User talk:Dinoguy2/Archive 7

1220:

an admin to do it, which I am not. The Paleo database says that Hesperornithes is not valid, so it may be an alternate/old classificaton? The Paleo website lists Hesperornithiformes as good taxa with its parent Odontoholomorphae which has yet to be created (a superorder). It then lists Ornithurae as the parent of Odontoholomorphae which you do have, and you are back on track. Many of the listed genera have now found their way to their respective families, with the exception of Judinornis which can't be found on the Paleontology database, however Knowledge (XXG) suggests Hesperornithiformes. Best solution to move Hesperornithes to Hesperornithiformes, and tweak the article and taxobox to reflect the new taxonomy? I'd do it, but I'm not an admin....

326:" in its infobox? (I ask you because you added it.) I'm more into caudate herpetology and felinology, when it comes to animals, than ornithology, so I'm not sure what the taxobox norms are for birds. I don't see what purpose it serves to add some kind of "sub-class" level that isn't agreed upon, unless there were an article about it and it explained what's going on (e.g. some dispute about it being a class or an order or a superorder or whatever, with summaries of the sides of the dispute linking to reliable sources presenting those sides, presumably journal articles). It doesn't seem to be project-normal to add things like this, either at the 1712:: I certainly have noticed that you're quick to delete text that you think misrepresents a source. Except when statements about living persons are involved, though, is that a Knowledge (XXG) policy or just your editorial style? Isn't {{Fv}} for less aggressive people like me, who prefer to issue a warning and give others an opportunity to find a better source, to revamp the text to conform to the source provided, or to argue that my claim of nonsupport is unfounded? As the worst case, 1745: 1651: 1611: 1548: 1508: 31: 781: 1327:

Yet an alternative explanation, based on the number of actually preserved caudals (none in the CM 9380, 15 in MOR 555, 31 in BHI 3033, 36 in FMNH PR 2081), is that the seemingly foreshortened tail in the Sue specimen is actually more representative of the actual tail length, whereas other reconstructions have overestimated tail lengths. More complete Tyrannosaurus discoveries would resolve this issue more conclusively

634: 483: 581:

crest not only could have been visual identification but the hollow passages in it may well have functioned as auditory identification too. Forget how "colorful" the picture is. We should never be hung up on that. We should worry about the educational value of an image. This one, to me, wins because it illustrates two concepts at once, not just one.

1219:

So I started playing around with the upper level taxonomy from Livesey and Zusi, cross-checked it with the Paleontology database, and made my first change (tax author) with the automatic taxobox for Hesperornithiformes (from Sharpe to Furbringer). I then tried to edit a taxobox, and saw I need to be

2040:

well, while the printing is pod, the actual content of the book as far as Amazon etc are concerned is set, and a revised edition would need to pass the publication proofing process (which clearly works like a charm, irony, more than a few typos etc. made it through) again and be assigned a new isbn.

1042:

Hi Matt. About my point of view that "it will be more fruitful to keep the information of this small clades in one article in order to make it a featured article", i have the cosmovision of the articles in Knowledge (XXG) concerning long-standing (traditional) groups with various recent clades, that

580:

I disagree with your reversion of my edit. I believe the Parasaurolophus image is much more relevant and educational here, because it illustrates how the crest in a Para could have functioned as both an auditory and visual display, not just visual as in the Lambeo image. The size and shape of a Para

1346:

Couldn't you modify some things(manely the torso) based on the recontstruction in that paper I linked to above, you see: the lower end of the range of sue's mass as estimated by the authors is 9.5 tons so I think that maybe the torso will have to be made more robust(I don't mene copying it, I just

1326:

Again, the Sue specimen tends to have the greatest lengths of the four adult specimens and the other three are markedly similar in most dimensions. However Sue's tail is reconstructed beyond the 27th caudal and could be artificially foreshortened as a result (cf. its tail length vs. that of Stan).

1320:

is somewhat shorter. The mounted skeleton of Sue was laser scanned and ended up being around 12.3M long, I'm under the impression that the 12.8m claim was an estimation and is older than the mount, assuming the mount is a more accurate (up to date) reconstruction, should it be reasonable to change

917:

Hi, Dinoguy2! Yesterday you changed many stem/node/etc. "rank"s back to the "rank" clade. Is there a particular reason for that? I know that stem/node aren't ranks, but the same thing is true about "clade"s. Is there any way to add a line for definitions in taxonomy templates (like the line for

792:

until June! One of my goals as resident, is to work with Wikipedians and staff to improve content on Knowledge (XXG) about people who have collections held in the Archives - most of these are scientists who held roles within the Smithsonian and/or federal government. I thought you might like to

1234:

Thanks for the heads up....I'll leave the bird paleo to you and others, just thought I'd help on the bird side given the uncertain structure up at that level. Livesey and Zusi looked good, well written, confirmed by another source and comprehensive. Little did I know

2008:

Thanks again guys! An index of illustrated taxa is on the to-do list for an eventual second edition :) The book is indeed done as POD. I'm sure a signed copy could be arranged if desired but would entail a higher shipping cost. Any arrangements should be made through

1043:

the most information amalgamated in it, the best. So, why to keep the information dispersed? We can even create, if the taxonomy section is big enough, an article about that topic. But anyway, we create the boundaries in this case, so it can be a matter of tastes.--

1917:

My congratulations with your new (first?) book! It commends itself by a rare intelligent introduction. Amazon didn't show any illustrations (unwise) but as you made them they must be gorgeous! Devastating comments will follow after I received my copy

247:

I think you agree with most of the forks in the tree that you removed. Let's cooperate on making the dinosaur part better. For many readers such a tree is valuable as orientation. The proper place of birds among reptiles is not well known.

376:, which you seem to have removed from the article about a year ago without comment. If it's incorrect, could you add a note stating that on commons, and if it's correct could you re-add it to the article or ping me so I can do so? Thanks, 1835:

is more closely related to birds than to oviraptorosaurs, so it's a paravian, but it lies outside the least inclusive clade containing birds and deinonychosaurs, so it's not an eumaniraptoran (I included part of that tree in the article

1830:

couldn't be a basal paravian that didn't belong to Eumaniraptora, because "Paraves is more exclusive than Eumaniraptora so can't be more basal". Why is that so? In a strict consensus tree recovered by Turner, Makovicky and Norell

391:

Thanks for your reply! I've added notes to the image pages on Commons, added the second image to the article, and I've replaced the first image with the second image wherever it appeared across the various wikipedias.

1976:

on the "about the author" page! My only disappointment so far is that I wish there was an index of taxa in the back of the book, for easy look-up. My copy was printed on the day I ordered it... is it print-on-demand?

1802:

hello there! just saw you're a participant in the reptiles project. i created a few stubs recently, and was wondering if the project needed some assistance in that regard. i hope you can let me know. cheers!

1199:

BC Livezey and RL Zusi, 2007. Higher-order Phylogeny of Modern Birds (Therapoda, Aves: Neornithes) Based on Comparative Anatomy II. Analysis and Discussion. Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society 149:

122:) refer to this assemblage as the 'Wealden Group' and make no reference to a 'Wealden Supergroup'. Confusingly the body of the article currently suggests that it is both a group and a supergroup. cheers 996:

accurate? I assume that it is not, given the date, but it is in use on other Wikipedias. If it's inaccurate, can you give a brief explanation of why so that I can tag the file page on commons? Thanks,

1205:

The latter is on line in full text and has a full historical classification division at the end from Aves to family. It also Looks more comprehensive than the first article.....Hope that helps....

1139:

Hi, Dinoguy2! Recently you deleted a photos in the page of Hadrosaur. Just to let you know, the caption under the upper bone of Hadrosaurs at the Royal Ontario Museum says:

978:

Thanks!! In the future if you see inaccurate images please add that tag with an explanation so that they will hopefully stay out of other wikipedias you're not monitoring. :)

557: 531: 877: 372:

is inaccurate because of the dorsal fin? If this is correct, could you add a note on the filepage on Commons so it's not added to articles anymore? There is also

463: 439: 1958:

Congratulations from here too, the premise of the book is ingenious! Hope the inevitable superstardom and gazillions won't drag you too far away from Wikipdia!

1758: 1664: 1624: 1561: 1521: 993: 873: 268: 1194:

A Phylogenomic Study of Birds Reveals Their Evolutionary History by Hackett et. al. 27 June 2008. Vol. 320 no. 5884 pp. 1763-1768; DOI: 10.1126/science.1157704

1783:

Hello,nice to meet you!!!I'm a fellow dinosaur and extinct animal enthusiast and i really love your drawings and scale charts.They're pretty pretty awesome --

674: 1412: 1286: 887: 741: 217: 164: 1082:(2004), to explain that synonymy. And now obviously Senter changed his mind, and his OTUs had different coding (for example at least 3 differences between 1944:

Thanks guys! The Look Inside preview on amazon does somehow manage to leave out any illustrations but a few previews can be seen at www.panaves.com.

1859: 1901: 1370:

agrees with it. Maybe both are used in the sciantific comunity, in which case we need to find out the more comonely used one and Not the formle one.

1366:

hy you recently Reverted a move that I performed with the statement that an article sites references which disagree with my edit somery, but the FA

154: 1864: 1840:). With these phylogenetic definitions Eumaniraptora is actually more exclusive of the two. So why is calling it basal paravian not justified?-- 271:

you labelled Eutheria a stem group. Aren't extant placental mammals part of Eutheria? Or am I not understanding what you mean by stem? thanks,

150: 731: 1408: 1316:

Hi Dinoguy2, just to let you know, although the tyranosaurus in your scale charts is about 12.8-13 meters long. The recontstruction of sue in

1282: 883: 737: 213: 160: 1972:

Just received my copy today; the illustrations are absolutely beautiful, and remind me of any typical bird-watching book. Nice shout out to

527: 1402: 1276: 727: 798: 2041:

I'm more inclined to wait until a second edition when I can more substantially update the content and maybe add some ornithomimids ;)

1398: 1272: 459: 435: 207: 794: 348: 1689:

Hy could you plese tel me hao to find a source's DOI and the other things which you need to know in order to reffrence matiriel.

203: 505: 369: 302: 281: 1405:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 1279:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 880:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 734:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 210:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 157:). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. 693:

if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the

806: 802: 960: 1190:

I'm no expert by any means, but there are 2 sources which give information regarding the upper level taxonomy of birds.

450: 426: 94: 640: 545: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 1716:

specifies "If the source has absolutely no relevance to any part of the article, delete the reference and replace with

1446:. but no one has made use of the referense I provided in the above mentioned post. Could you plees have a look at it. 1933:

I've also ordered my copy. Congratulations! Also, you should probably note your achievement on your userpage. JMHO.

959:- is it inaccurate? If so, how? It's in use on other wikipedias, so I'd like to update the commons image page with 694: 680: 38: 2026:

If it is print on demand, wouldn't it be possible to simply update the book, so all future prints have the index?

1897: 1860:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-mDqvrrHjB1w/UKgS8PeFUGI/AAAAAAAADRM/dBSQ4fdOwYs/s576/Velociraptor_Feathered.png

789: 373: 334:

level, but if it is and I'm just missed that fact, I'm curious what the rationale is and where it's explained. —

1869:

I would like to use a black and white version of your for a t-shirt on my website - www.myfavoritedinosaur.com

703: 1729: 1719: 368:

article but I don't want to restore any incorrect drawings. From my review of the page history, it looks like

1865:

https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-RZUS0XKwzIM/UKgU6ZiQ4lI/AAAAAAAADRY/kRs975v-nT4/s512/C3001_Maize_Yellow.jpg

1893: 1317: 534:

to review it. If you have the time or the will, please let me know if you are willing to review the article.

1808: 865: 809:

page you will receive the SIA barnstar! Thanks for your interest, and I look forward to your participation!

1889: 1347:

mene makeing some things match, which I hope to goodness doesn't fall in the range of copyright vialation).

1769: 1694: 1675: 1635: 1595: 1572: 1532: 1451: 1375: 1352: 1337: 1126: 1002: 983: 968: 918:

ranks)? If there isn't a way, I think we should use the rank line for definitions, when there is no rank.

814: 633: 615: 416: 397: 381: 1332:

Could it be that the original 12.8m estimate was based on the older reconstructions with too long a tail?

1845: 1751: 1744: 1048: 645: 342: 690: 1841: 1788: 1784: 1492: 1474: 1240: 1225: 1210: 1028: 298: 277: 127: 835:

with Testudininae? The parent is Testudinidae, bit maybe you are looking at some old refs? Regards,

1872:

Please let me know if you would permit this and how you would like me to attribute the art to you.

1823: 1725: 586: 2046: 2031: 2017: 1999: 1963: 1949: 1804: 1484: 600:

How do you get the automatic taxobox to display a family? I want to mention in the taxobox that

115: 47: 17: 1099: 934: 919: 327: 323: 1765: 1690: 1671: 1631: 1591: 1568: 1528: 1447: 1428: 1371: 1348: 1333: 1302: 1174: 1122: 1062:

Hi again! I'm not so familiar with theropod papers as you are, so how many papers synonymized

998: 979: 964: 903: 810: 757: 611: 393: 377: 233: 180: 1973: 1264: 1044: 565: 541: 337: 253: 331: 1724:." One is to delete the reference, but it does appear that deleting the text is optional. 1657: 1650: 1617: 1610: 1554: 1547: 1514: 1507: 1488: 1470: 1236: 1221: 1206: 1103: 1024: 938: 923: 850: 836: 500: 421: 293: 272: 123: 142: 1923: 780: 582: 2042: 2027: 2013: 1996: 1978: 1959: 1945: 1934: 1587: 1466: 1443: 1419: