Talk:Adasaurus

I edited the paleo tempalte to include only information formally presented in the literature and not extrapolations by online authors, which are inappropriate sources. I also corrected some of the information that was present. For instance, sauros literally translates to "lizard", not "reptile". I added the metric measurement alongside the English measurement. I changed "Cretaceous" to "Cretaceous Period" since the Cretaceous is not actually an Era... this is a problem of template coding that needs to be changed. Finally, the Nemegt Formation actually represents a more humid floodplain environment compared to the more arid environment seen in older deposits in the area, according to Jerzykiewicz & Russell (1991). Sheep81 05:13, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Pic
Added a picture. Bearerofthecup (talk) 21:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but as I mentioned in my edit summary, there's not really enough of this animal known to warrant a reconstruction, at least one that's not speculation plus "generic dromaeosaurid". J. Spencer (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the known specimens are pretty darn complete, as I've been discussing with Funk. Unfortunately any actual figures of the material, if there are any, are MIA. This thing needs a decent redescription stat. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

So the objection to the picture is based on your peception of its so-called genericalness? Plenty of the dromaeousaur articles bear life reconstructions and [cue foreboding music] they all look like one another. Velociraptor looks like Deinonychus, Deinonychus looks like Utahraptor, Utahraptor looks like Unenlagia, Unenlagia looks like Austroraptor, Austroraptor looks like Hesperonychus, Hesperonychus looks like Achillobator, Achillobator looks like Bambiraptor, Bambiraptor looks like Pyroraptor, and so on. Yet they are all represented on Wikipedia with similar life reconstructions. Rather than delete them all because they are dromaeosaurs and therefore look alike, we can instead add reconstructions based off of the descriptions available. If we are to believe them, the distinguishing characteristic of Adasaurus, the undersized claw, is clearly visible in the picture, and could be picked out by a ten year-old amateur naturalist eating an oversized lollipop. I strongly believe the picture should be reinstated. If Adasaurus turns out to look differently, we can always change it, but for now shouldn't we insert a picture that depicts the animal as we currently understand it and imagine it? Or I suppose we could simply delete all of the pictures on the individual dromaeosaur articles and only have illustrations at Dromaeosauridae. I mean, they all look alike, right? Generic. Bearerofthecup (talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm objecting because the image is of an animal that has not had enough fossils illustrated to make an accurate restoration. If we're going to just draw a picture and call it Adasaurus, that's misleading.  Dromaeosaurids are indeed similar in many aspects, but not in all.  For example, unenlagiine skulls are noticeably different from the skulls of other dromaeosaurids.  Austroraptor is much differently proportioned than Velociraptor; a generic dromaeosaurid illustration would miss the short arms and vaguely spinosaur-like skull.  The other articles you cite have had restorations done from published skeletal images or personal photographs of museum specimens, sometimes both (although maybe not Pyroraptor; I'd have to check).  See WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review to get an idea of the process.  I'd be genuinely interested in finding out what illustrations or photos you used for Adasaurus.


 * On anatomical grounds, in this image, among other things: the legs appear to be coming out of the base of the tail, there's no evidence of the backward-pointing pubis (the pelvis is one of the few parts of Adasaurus that has been widely illustrated), and the skull doesn't match well with other dromaeosaurid skulls (there's no depth where the jaw joint would be, too tall at the back to belong to an unenlagiine like Austroraptor, and much differently proportioned than, say, Velociraptor, Deinonychus, or Dromaeosaurus). J. Spencer (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This seems to me like unnecessary nitpicking. I doubt the illustrator sat down at the proverbial drawing board, cobbled together some random dromaeosaur attributes, and labeled it Adasaurus just for the novelty of creating his own dinosaur. I agree with you; the picture is nothing but ordinary for Dromaeousaridae save for a few exceptions. But Barsbold goes into great detail about just how typical a dromaeosaur Adasaurus is. You might say generic. In fact, of the skull fragments, he states they "bear a great similarity to other members of the subfamily, obviating the need to repeat general skull characters." Read further, the literature is a catalogue of minute comparisons to other dromaeosaurs, differences that cannot be illustrated without diagrams of specific skeletal structures - not a task for the infobox picture. So the image that forms is one of average body type, your standard 5'4", 125 lb, hourglass-shaped woman. But just because the animal is average and boring shouldn't prevent it from earning its own picture. Maybe I think the Velociraptor reconstruction is too generic. Maybe I should delete it. As for the anatomy of the illustration, please pardon me for thinking the umbrage you take is ridiculous. I do not see legs coming out of the tail and I do not see why it should be assumed that, based on the image, the pubis points any which way but back. Maybe you think the animal to be too heavily feathered? That is maybe a legitimate complaint, although unfeathering it, while revealing more morphology, would be unwise for obvious reasons. Try to imagine that you don't know anything about the skeletal structure of birds or avian dinosaurs and consider the difference, a shocking difference really, between the appearance of the animal with feathers, then without feathers, then only the skeleton. Obviously the feathers obfuscate the body of the animal. And while we both know that the pubis points to the posterior of Adasaurus, would we be able to see that if we were looking at a live specimen? No. Not because of a lack of knowledge of the animal's skeletal structure, not because of shoddy illustration, but because the darned feathers got in the way. I think maybe that the image, obviously being a low-resolution drawing and not the real thing, accentuates this visual effect for you. As for the skull, nowhere do feathers more obviously confuse the shape of a bird than upon the head. It would be one thing to cry to the heavens "Help! There are too many feathers on this dinosaur and I can't see jack-diddly of its actual body!" But again, this is conflict relating to the infobox. There's plenty of room to add pictures illustrating the many differences one could never see if they looked at a living Adasaurus. The image isn't inaccurate because it was intended by the illustrator to be 'generic' in appearance and shy away from unique attributes save for those which haven't been given up to speculation, such as the reduced claw. In other words, its an archetype dromaeosaur adjusted (and correctly so) with characteristics specific to Adasaurus. Wow, I'd been warned about the level of resistance to adding pictures to articles, especially the first picture, but I was not prepared for anything like this. We want to give people an idea of what Adasaurus may have looked like, just like with every article describing something for which a picture is not extant, and the opportunity is here. But alas. Bearerofthecup (talk) 05:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's no such thing as a generic dromaeosaur. Look at my own illustrations of Tsaagan and Velociraptor. They may look similar but I went to a lot of troube to make sure the details are right, and a trained eye will be able to easily distinguish them. Just because you can't doesn't mean anybody can simply cobble something together that looks "close enough." We don't know if the illustrator "adjusted (and correctly so) with characteristics specific to Adasaurus" because I, and everyone I've asked, cannot find the original material figured in any papers. I sincerely doubt this IS based on actual material due to the long, pointed, distinctly un-dromaeosaur like snout. Unless the hypothesis is that Adasaurus is an unenlagiine, which there is no support for in the literature. J. Spencer has already pointed out a number of other anatomical details that would be wron no matter what dromaeosaur this is. The tag claims it was done with reference to published material--if that's the case, why has the illustrator completely misunderstood something as simple as dinosaurian leg and hip articulation? Why have they given it the snout of a generic unenlagiine?
 * If you want this illustration re-instated, all you have to do is provide reference materials to prove it's right. We clearly don't have access to them. If you can forward me the paper in private email, or images of the actual specimens to check against the illustrations, I'd gladly vouch for its accuracy. I would happily do the smae if someone challenged the accuracy of one of my drawings. But given the plain mistakes in anatomy in this image, I sincerely doubt it will match the published description. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see I've left this by the wayside, so to speak. You could have simply replied at the start with ownership; that I would understand. There are a number of articles on Wikipedia that I myself admit to babying, and this is as contentious a theatre on the Internets as one can find without challenging another editor for dominance of an article they've put a great deal of work into. So I understand completely, no hard feelings. You want your pictures in the articles. That makes sense from my point of view, even if it might not from someone else's. Keep up the good work with the illustrations, Dinoguy2, and with the Dinosaurs Image Review. I'd add a hand-drawn picture or two myself to Wikipedia, if I could draw that is. Bearerofthecup (talk) 02:21, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this has anything to do with Dinoguy wanting his pictures in the articles. Dinoguy has actually worked quite hard to review other editors' contributions so that their images can go onto articles... over a hundred reviews, I believe. If Dinoguy just wanted his own images, he'd spend more time drawing pictures and less time reviewing other editors' images. There are problems with the image you placed, as noted above. Once we find a good source for a reconstruction, a good reliable image can be created. Firsfron of Ronchester  02:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't have to defend Dinoguy. We all appreciate his contributions. I'd probably do the same thing if I were in his place. Bearerofthecup (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if something's being lost in translation here Bearerofthecup, but your last post came across as a little passive aggressive. I don't know how you can accuse me of trying to take ownership of an article I've put no work into. The image you're attempting to submit simply does not meet the project's standards for accuracy. Everyone seems to agree with me on that. If I, you, or anyone else found a picture of the actual skeleton and based a picture on that, of course I would have no problem. I asked you to send me your sources so I could check hem. A month later you replied, and made no mention of my request. I conclude you have no sources. A picture based on nothing is not appropriate for inclusion in an encyclopedia, especially if the relevent sources do exist somewhere (though apparently totally inaccessible to Western science!).
 * The idea that I would want my own images included is nonsense. I would never draw Adasaurus because I have absolutely no idea what it looked like! Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just stumbled across this discussion after nominating that image for deletion. In spite of it maybe not matching the known remains of Adasaurus, as a dromaeosaur, it is generally incorrect in pretty much every way (proportions, shape, eye size, muscles, so on), and would need a major overhaul to be useful at all. If this overhaul isn't made, the image just remains as a misleading image, and is outside the scope of both Wikipedia and Commons. What Bearerofthecup could do easily, is put it up for review, and update it accordingly, but he seems unwilling to do so for some reason. FunkMonk (talk) 07:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC)