaurolophus and Lambeosaurus taxobox images have separate fingers, when the three load-bearing fingers should appear to be one unit. Also, the Lambeosaurus image has the loose finger on the wrong side (pinky instead of thumb).
Coelurus could use a revised or new taxobox image, since the old one is not proportionate according to current reconstructions (see here and at the end of this pdf). I left a message at Dropzink's page, since he created the original image, but he's been editing sporadically since the end of August both here and at Commons. J. Spencer ( talk) 15:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Does anybody think they would be able to make a scale chart of all the different Spinosauridaes? I think it would make a great addition to the article. 72.133.252.224 ( talk) 18:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone got one? I found this [24], but what should the missing pieces, like the skull, be based on? Funkynusayri ( talk) 23:26, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
We have a lot of images of sculptures and models taken at museums and such, which could turn out to be a problem. An image I had uploaded from Flickr somehow ended up on the main page when the article about Jurassic Park was shown there, the image was of a model Tyrannosaurus from the Universal Studios theme park, the fact that it ended up on the main page drew some attention to it, so an admin started this [25] discussion on the talk page of the image, and nominated it for deletion. If the same applies for all other sculptures and models, we might have a lot of copyright violations... I sure won't do anything about it, just warning that it might become a problem in the future. FunkMonk ( talk) 14:54, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
I found this very cool image on Flickr and uploaded it to Commons, but it is extremely frustrating, because, well, there's some guy blocking view of the tail. So what should I do, crop out the man and lose the tail, or let him be, as some sort of size indicator? FunkMonk ( talk) 06:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
Could we have a section with links to sites with good skeletal drawings? Could be cool and easier if we had such a collection somewhere on this page. FunkMonk ( talk) 16:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
[34] [35] [36] [37] FunkMonk ( talk) 18:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi Everyone - Happy New Year!
So, things have quieted down here, in part because a lot of the artists, myself included, have wandered off. How is the overall project going? How many genera remain unillustrated? If the number is non-astronomical, should we shoot for complete coverage?
Cheers. de Bivort 01:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
If you come across anatomically incorrect dinosaur images on Commons that should not be used on Wikipedia, be sure to put them into this category: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Anatomically_incorrect_dinosaur_restorations
Likewise, this category[ [39]] is for historical dinosaur drawings that have become obsolete due to newer research. FunkMonk ( talk) 13:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey everyone, recently occurred to me that there's an aspect of reconstruction we haven't really been taking into account when vetting images of quadrupedal dinosaurs... footfall formula. All vertebrates walk the same way. From a standstill, the legs proceed left hind, left fore, right hind, right fore. This really only becomes an issue when depicting an animal with one foot off the ground, but I only just started checking and found one (already corrected, [40] see file history). Apparently 50% of reconstructions in museums get this wrong (more for horses in art, here's a recent paper discussing the issue [41]), but maybe we can buck the trend. So cue Randy Newman... left foot, right foot, left foot, right foot... ;) Dinoguy2 ( talk) 17:01, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This came up at Dinoforum regarding the privately owned, undescribed specimen of Prenocephale recently added then removed from that article.
Basically, should we have a policy on the use of photos displaying specimens that have not been scientifically described? There are many, many images from places like the Hong Kong Science Museum which displays such images. This can be especially problematic as many undescribed specimens in Chinese museums tend to be liberally enhanced (sometimes that's part of the reason they've never been described). Another issue is verifiability. 90% of the fossil shown on the Confuciusornis page have not been described, but are labelled not only as Confuciusornis but C. sanctus specifically. No doubt this is correct as those are very common, but what of rarer and easily misidentified species like Sinosauropteryx and Microraptor (each have unpublished specimen photos in their articles)? This can be especially problematic for private specimens that have never been seen by a scientist, such as the Prenocephale, but have been classified to genus and species level, based on diagnoses that are not available anywhere (basically, it's all necessarily OR on someone's part).
So what should be done? Remove all such images, or make a distinction (between private specimens, museum specimens, and specimens currently being studied by someone or in an unpublished thesis but not yet formally described)? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 16:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Seems like the The Open Dinosaur Project [43] has used Lady of Hats' Wikipedia restorations of Styracosaurus and Abrictosaurus as their logo, pretty cool! FunkMonk ( talk) 08:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I saw the Walking With Dinosaurs Live show thing this sunday in Copenhagen, and when I left the building it was in afterwards, a British guy outside was selling bootleg WWD posters, but the fun thing is, these posters were two sided, and on the other side it had paleoart solely made by WP Dinosaurs contributors! The Segnosaurus I did was there for example, among other stuff, I'd like to list all the stuff on the poster here, but don't remember (Lady of Hats' Megalosaurus was there too though) and didn't buy it, because, hell, I ain't gonna buy something I drew myself! FunkMonk ( talk) 01:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Just found this, not sure what it's all about, but the captions are incredibly lame: [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] FunkMonk ( talk) 18:32, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
In case someone hasn't noticed, there's now a paleoart review page similar to this one over at the paleontology project, take a look if you know anything about non-dinosaur anatomy of extinct animals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review FunkMonk ( talk) 20:57, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Uh oh! Don't blame me, Funk inspired me to look into this after tagging the Sapeornis model for deletion on Commons. He cited freedom of panorama doesn't apply to works or art/sculptures/models etc. The problem is, freedom of panorama doesn't apply to anything in the US unless photographed in a public space. The AMNH is a private institution, and furthermore, this is their photo policy: [51]. All images uploaded to commons must be available for commercial use, which is a violation of museum policy. Obviosuly this will vary from museum to museum. And the NMNH is a govt institution, so everything there is automatically public domain. Can we re-upload the amnh images to Wikipedia, rather than commons, with a non-commercial tag maybe? Dinoguy2 ( talk) 19:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I really think we should have a section devoted to this, maybe on the to do list page, which otherwise really isn't used for anything anymore. Then one could just glance over that list before putting an image up for review, and already have many mistakes eliminated, and we'll prevent redundancy on the review page. It should cover everything, and would continually grow as new info comes along. Reason this sounds so urgent is that I just looked at this professional Caudipteryx restoration [53] by Michael Skrepnick which is wrong on quite a few levels. It's getting a bit creepy, because I see obvious mistakes in almost all the dinosaur paleoart I look at nowadays. Damn, we need some kind of police to govern this! I've started the section here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Image_review/To_Do_List#Guidelines_for_dinosaur_restorations FunkMonk ( talk) 06:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Guys - I've been away from this project for a while. Kind of had a low wikipedia activity level. But, I'm back and while I'm going to work on the two images that were left on my to do list, I was very inspired by attempt at photorealism, and would like to give that a try. Can you all suggest an animal that would benefit from such an image? de Bivort 19:31, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Paper here. Seems that blues, most greens and even whites in birds are due to the structure of the barbs in a feather, not to pigment. Obviously this may not hold true for white in protofeathers as we know animals with monofilament integument can be white (mammals), but the fact that no blue or green mammals exist appears partly due to the fact that no pigments are present to produce these colors. Therefore any recons of blue or green feathered dinosaurs on areas of the body lacking barbs and barbules are likely incorrect. As a side note, I like that the blue-priducing layer of the feather was, in 1866, termed "email." :) Dinoguy2 ( talk) 19:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
Colour of Sinosauropteryx: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100127/ap_on_sc/us_sci_dinosaur_color FunkMonk ( talk) 18:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
In case someone doesn't know it, there's a nice tool in Photoshop called "replace color", so instead of removing images with wrong colours, simply replace the colour. FunkMonk ( talk) 01:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
As it seems, EVERY SIGLE IMPORTANT DINOSAUR HAS BEEN ILLUSTRATED. Outside that (and this review) realm, a mammal would be nice. Machrauchenia? I have a book saying Schlermolochus might have flown. Any feed on that? The suggestion was made because of its long limbs. My work here is done, so I guess it's time to put up MP for good, or this month. School is almost over, so I might return in June. Does anyone need anything else to do?-- O V I R A P T O R 1 8
A new coelurosaur has been described in Siberia. Info at Nobu Tamura's website: [62]. I wonder how MMartyniuk or Conty is going to go on this one, if they do. -- Sneaky Oviraptor18 talk edits tribute 17:38, 31 March 2010 (UTC)