Talk:Styracosaurus/Archive 1

bonebed in Arizona??

|class=FA Hey, does anybody know anything about the bonebed discovery from Arizona? can't find anything on google Cas Liber 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I've found nothing, either, so I've removed it. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A to-do list of sorts

My, someone's been busy! The article is looking great and getting close to FA nomination (this is an all-too-premature congratulations).

Ideas:

• I think there's some stuff floating around on the sort of environment styracosaurus may have lived in that would be good ot put in Paleobiology - and possibly expand on the herding bit. Am at work at the moment so can't do too much. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I think the idea of sexual dimorphism is fascinating and there must be more material to add to that discussion somewhere. cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

My thanks to both you and Dinoguy for the fixes. I'm not sure this article is anywhere close to FA status, but GA might be passable. I've submitted to scientific peer review for a once-over. It is my hope that there's someone there qualified to review it.

I agree the herding issue must be discussed somewhere: no herding evidence has been found for this genus, as far as I'm aware: only isolated individuals have been found (no bonebed). I will gladly try to scrape together more bits on the sexual dimorphism angle, but it's awfully late here. I know that you're at work, and awfully busy, but if you find something later on, feel free to add it. Again, thank you very much for the comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't find anything else directly on Styracosaurus: the question is whether the article benefits from indirect discussion eg. adding bit on likely Protoceratops dimorphism and inferring that Styracosaurus may be as well. The same goes for embellishing on herding behaviour. The article is nuice and well-rounded. Qustion is, is it long enough? cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Long enough? Probably not. I plan to add a few more bits, as suggested in peer review, but even then, it likely will only be as long as Albertosaurus, the shortest FA. Don't sweat it, though, Cas. GA is not out of reach. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, check out another FA - Make Way for Ducklings - I just highlight this as if the information is limited then comprehensiveness can be achieved with a shorter page. I reckon this looks really good now. Question is, do the others agree? Circeus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).

Good point, Cas; that article is only 16.9, considerably shorter than this one. I was just worried that people would comment that this article isn't as comprehensive as other dinosaur articles (because it's shorter), but J. has corrected a few of my mistakes, added more refs, and the article is now 23k long, 13th longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia. I've just sent this article to GA, but do you think it's FA-suitable? Firsfron of Ronchester 00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I do but I am generally satisfied before others, being way down on the slob-prefectionist axis. Circeus is the most thorough so if he's happy then I think it's all systems go....cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You call yourself a slob, but I don't look at it like that. I think of all the work you put into Stegosaurus, for example, as top-notch. I do agree Circeus is extraordinarily thorough, though. Since J. contributed a lot to this article, I've asked him for input about this as well. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I didn't say I actually reached the slob end of the axis, just very close :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, I'm groaning at that terrible pun... Firsfron of Ronchester 07:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK -added a note from dinosauria. Shoudl be reworded but I gotta run now. Also - there is a section on pros and cons of herding being an explanation for bonebeds in dinosauria. Do we want this in here? If so I can add later too. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please, if you can tie it in to Styracosaurus somehow. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Having been through it a couple of times now, I think it's pretty close. The only things that may be of concern are the differing ref formats (some using cite journal/book templates, some not) and the "rediscovery of the S. parksi site" info; wish we could find a source there. J. Spencer 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate your thorough copyedit, the units of measurement no longer adhere to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Units_of_measurement. Units are supposed to be spelled out, unless they appears in parentheses. The example they give is: "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" or "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long". Firsfron of Ronchester 21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

That's rather curious. It makes more sense to spell each term out once and then shorten the rest of the way. I suppose the terms in parentheses are so well known as to not require being spelled out once? I shall give someone a piece of my mind, once someone tells me where I left it. J. Spencer 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why they've chosen to do it that way, but someone made that decision and it somehow become consensus. Like the in-line citation craze, which I personally don't like very much. Thank you for fixing it. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester 21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• The article is unusually scant of images, so if anyone got some images of skeletons or similar, it would be cool to have them uploaded. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have any images of Styracosaurus laying around. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

EL

One of the external links in 404. I commented it out. Would anyone familiar with that site get it right please? -- Y not? 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. It's no longer hosted by the University, but I think it was working recently. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated refs

If you look through the references, Dodson (1996) is repeated four or five times. It's a great book, but... Sheep81 10:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

They are not repeated references. During one FACing, I was told by an established FAC reviewer that specific page references should be done for each citation. Footnote #3 references pages 165–169. Footnote #12 references pages 197–199. Footnote #18 references page 244. Footnote #30 references page 266, and #33 references page 269. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Units?

I'm querying weighing nearly 3 tons - which ton are we talking about here? Given that this is a scentific topic, I suggest that the article use tonnes, with a possible parenthesised Imperial equivalent following. Will someone check the actual weight (I note there's no reference given), and then edit the value and link accordingly, please? Kay Dekker (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the weight is referenced to Lambert (1993). From the body of the text: "Individuals of the Styracosaurus genus were approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) long as adults and weighed around 2.7 tons.[2]" It's not cited in the lead because WP:LEAD states "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." We normally have not been placing citations in the lead of an article when the citation is already present in the text. The ton the article is referring to is the US ton, as this is an American dinosaur. A link to short ton might be appropriate. Thanks for your adjustments earlier. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

from wiki: albertosaurus and conform my own impressions: "There is abundant evidence for gregarious behavior among herbivorous dinosaurs, including ceratopsians and hadrosaurs.[25] ".24.132.170.252 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Flat cheek teeth?

It says in the lead "It also had a beak and flat cheek teeth, indicating that its diet was herbivorous." First of all there should be nothing in the lead that isn't given elsewhere in the article, and I can't find this information about the teeth anywhere else. Secondly - what are "flat cheek teeth"? Are they flat on the top surface or flat vertically? I presume it means the top surface is flat suggesting they were for grinding and not slicing through flesh, but it's not clear. Also, isn't there a better name than "cheek teeth"? Are they molars or doesn't this name apply to dinosaur teeth? Richerman (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

There's a section on the teeth and the animals' diet here. "ceratopsid teeth sliced but did not grind".

I know there's a section on teeth (I missed the bit about slicing not grinding) but it doesn't say anything about the teeth being flat, so I'm still not sure in which direction they were flat or why that would indicate that its diet was herbivorous. Richerman (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Ceratopians are a bit tricky, in that there's a decent chance the smaller genera were more like pigs equipped with front-mounted garden shears than bog-standard herbivores. All ceratopsians were probably cutting something that offered resistance into short lengths, and herbivore is favored over carnivore for other reasons than just tooth form (big stumpy body, lack of separate pointy teeth, and so on). Still, those beaks would offer a nasty defensive bite; a parrot will hurt your fingers, a Psittacosaurus could mangle your hand, a Protoceratops could mangle your arm (as seen with the "Fighting Dinosaurs" Velociraptor), and a Triceratops would be like an elephant with a Jaws-of-Life cutter instead of a trunk. J. Spencer (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FA?

How did this article become featured? I have seen a lot of non-featured articles that are much better than this.. -GabaG (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

(It seems the article may have been partly vandalized with some removed content when i wrote that earlier. However still /\..)-GabaG (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM ALERT!!!

The phrase alan childs ia a queer is found on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.14.52 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Styracosaur should be created as a redirect to this article. Regards. --87.217.184.242 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits, February 2012 (Thescelosaurus quote)

i am updating this article as i just did to the centrosaur article to reflect the actual quotation from the thescelosaur reference given...i noticed the error because i was fairly certain "ceratopines" is not a word...the sentence from the reference reads as follows: "The centrosaurines, as previously described, are usually recognized by their prominent nasal horns, subordinate brow horns, short squamosals in a short frill, a tall, deep face relative to the chasmosaurines, and a projection into the rear of the nasal fenestra." in the article it read "...deep face relative to the ceratopines..." so i fixed it. i realise that i am new to this editing thing but i am only trying to help...thank you...i am going to go check the other chasmosaurine centrosaurinae etc Ruraltexas (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you - the source originally did use "ceratopines" (because that is technically how Ceratopinae should be spelled, not Ceratopsinae), but later gave up the spelling and ended up using Chasmosaurinae on the grounds that Ceratops isn't necessarily a ceratopsine as the group was traditionally defined (long-horned ceratopsids). J. Spencer (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

thanks for your prompt response...learn something new everyday, all the years i've been messin with paleo i just never ran across 'ceratopine'...question--i know we respect thescelosaurus as a verifiable source, i was wondering about the merit of using the identical quote in both the Centrosaurus article and the Styracosaurus article regarding the aforementioned quotation .. i suppose it's an aesthetic issue for me...it doesn't detract from either article...just curiousRuraltexas (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Like you said, it's not a big deal, but we can probably find a better source, perhaps something from the recent horned dinosaurs volume. J. Spencer (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Styracosaurus/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

==intro== "a single horn protruding from its nose, at 60 centimeters (2 feet) long" Use something else than "at." Thanks; fixed. "Like other ceratopsians, this dinosaur was most possibly a herd animal, traveling in large groups and caring for its young after they hatched." Compare this and "there is no solid evidence that Styracosaurus lived in groups." under "paleobiology"... I've added the caveat that there's no definitive proof that it did live in herds. Thanks. ==Description== "parietosquasomal frill" HOLY JARGON BATMAN! Parenthetical definition anyone? What's wrong with parietosquasomal frill"? ;) OK, OK, I've added a parenthetical with a link to neck frill. Thanks for the suggestion. "those seen in Centrosaurus" Why isn't Centrosaurus linked? Because I must have goofed and removed it. Fixed. "Unlike Triceratops, Styracosaurus had large fenestrae (skull openings) in its frill." Why compare specifically to Triceratops? Was having fenestrae rare, or the opposite? In any case, "unlike related genera, like T." wouldbe better I compared specifically to Triceratops because it is the best known horned dinosaur to the general public. I'm pretty sure most people will know what a Triceratops is, but not everyone will know Styracosaurus. This was an attempt to provide the reader with a comparison with something more familiar, so even in the absence of images, they could understand what was being said. I've reworked the area you've specifically commented on, and if you have further suggestions, I'm certainly game. As far as related genera in both groups, they mostly did have fenestrae; Triceratops is a rather rare exception. If Triceratops is an exception, and most ceratopsid actually had fenestrae, maybe it's better to simply say "Like most ceratopsid, it had fenestrae" (or however best it can integrate) ? Done, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:45, 21 April 2007 (UTC) "Above the eyes, Styracosaurus had tiny, undeveloped brow horns." Return the "above the eye" to a more natural position at the end. Done, thanks.Firsfron of Ronchester 16:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC) ===Posture=== Compare Triceratops: no need for a new section (if there was, it should probably go in Paleobiology?) I've eliminated the section heading, per your observation. The section leaves the reader wanting: it says "Various limb positions have been proposed", but only mentions one. I've mentioned the other main one, which was sprawling forelimbs. J. Spencer recently linked to a new article on this, I think, so I suppose the section could use some expanding. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:49, 20 April 2007 (UTC) ==classification== the Centrosaurinae, a family of large North American horned dinosaurs It's a subfamily, not a family It is. Here I was being too informal, and just trying to relate the idea to the reader that they're related. I've adjusted the text to read "subfamily". Much thanks for this comment, which would definitely have counted as a mistake in one of those Nature reviews. "relative to the ceratopines" Isn't it "ceratopsines"? Either is correct. "a projection into the rear of the nasal fenestra." A projection? what is that I've just found that that is a copyvio of J. Spencer's Thescelosaurus site. Unless he wrote it himself here, I will attempt to rework this so it's not a blatant copyvio. Well, you can formally quote it, if it comes to that. J. has an excellent web-site, Thescelosaurus!, which is highly regarded in the dinosaur community. It is thorough (hundreds of genera are discussed), easily accessible to amateurs, and is well-researched. Unfortunately, it is a personal web-site, and may not pass WP:RS. There is a well-meaning regular FAC reviewer who refuses to pass articles which use personal web-sites as references, even if those sites are written by professionals in the field and even if those sites appear as references in print publications. We have been fortunate enough to have been allowed to use J.'s site as a reference on articles of lesser quality, but I worry that this reviewer would object to the use of J.'s site if this article were to reach FAC. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC) "Other members of the clade include" Since there is no actual discussion of technical cladistics, I think we can replace "clade" with "subfamily" I'd prefer to keep "clade" here, rather than using the same word again. It feels needlesly jargonic to me, but I'll respect your preference. "possibly members of the opposite sex." Maybe a parallel to Triceratops, were many species were reduced to gender differences is apropriate here? Probably not. Styracosaurus hasn't had very many species referred to it, unlike Triceratops. "Dodson (1996) found enough variation" The Dino articles generally avoid the author-date format (a good thing IMHO). The rest of the article does. I think the 2 instances should be removed. Oh, man. "Dodson (1996)" was my attempt to make it clear I was referring to the 1996 book, not the 2004 book. I don't have the 2004 book, and don't know what he said in it. Therefore, I'm reluctant for now to change this to read like he has stated this in multiple books. Perhaps the WP:DINO team can help me address this part. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC) THere's nothing wrong with having the info. I just don't think author-date is the best way to include it. Circeus 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC) "Dodson also believes one species of Monoclonius, "M". nasicornis" The previous sentence is in the past, this one is inthe present... Fixed, thanks. The scare quotes are not necessary. Even if it is considered otehrwise, it's still primarily a Monoclonius. Dodson is one of the authorities of Ceratopia, and he's done more work on them than most other paleontologists. If he considers "M." nasicornis possibly a female Styracosaurus, it probably is, but until this has been presented in a scientific paper, I believe it really should be written the way it is, with the quotation marks. If other editors also think it should be changed, I certainly will. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC) Even then, until it's the new combination Styracosaurus nasicornis has been properly proposed, the only valid name is still Monoclonius nasicornis. Look at Dryandra prionotes: Even though Dryandra has been sunk into synonymy with Banksia, Dryandra prionotes is still the valid name (There's already a Banksia prionotes) until a new name is published. Saying "Monoclonius" nasicornis makes no sense, taxonomically or nomenclaturally. Circeus 00:23, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Yep, makes sense to me! Fixed, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC) ==Origins== "The exact origins" How about "the evolutionary origins" instead? Also, wouldn't this apply to most centrosaurines? Changed to "evolutionary", and yes, it applies to all ceratopsians, as it says in the sentence. Will be back later to fix the rest of the stuff, with further comments. Thank you VERY much for your suggestions and comments. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC) "and suggest a Jurassic origin for the group in Asia," Poor,ambiguous wording. Did the group originates in asia, or does its appearance in Asia dates fro the Jurassic, and it exosted somewhere else earlier? The group probably originated in the Jurassic in Asia: the earliest finds are from Jurassic Asia; even if something earlier is found, it will also be from the Jurassic: the Jurassic spanned 50 million years, and Yinlong, the only Jurassic find, and about as basal as you can get, is Late Jurassic in origin. Suggestions for less ambiguous wording are appreciated. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:25, 21 April 2007 (UTC) How about "and suggest that the group originated from Jurassian Asia" or "during the Jurassic in Asia" ? You're a bit of a miracle worker, you know. I have now modified the sentence to read, in part, "and suggest that the group originated during the Jurassic in Asia", as I think "Jurassian" doesn't get much usage in this context. Thanks for the suggested rewording. Often, I'm stumped at how to reword a sentence, and am always hoping someone will suggest something better. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:53, 21 April 2007 (UTC) ==Discoveries and species== Drop that year link Dropped. Steveville, Alberta -> Steveville, Alberta Adjusted. "from the same geological formation and from the same general locality" "from the same general locality and geological formation" Thank you. Fixed. Styracosaurus parksi Call it a personal quirk,but I'dlike to see an etymology for the names. Who was Parks? Is he William Parks? Yup. Fixed. Until a specimen in a better state of preservation is found, there are some lingering doubts amongst paleontologists about the validity of S. parksi. This should be cited Cited, thanks. "in Drumheller, Alberta" Drumheller should be linked, and maybe Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology too. Linked, thanks. That paragraph and the next one should be cited. Again, an etymology for ovatus would be nice. What remains was the description based on? Sounds like a partial skull. No, there was a skeleton and a partial skull. Is S. sphenocereus a Styracosaurus, a Monoclonius or a nomen dubium?? The fossils are fragmentary, and it was described as StyracosaurusMonoclonius, but and it may be Monoclonius. Uh... The article says it was first described as a Monoclonius and nothing about it ever being described as/transferred to Styracosaurus... Still doesn't work out. So it's X, and maybe X instead... I thought that was a fallacy of definition... lol So, after a look at Monoclonius, I gather It was originally described as Monoclonius, variously attributed to Styracosaurus and Agathaumas, and currently considered a nomen nudum, is that correct? I still think that sentence needs at best a rewording, at worst a compelte rewrite... Why isn't there a complete list of the names similar to that in Triceratops or Iguanodon? As is, it's not clear whether the article lists all species assigned to Styracosaurus. As far as I know, that's it. Styracosaurus never became the wastebasket taxon that Iguanodon and (to a lesser extent) Triceratops became. Lots of dubious material was assigned to Monocolonius, but this genus appears to have escaped that fate. If there are other species, I don't know of them. I'll double-check with the WP:Dinosaur folks, but this may be it: they all added material during the peer review process. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:52, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Okay, makes sense. ==Dentition and diet== "fed mostly on low growth because of the position of the head." "fed mostly on low growth because of the head's position."¸ Fixed, thanks for the suggestion for rewording. "were continually replaced by new teeth underneath" Less-than-ideal formulation I'm not sure what a better formulation might be, and am open to suggestions, natch. Maybe just "replaced by the teeth underneath them"? Link Chasmosaurus and ornithopod here. Done, thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC) ==Horns and frill== "The function of these facial adornments has been the subject of debate ever since the first specimen of Styracosaurus was discovered." Hasn't the debate covered the whole of the ceratopsids? Yes. I was hoping the first sentence in the second paragraph addressed this, but have adjusted the end of the first paragraph. Let me know if it's still not up to par. Sounds okay now. For the most part, this section is a shorter version of that in Triceratops, right? Maybe it can and refer to the section in Triceratops with a see also or more details link? Yes, it's a shortened version of the one in Triceratops. I did cull some material that didn't pertain to Styracosaurus and tried to use more summary style on the rest. If you think it will help, I'll link it to the Triceratops article, but I worry that it will confuse people: Styracosaurus wasn't Triceratops; despite many similarities, they weren't in the same subfamily, and although I wanted to draw some parallels between the two (because most people will know a Trike but will probably be unfamiliar with Styracosaurus, ) I didn't want to go overboard with the references to another genus...? Nevermind. You're right, it would probably just be confusing. "may have helped to increase body area to regulate body temperature." Maybe a parallel with the modern elephant's ears is appropriate. Done. Thanks very much for the suggestion. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:19, 21 April 2007 (UTC) ==References== General references are generally listed before specific ones. They should accordingly be reduced in size (subst'ing {{reflist}} might be necessary) I'll check into this, thanks. Drop the Dodson general reference. Dropped, and since that left only one general reference, I moved it up to in-text, as it looked silly by itself. The doi for Gregory and Christansen breaks because of "<>" characters. There is a provision in {{cite journal}} that is supposed to cover this. I'll check, thanks. Hm.... It says "If the doi contains some characters that must be escaped, use "doilabel" for the unescaped version. See {{doi}}: "id" is equivalent to "doi" and "label" is "doilabel". I wish they'd write these things in English..Firsfron of Ronchester 18:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC) I actually am the one responsible for that >.>;;;; I had hoped the link to percent-encoding would do the trick. Somehow, my code in cite journal won't work. I fixed it in another fashion. The later references to The Horned Dinosaurs should be abbreviated. They are not even formatted consistently! OK, will do. The book is given 2 different ISBNs: 0-691-02882-6 and 0-691-05900-4. Are those twin ISBNs or different editions? Worldcat (which only gives 0-691-02882-6) also indicates that the full title is The Horned Dinosaurs: a Natural History. My copy, and oversized paperback, has 0-691-05900-4. It is titled The Horned Dinosaurs on the front cover and first page. It has the subtitle A Natural History on the title page and back cover. I can certainly adjust the refs and add the subtitle, but I'm not sure about changing ISBN and other things to one version because the pagination between hardcover and paperback could be different. Then pick either pick one version and standardize all references to it or Specify the differences in the note. The doi for the Brown and Schlaikjer is improper. ??? It's not a doi, it's a URL. There's no DOI at all for it. I deleted it. Circeus 19:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC) The second reference to Dinosaurs: The Encyclopedia should also be abbreviated. Will do. Ah, it turns out the two references have different pagination, which is why they were separate. The first is for pages 396-398, while the second is for pages 865-868. During other reviews, reviewers specifically wanted the references broken up, with specific references using page numbers. Advances in Anatomy, Embryology, and Cell Biology is a monography series (ISSN: 0301-5556) where each monography has an individual ISBN (Here ISBN 0-38713114-0). That ref should be formatted as a book using the series field. It's also got a PMID (PMID 6464809) OK. Hmmm... None of the book citation templates listed at WP:CITET have the correct fields. The Lull and Wheeler refs doesn't use {{cite journal}} Will adjust. The Forster ref is OCLC 61500040 I don't know what that means. OCLC numebrs can be used to locate books in WorldCat when they don,t have ISBNs. The "pages" parameter in {{cite journal}} should NOT include "p." or "pp." abbreviations. Will fix. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC) Circeus out. Circeus

Last edited at 04:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC). Substituted at 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)