Talk:Baryonyx/Archive 1

Comment by 70.212.250.193
The article states that Wealden Lake covered most of Europe at the time Baryonyx was alive... is that really correct? Should it be "most of England" instead? 70.212.250.193 (talk) 05:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The first carnivorous dinosaur discovered in England were Megalosaurus, not Baryonyx.--Menah the Great 21:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

It says here that baryonyx is 16ft tall making it close to the same hight with spinosaurus, but isn't spinosaurus like three times as big? that should make a big differance in there hight.

I think by big, it is meant in terms of length, in which case, the spinosaurus was bigger than baryonyx.--72.141.217.254 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Baryonyx may have been 16ft tall at the head if it reared up in a kangaroo-like pose, bot not normally--it was only about 8ft tall at the hip, and it's head would have been 8 or 9 feet off the ground in a natural pose. ''Spinosaurus would likely have been about 12ft tall at the hip and over 20ft if it reared up, natural position would have its head about 16ft up. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're right Spinosaurus was bigger than Baryonyx, in fact Spinosaurus in the biggest theropod that lived in the dinosaur time, so it would kind of be silly to say that Baryonyx is bigger.--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Angle of head
Acute angle? Not saying that's wrong, but it is surprising. What's the ref? John.Conway 15:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)the size for that is... HEIGHT: 6 feet (1.8 meters) LENGTH: 30 feet (9.1 meters) WEIGHT: 4,000 lbs (1,814 kg)
 * I second this; particularly the "90° angle common in similar dinosaurs" bit. Was Spinosaurus walking around upright with its neck vertical, or with its head tilted straight down in a perpetual "hangdog" look? 76.106.194.104 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

In popular culture
Baryonyx has been featured in numerous dinosaur books for children. A wildly over-sized Baryonyx named Rudy appeared in the 2009 animated film Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.137.134 (talk) 01:33, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

GeoCities link updated
I fixed the dead link "Many teeth from this species can be found on the Isle of Wight". It was: http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:KBvMvb8DPJ0J:www.geocities.com/dinowight/baryonyx.html+Baryonyx+walkeri&hl=en&client=firefox-a Then in a linkspam campaign after geocities went down it became "oocities" (now blacklisted). Wayback: http://web.archive.org/web/20091025021118/geocities.com/dinowight/baryonyx.html Shows a the author moved the page to a new address: http://dinowight.org.uk/baryonyx.html OK! Edits done. See also: WP:GeoCities. -Colfer2 (talk) 15:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Baryonyx/Suchosaurus
If Suchosaurus happens to be the same animal as Baryonyx would we reserve the name Baryonyx and forget about Suchosaurus due to its limited material or would Baryonyx become invalid? Please explain. Taylor Reints (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
 * According to he rules of priority Suchosaurus would be the right name, unless somebody petitioned the ICZN to abolish it. If the material is too limited then no synonymy would be possible and Suchosaurus would be a nomen dubium. MMartyniuk (talk) 00:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Lack of elongated neural spines
Has there been any work on whether elongated neural spines in the spinosaurs could be a sex- or maturity-specific feature? Baryonyx seems to have no evidence of these, and in Suchomimus they are small relative to Spinosaurus, but both Baryonyx and Suchomimus are only known from subadult specimens. I suppose it may not even be out of the question that Suchomimus is a somewhat more mature specimen of Baryonyx. I attempted to read through Charig/Milner 1997 for discussion on neural spines in Baryonyx, but the version I had access to was nearly illegible. Can anyone shed some light? If there's published material, it would be a good inclusion here or in the Spinosauridae article. --98.175.138.155 (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * With only one specimen of each species, it should be pretty much impossible to base such speculation on anything. FunkMonk (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Baryonyx
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Baryonyx's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "cuff13": From Spinosaurus: Cuff AR, Rayfield EJ (2013) Feeding Mechanics in Spinosaurid Theropods and Extant Crocodilians. PLoS ONE 8(5): e65295. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065295 From Spinosaurus:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 10:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Subsections
So yesterday I made an edit that added subheaders to both the classification section and the history section, but this was reverted because the article is an FA. I understand the concern, but I feel being FA does not mean we shouldn't make improvements to an article as necessary, no? That's just holding it back. In particular, more subsections are seen in many dinosaur FAs, and in the Achelousaurus article that's and FAC right now. Therefore, I felt adding similar sections to the history section would be fine - it allows the reader to quicker find what they're looking for instead of skimming every paragraph. Classification, I will admit, has little precedent for subheaders, although I'm not necessarily sure why...

On the images, I merely flipped them to not conflict with the subheaders for space; as I understand it, not indenting headers with images takes priority over the subject facing the text.  Luso titan  15:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course articles can be improved beyond FA, but in this case, I don't think adding single paragraph sub-sections to an already short section really improves anything. I personally think it simply looks bad, but more importantly, the manual of style also advises against short, single paragraph sections: "Very short or very long sections and subsections in an article look cluttered and inhibit the flow of the prose. Short paragraphs and single sentences generally do not warrant their own subheading." This is very different from the Achelousaurus article, which has a pretty huge history and classification section. Adding a single section break ("additional discoveries" or some such) may be warranted, though not four. In any case, I had already long thought of breaking up the description section, so that has been retained. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the only single paragraph section in the history section was "Additional Finds" or whatever, which was needed because it was between the two longer sections I had created. As you said, small sections aren't great, but neither are particularly long ones like the whole section together. Also, I had changed the section title to Discovery and Naming in accordance with other dinosaur articles - could this at least be put back in?  Luso titan  16:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, discovery and naming isn't really the prevalent title if you look through previous FAs; we should follow GAN/FAC reviewed articles for standards rather than "normal" ones, since those do not necessarily reflect the best practice. Same goes for sections, most articles simply don't have as many sections as say, Achelousaurus, which isn't even an FA yet. That article is the one that veers away from the norm, not the other way around. But it should be up to the individual writers what exactly they want to do with the layout, as long as it makes sense and generally follows standard practice (in that case, MWAK wanted to try something different). FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair, although I was under the impression newer stuff was supposed to be our standard going forward, rather than stuff that passed FAC years ago (I, at the very least, would personally lean towards more sections). Anyway, in this case based on a quick look at the editing history, you're the one who wrote most of this, so it's up to you.  Luso titan  16:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything nominated after 2009 follows the "newer" standards", the problem is just what comes before that (see here and look how puny earlier reviews were compared to now). I've added a section to the history section, by the way, but breaking it down further wouldn't look nice. And the classification section is short as is, so it shouldn't be broken. FunkMonk (talk) 16:21, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In that case, I feel the obvious course of action would be to update older articles to newer standards. In the case of a few section re-arrangements and headers, this should be fine; if more extensive changes are made that would require a re-evaluation, that's fine too. Anyway, I agree on classification, since the standard isn't to have subsections there most of the time. I do still think the history is a bit weird with only one subheader (the Suchosaurus situation doesn't really fall under "additional discoveries" if I you ask me...), but it's up to you.  Luso titan  16:26, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, which other post-2009 FAs have history sections with more than one break? I can't think of any, apart from Apatosaurus (which has a more complex history than most), so there is not really a different standard to adjust to. So to be consistent, I'd rather have to remove any sub-sections from the history section here than add more. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well then I ask why don't they have subsections? More and better organization couldn't be anything but a good thing.  Luso titan  16:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for the other writers, but personally I think it's just unnecessary clutter, and like the MOS states, it breaks the flow of the text. Most history sections aren't that long anyway, so I don't see why every other paragraph with a slightly distinct theme should have its own section. If the section is very long, it could of course be broken down, but this should evaluated on a case by case basis. It's of course also a matter of taste, so if someone wants to have many sub-sections in an article they're writing, why not. I just don't think we should enforce something as subjective as that on existing articles written by others which are perfectly fine as written. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it looks pretty good with the most recent set of changes.  Luso titan  17:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Should be an OK compromise. It is generally good to discuss such "drastic" changes before doing them, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A heads up, I am currently expanding this article considerably, following a palaeontological peer review at WikiJournal. The plan is to do the edits here first, and then transfer the improved version to there. I'll notify, who copy-edited the article prior to the FAC, in case you would mind giving it a quick look to weed out the worst clunkiness once it is done? FunkMonk (talk) 03:42, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You can list it at WP:GOCE/REQ when it's stable; I and other copyeditors hang out there. Sorry, but I had to stop accepting direct copyedit requests a while ago for mental-health reasons :-). All the best,  Mini  apolis  12:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Alright, it was mainly because you did the original one, to keep it consistent. But well, not sure if it really does need a further copy-edit anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The 2012 cladogram used now seems a little dated. Perhaps knows of a newer, non-controversial one that could be used instead? You have a better overview of recent spinosaur literature I'm sure. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks like the one from Ichthyovenators original baryonychine placement. I think the Arden et al. (2018) cladogram would be the best option at the moment. Vallibonavenatrixs description (here) has another recent one. But it places Sigilmassasaurus in Baryonychinae, which could prove very controversial... so I think it's better to go with the former one for now. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  11:58, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, do we have that in some article so it can be copied and pasted? Also, feel free to suggest if you have any ideas for improvements for this article, as it is of course the only spinosaur article you haven't expanded. I think maybe the division of Diet and feeding from Motion and aquatic habits here could be duplicated at Spinosaurus, as the current lumping of Semiaquatic lifestyle and diet there is a bit awkward. Then the posture section could also be merged into a more cohesive and inclusive Motion and aquatic habits section. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The cladogram is used in a couple articles so just copied it from Ichthyovenator. Also did my best to split the subsections at Spinosaurus as suggested, definitely works much better. That article still has a lot of formatting and citation issues though and, more noticeably, is severely lacking in a lot of important information and context, which has been made even more apparent with the barrage of new papers and studies in the past five years. I doubt it would even have a chance at passing GA review today. As it is right now, it probably warrants demoting. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  14:14, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the cladogram, only needs the citation! And yeah, I think Spinosaurus is probably best to postpone FAC expansion for as long as possible, because we can be pretty sure more significant stuff will be published the coming time. As for demoting, most older promoted dinosaur stuff isn't up to today's standards, so I think it's easier to just fix it along the way whenever someone gets the urge, demotion processes just take extra time and effort away from editors that could instead be used for improving... An article like Ankylosaurus for example was a pretty trashy GA for a long time until it was completely rewritten into a FAC, with no in-between demotion. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baryonyx. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151005090047/http://svpca.org/abstracts/abstract.php?abstID=00000000260&prog=on to http://svpca.org/abstracts/abstract.php?abstID=00000000260&prog=on

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:42, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

URFA/2020 review

 * See my edits about faulty changes the date script tries to introduce.
 * Not sure what to do here. See WP:UNITNAMES.  I have seen in other articles that the convert template does not handle measurements the way MOS recommends, and in one case, I just removed the convert template and wrote the text manually:
 * scattered over a 5-by-2-metre (16.4-by-6.6-foot) area, ...


 * We have had extensive discussions elsewhere (medical articles) that this is not a reference, and does not belong in the reference section, rather on the talk page:
 * I'll leave that decision to you, because my concern is less here than with the medical articles that were "academic peer reviewed" as a) many of them had errors yet passed, b) many of them were quite dated, and c) medical articles must stay current, which is less of an issue here. But technically, that is a "sister project", not a reference, and should not be presented where it it.
 * I'll leave that decision to you, because my concern is less here than with the medical articles that were "academic peer reviewed" as a) many of them had errors yet passed, b) many of them were quite dated, and c) medical articles must stay current, which is less of an issue here. But technically, that is a "sister project", not a reference, and should not be presented where it it.

Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the number stuff soon, but on the peer review template, I agree, I'd also prefer not to have my real name in article space! But is there a reason it was placed where it is now in the first place? FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, but you won't get me to answer that query here after the Medicine arbcase :) Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  18:37, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I removed the template from the article, and just noticed it's already here on the talk page. FunkMonk (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, seems it also removed the little book icon next to the FA star. Is there a way to keep the book link icon though the citation template isn't there? FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The icon is still at Dengue fever (a dated article) ... look at the bottom of that article to see if you can figure out what was done there ... if memory serves, there were not only layout issues, and concerns of misleading readers with dated medical info ... there were also attribution issues, so I think they came up with a separate template to deal with articles coming from and going to off-en.wiki sites in terms of attribution. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  19:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for these suggestions, now added! FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2020 (UTC)