Talk:Confuciusornis

Etymology of Confuciusornis
Confuciusornis was named after the great Chinese moral philosopher Confucius (551-479 B.C.).

New study
Laser flourescence imaging of preserved soft-tissue in specimens IVPP V13168 and IVPP V13156 is used to argue for powered flight in Confuciusornis. I'll work on adding the information in the study to the article this weekend. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 19:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also has some free images, if any are usable. FunkMonk (talk) 20:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Expanded. Perhaps the image of the propatagium/postpatagium under flourescence compared to chickens would be appropriate under Feathers. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, added. FunkMonk (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * There is also a new study in Peerj, which has a restoration showing the pattern of the feathers. The journal is usually free, but its attribution of the restoration is a bit cryptic: "The reconstruction in Fig. 6 is by Velizar Simeonovski (authors own the copyright)." So I'm not sure if we can upload it? FunkMonk (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like they bought the copyright from the artist to be able to publish the artwork in PeerJ. Otherwise I would have expected the copyright note below in the image caption. Furthermore, PeerJ's policies exclude copyrighted content: "Authors cannot use copyrighted material within their article unless that material has also been made available under a similarly liberal license." I would tend to say it is fine to upload the picture, but I'm not entirely sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:22, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'll bring it up on Commons, there should be some copyright experts there... In the meantime, I wonder if our current restoration is directly wrong? FunkMonk (talk) 04:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The artist said the writers owned the copyright, and the first author said I could add it to Wikipedia, so I'll do that soon... FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

To-Do 1
please enter your name! …
 * write section on History of discovery  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * write skull section – --FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * write postcranium section
 * write section on feathers and soft tissue
 * write section on reproduction – --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * write section on life history --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:52, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * write section on sexual dimorphism --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:42, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * write section on diet – --FunkMonk (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * write section on flight performance
 * write section on behavior/gregariousness
 * write section on paleoenvironment  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * write lead section  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * add other significant feathered dinosaur discoveries to paleoecology --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * expand info on stratigraphy --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:18, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * get size estimates for each species if possible
 * add more on other species in discovery and naming

Discussion
Nice initiative, what would seem to be the largest obstacle in writing this? The many species (what goes where when describing features)? The seemingly huge literature? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * We could have a "species" section, either within "Classification" or as an section of its own? Here, we can have a short paragraph per species as an overview, listing the distinctive features. This may help to keep the description section concise. I would still put the research history of the species within the "History of research" section though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * When I merged the list of Psittacosaurus species into the parent Psittacosaurus article after the FARC, I put the species specific info into description (Species characteristics) and history. Not sure if it really looks good now, but it is at least one way to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

I now did put together a paper collection, which is for sure not complete but might help to get started right away. If you are interested, please just let me know; I will then send you a Wikimail containing the download-link! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Very useful — and very valuable indeed. I will certainly try to make a relevant contribution, but it might take some time. December is a busy month...--MWAK (talk) 20:54, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Life's currently very busy, so I probably won't get around to editing until Saturday (although I'll have a lot of spare time soon). I'll probably stick to the paleoecology section for this collaboration. First I have a question: Should stratigraphy info be included under paleoenvironment or somewhere else? Another task I might do is convert the size comparison to SVG (probably with a smaller grid and a hand since this guy's pretty small) or just make a new one since I'm not to fond of the position of either animal (should be a dorsal and direct lateral view for optimal readability). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. We usually have stratigraphy covered within the paleoenvironment, and usually only a few sentences at most; this should be only for the background. A new size chart would be nice I think! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:04, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Which other dinosaurs should I add to the paleoecology section? I was thinking of Caudipteryx, Sinosauropteryx, Microraptor, Yutyrannus, and Psittacosaurus. Any others? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:22, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have heavily renovated the paleoenvironment section. Feel free to trim it if it is too much. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:48, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

I did some minor copyedits to the article but besides that I probably wont contribute much. I might give a review at FAC though. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Comparative anatomy section?
I'm wondering how we best deal with the multiple demands of the description section. This article is quite central for the origin of birds; people, including students, will look at this right after looking at Archaeopteryx. To make it as accessible as possible, we need a lot of background, especially a comparison of the important features with the ancestral condition (Archaeopteryx) and the condition seen in Neornithes (modern birds). I was therefore thinking if it would make sense to have a separate section called "Comparative anatomy". This is not what we usually do, but it can serve as a very accessible background section for the description part, allowing us to have a more descriptive account in the "skull" and "postcranium" sections. On the other hand, this might create a bit of redundancy to the "skull" and "postcrania" parts. The next question would be into how much detail we should go for the description part. I'm a fan of keeping it as concise as possible, and therefore as accessible and readable as possible, but on the other hand we would always have the option to source it out into a sub-article like "Anatomy of Confuciusornis" if it really gets too long/reviewers complain. Thoughts? Pinging and  who are working on the description part. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * A comparison with Archaeopteryx is possible for the skull, but is there a modern description of the postcrania? Older Chinese literature is prone to make such comparisons, but they had scant knowledge of Archaeopteryx itself. We shouldn't worry too much about redundancy. Simply condense Elzanowski (2018) as much as you see fit! A special chapter can highlight the basal and derived traits separately. Chiappe (1999) is already quite superficial, so abstracting it results automatically in a reasonably concise text for the postcrania.--MWAK (talk) 09:28, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe we can only judge if more is needed once the main description sections have been written? FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * @MWAK: This is not precisely what I meant … probably "Comparative anatomy" is a misleading title for a section, and "Evolution of avian anatomy" would be more suitable. I had basic background information in mind, illustrating the relevance of Confuciusornis for the evolution of birds in general. For example, instead of just writing that it was "crow-sized", which is purely descriptive, we could add that there was a step-wise mineaturization occuring from dinosaurs to today's birds, and on which step Confuciusornis stands. Instead of just writing that teeth were absent, we could add that tooth loss occurred multiple times independently in avian evolution, and that that tooth loss of modern birds only occurred far up the stem lineage, in Neornithes. Same for the other basic features that are discussed in every text book on the evolution of birds (pygostyle; coracoid; sternum; sternal ribs; uncinate processes; carpometacarpus; fusion of metatarsalia; alula), including those that are present in all modern birds but still absent in Confuciusornis. The question if, and to what degree, we want this kind of background information in this article, or if we should focus on Confuciusornis only without comparing with the basal and derived conditions in birds, instead referring to Origin of birds. If we want to have this background (which would be of much value for most, for sure), do we discuss it within our standard skull and postcranium sections, or, as I suggested above, should we keep it within a separate section ("Evolution of avian anatomy" or whatever)? I am absolutely not sure yet, and I agree with FunkMonk that we can decide later whether a separate section is needed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Perhaps title it "place in avian evolution"?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Such a chapter might be very interesting. Of course, we would need to find sources explicitly referring to its evolutionary position. We would also need to be very careful that no confusion occurs with confuciusornithid synapomorphies or autapomorphies of Confuciusornis itself.--MWAK (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As the second paper you refer to below puts it: "This information strengthens the view that many presumed “typical” avian features evolved independently several times and that the phylogenetic tree of birds is not a straight sequence of anagenetic stages but rather a “bush” with parallel pathways leading to varying mosaics of plesiomorphies and apomorphies". Of the first paper, BAND-members Martin and Feduccia were co-authors, reflecting the grave dangers involved :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:49, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Btw, I just noticed forgot to add these two papers on the ostology of Confuciusornis to the paper collection: 1 and 2. PDFs are free. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is another one I missed. It is in German (no problem for me hehe), and I don't have it, and it has not even an entry in Google Scholar, but I will get it anyways: "Goernemann, A.: Osteologie eines Exemplars von Confuciusornis aus der unteren Kreide von West-Liaoning, China. In: Archaeopteryx. 17, 1999, S. 41–54." --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, got it! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:29, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, very useful. No language problems for me either :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:34, 15 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Why is this article not covered by WP:DINO? Also, wouldn't "sexual dimorphism" be a more descriptive section header than "sexual variation"? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:40, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weird, it should be. The consensus was that we include Mesozoic birds in the project (is also in the scope description). FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd vote following Holtz (2012) for what should be included in the project. (Non-avian Dinosauria, Mesozoic Aves, and Dinosauromorpha) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * All of them are (see). The discussion was here: FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 1 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Currently the taxobox classification jumps from Chordata to Confucisornithidae. Why does it do this? Surely more clades could be added, such as Tetrapoda, Sauropsida, Theropoda, Maniraptora, etc.? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:49, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, it should at least mention Dinosauria, Theropoda, Avialae. Does anybody know how to fix it? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps (our most code-savvy member)? On another note, what do we think this article needs in regard to image selection? We have a lot of specimen photos of varying quality, but could be nice with some skeletal diagrams. The one we have of the skull seems very outdated, though: I wonder whether the one with the arm is much better: Also, could be nice to find a photo of the holotype(s) or a cast, but I cna't find a clear photo of it to compare with available free photos... FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I really can't do much here, would be better notified. It has to do with how the taxonomy between birds and dinosaurs works. Aves is the most important clade for living birds, and Linnaean taxonomy nests that within chordates, making the display of dinosaur clades, and even Avialae, irrelevant, and thus hidden by default. I don't know if there are any ways to select which hidden ones are shown on a specific page or not, and Peter would be far better at helping or explaining than I am. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 04:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Some points:
 * I think questions about the taxonomy to be used for birds and dinosaurs are best addressed to the relevant WikiProjects, perhaps at WT:WikiProject Birds and WT:WikiProject Dinosaurs. My understanding is that the current consensus is to use different classification systems for birds and dinosaurs, in line with reliable secondary sources in each area. The bird system treats Aves as a Class, the dinosaur system treats it as a much more lowly placed clade. Whether the bird or the dinosaur one is to be used for Confuciornis is a matter for discussion; I have absolutely no view on it.
 * My interest is solely in the technical issue of how to ensure that we can display whichever of the incompatible systems is chosen. The method adopted (well before I started working on the automated taxobox system) is to use "skip" templates to jump over taxa that would otherwise create inconsistent ranks. If starting from Template:Taxonomy/Aves, which has the rank "class", we linked to Template:Taxonomy/Avialae rather than Template:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip, then above Class Aves would be Suborder Therapoda, but suborders belong below classes.
 * You can show more ancestor ranks in a taxobox (provided they are in the relevant taxonomy templates) by using display_parents. However, the strong consensus is that taxoboxes are like all infoboxes – intended only to show a summary, so they should only present a sample of the really important higher ranks.
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Well, what ornithologists usually refer to when speaking about birds is just the crown group (Aves/Neornithes). Confuciusornis and other Mesozoic birds are outside the crown group (and thus the class Aves). They need to be treated same as dinosaurs; the problem you described should not apply here. Understood that they are supposed to be summaries, but the current summary given for this article is inadequate. I tried to use display_parents, but it didn't show me anything (we would need Avialae, Theropoda, and Dinosauria). Could you please explain how to use this, or insert these yourself if you got some time? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:40, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you click on the red pencil icon on the top right of the taxobox, you will see the taxonomic hierarchy used in the taxobox. Counting upwards, you'll see that 6 will get all taxa displayed up to and including Avialiae. You can't get Theropoda and Dinosauria displayed, because they aren't in this version of the hierarchy. Comparing the hierarchies at Template:Taxonomy/Confuciusornis and Template:Taxonomy/Aves reveals that the issue is that the clade Pygostylia is in both. So Pygostylia upwards must skip Theropoda to prevent, as noted above, Class Aves being below Suborder Therapoda. You can, and indeed should, discuss the complete taxonomic hierarchy in the text.
 * Expanding on the explanation above, to change the taxonomic hierarchy used for the taxobox, you would need a consensus not to treat Aves as a Class – but then all the orders, suborders, etc. recognized by ornithologists (see e.g. the hierarchy at Template:Taxonomy/Corvus) need to be demoted, since birds then belong to Order Saurischia, way, way above Aves, let alone Order Passeriformes. The point is that the taxonomy at Template:Taxonomy/Corvus and that at Template:Taxonomy/Carnotaurus are radically incompatible . I have an idea as to how the taxonomy templates might better support incompatible taxonomies, but it's not fully worked out yet, and would have considerable ramifications, so will need a full discussion elsewhere in future, plus some new code in the Lua support module.)
 * Peter coxhead (talk) 13:41, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , thanks again, but I'm confused now. Isn't that a clear mistake in the taxonbox phylogeny? Pygostylia is not part of Aves. Aves is part of Pygostylia, and both are part of Avialae, but Avialae has (to my knowledge) never been defined as a class. The only taxon that may be considered a class is Aves. Therefore, we can arguably only use the dinosaur system here, since we are outside of the class. What do I miss? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ah, it's frustratingly hard to discuss in words what can be easily pointed to in diagrams! When I wrote Comparing the hierarchies at Template:Taxonomy/Confuciusornis and Template:Taxonomy/Aves reveals that the issue is that the clade Pygostylia is in both, I meant "in both hierarchies". Please do look at these two templates and the hierarchies shown on the right of the page for each. Complete hierarchies for both taxa would run (upwards) "Confuciusornis → ... → Pygostylia → ... → Avialae → ... → Therapoda" and "Aves → ... → Pygostylia → ... → Avialae → ... → Therapoda" (where ... means actual clades, not skips). But if you use the complete hierarchy for Class Aves it leads to Suborder Therapoda, because it goes via Pygostylia, like the hierarchy for Confuciusornis. To stop this, the version of the taxonomy template for Avialae that you get to from the taxonomy template for Pygostylia skips straight up to Amniota, i.e. both hierarchies go "... → Pygostylia → ... → Avialae → Amniota". It's confusing I know; it can help to draw out the hierarchy on paper. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What I'm understanding here is that the highest we could display would be Avialae, because anything more breaks the linnaean structure of Birds. Because Avialae is nested within Theropoda, Dinosauria etc, we would want those clades displayed, but it would break all bird taxonomy, because birds follow linnaean structure where Class Aves is separate from Class Reptilia. But the thing with including them is that Avialae is a clade, not a linnaean rank. The current Avialae taxobox is similar to what we desire here, with Theropoda, Saurischia and Dinosauria displayed. All stem birds show the taxobox as they would using the Bird system, excluding all extinct clades, but it looks like that would theoretically be fixable by making Aves, instead of Avialae, the rank where all extinct clades become hidden at? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * [edit conflict], Ok, but that means that any taxon within Avialae automatically will be under the bird system (instead of the dinosaur one), right? I mean, taxa basal to Avialae use the dinosaur one, and everything included in the Avialae uses the bird one. I don't see any justification for choosing Avialae here. The only class defined within Dinosauria is Aves, so it can only be that taxon. This means: Everything basal to Aves should use the dinosaur system, and everything included in Aves the bird system. I think we need to change that. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to express a view on where the two taxonomies, bird and dinosaur, should diverge. The current setup seems to date back to in 2012, and changing it will potentially affect many articles and taxoboxes, so any change would need discussion much more widely than at this article. I suggest you raise it at one of the two WikiProjects, ss I said above, alerting the other. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:48, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Ooh, is it my fault Confuciusornis is using this? I don't think I ever intended it to. This, I think, is the problem. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:10, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

it's certainly no-one's fault. It was a necessary action to stop inconsistent ranks being shown; I'm trying elsewhere to find a better way to do it. As it happens, if you follow the right-hand table upwards from Aves at Template:Taxonomy/Aves, the big skip is in Template:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip, and that was rightly introduced in December 2012 by you. My point above was in no way a criticism of anyone, merely to point out that this situation is very long-standing. (1) A skip is the only straightforward way to fix inconsistent ranks at present. (2) I suspect that wherever the skip is put, it will have some undesirable side-effects. (3) The real solution is to find some way of fixing inconsistent ranks without using skips. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed to finding another way to fix this, but I think you're wrong about (2) :) – skips can be quite "powerful". Do you have a small set of taxoboxes in mind that can not be made how we want them with skips? an example?ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * it depends on who the "we" is in that can not be made how we want them with skips, remembering that I'm trying here just to be the programmer implementing what the clients want (if only they could decide!). Some editors are not happy that the right-hand table you see when you look at a taxonomy template can have large chunks missing from the full system due to skips. For example, they can't force such missing taxa to be displayed by N in the taxobox.
 * Also it's not that we can't get taxoboxes to display in a particular way with skips, but that it's usually difficult to know where to place them. After all, the skip at Avialae seems to have worked fine for more than 6 years until a problem with it was raised here, and I certainly thought that it was ok when I linked another taxonomy template to it. Yes, the immediate problem will be solved if we move the skip to Aves, and take it off Avialae, as you suggest, and I cautiously think that this is the right thing to do for now. But can we be sure that this skip will always be ok?
 * Elsewhere I'm trying to explore whether there are alternative ways of dealing with the two slightly different problems that skip templates solve: inconsistent ranks, and classifications with different taxa in them. Peter coxhead (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you certainly have a point: Template:Taxonomy/Avialae was Aves' parent when Template:Taxonomy/Avialae/skip was created; that is why we put it there. Now Ornithurae is Aves' immediate parent, so I'm using that instead to fix the problem here. Quite fragile. I hope one of your other proposals works out :) ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:30, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

FYI regarding the taxobox; I stopped using Avialae/skip for Template:Taxonomy/Euavialae; see here, please revert if it messed anything up. There's a lot more stuff in this article's taxobox now... ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! Much better. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:25, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but then Aves showed inconsistent ranks and all the dinosaur clades. There were already 21 taxonomy templates showing inconsistent ranks before I reverted, potentially affecting many articles.
 * If you make such changes, you need to monitor Category:Taxonomy templates showing anomalous ranks and act accordingly. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the disruption; trying again... (and thanks for the pointer) ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 17:17, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

How do we continue now? We already have achieved quite a bit I think, but many sections still need to be written or reworked and updated. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It will probably take some time before I can expand the skull and feeding sections, sadly. Where do and  stand? FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that I've pretty thoroughly gone over stratigraphy & contemporaneous fauna, if you're referring to the Paleoenvironment section. I'm still waiting to see if Lusotitan wants to add anything on paleoenvironment (lakes, etc.). I still need to make the size comparison, though, so I definitely still have some work to do. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:52, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sound good. I think I will work on the systematic and species next. I now wonder if we need a "species" subsection? All species except for the type species are contested, it would be very good to have a summary of the different assumptions for each. Should this subsection fall under "discovery", or under "systematics" (the latter, probably)? Do we going to have the "discovery" as the first section of the article? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:49, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I had a "species and synonyms" section under taxonomy (which is pretty much the equivalent of the history section) in the Paraceratherium article at least. As for whether history comes first in the article or not, it seems to be becoming the new standard, though it is of course up to whoever writes it, I'd say (I've been deciding it on a case by case basis, for example)... FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The new size comparison has been uploaded and awaits review: WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review. I've never done a bird before, so it may need some major revisions. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Do you guys think it's finally time to nominate it for GA? I know I haven't been here long, but I cleaned it up a bit and checked it against the criteria for GA status. Its been the collaboration for years now; it should be good.Asparagusus (talk) 15:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Work on it has been stalled indefinitely for quite a while, and it isn't expanded fully yet. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

ToDo 2
Looks like we are largely done with ToDo 1. To keep track of what is still missing, lets have a second ToDo with more specific points!
 * Incorporate Li et al., 2018: "Elaborate plumage patterning in a Cretaceous bird" . Currently has only a single sentence.
 * Incorporate Jiang et al. 2014 on pyroclastic flows and taphonomy, something for the paleoenvironments section.
 * Also for the environments section: A Mesozoic Pompeii: History of the Jehol Biota’s Rise and Fall.
 * Incorporate the Zinoview 2009 study . Currently has only a single sentence here, but offers more on lifestyle (e.g., nested in trees).
 * Add more on the original squirrel-like posture. This was not first proposed by Martin but by Hou 1995 in the first description. See also Chiappe et al. 1999.
 * Add more on the species. Especially include Marugan-Lobon et al. 2011, which has a review of proposed species. Done --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Schmidt 2000 on legal issues might be worth a look.
 * Include the McNamara 2018 study on fossilised skin,.
 * Also include Jiang et al. 2017 and have a look at Zheng 2017.
 * Add more on the species Confuciusornis jianchangensis.
 * Standardize spelling (we've got both "millimetre" and "color" in the article right now)

Of course, this list is not exhaustive; especially the older sections may need general overhaul, or at least another look. But I hope that these points make it easier to contribute something even if personal time is limited! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I am in the (slow) process of writing the skull section, based on Elzanowski and Chiappe, but will look in the other relevant sources and see if there is anything extra to add from there later on. After that, I'll look at the diet section and probably rewrite it. One thing I have been wondering about is if we can use one of the skull diagrams that are available, or we should make a new one. This one on Commons ise a copy of the one Chiappe 1999, which differs quite a bit from the one in Elzanowski 2018. Then there is also one in this PLOS paper, which also differs, and might be based on one in another paper. Should we use one of these and just state that it is one of various interpretations, or should we have a new one done based on Elzanowski? FunkMonk (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good! I also think that a new one based on the most recent study (Elzanowski 2018) would be ideal, though using the old one based on Chiappe should work as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Added Chiappe's, all the reconstructions agree more or less in how they show the front of the skull (which is the best preserved part), so I just noted in the caption that the temporal region is debated. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should state what the red circles mean (important general features: the toothless beak and the the two temporal fenestrae) or remove them? I will see if I can expand the history section a bit next; sources do not seem that revealing in this regard, unfortunately. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * The red areas do seem somewhat arbitrary (they are not in the published versions), so I think we could just remove them. FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've now mentioned at least some of the importance of the temporal region which is in red in the caption. I think the skull section is pretty much done, Chiappe and Elzanowski are apparently the most detailed works on the skull. But feel free to shorten and summarise if it's too detailed. Will look at diet and feeding next. FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi, I've been a bit unsure about how to structure the diet section. Chronologically, like in Dilophosaurus? The downside to that would be that potentially outdated info will have a more prominent place at the beginning of the section. On the other hand, if I try to put more up to date/seemingly accurate info at the beginning, it would be a bit biased, since the newest theories are not necessarily the most correct ones. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, you really convinced me of the merits of discussing things chronologically during the past years. I would say this is generally the best approach, at least as long as we have space to discuss stuff study by study. The "Growth" section now is also mostly chronologically, and starts with outdated info as well. Maybe we could give some context sentences that guide the reader, such as "Early studies assumed" or similar? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, if chronological, it can also be written more like a dialogue, where later text responds to earlier text (as when Paul evaluates the claims of Welles in Dilophosaurus). Wouldn't be possible otherwise. Arguments against that would be that most readers would want "just the facts", but that's of course not possible if no one knows the facts... FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * And last but not least chronology makes it much easier to add new research later on. I noticed the difference when I tried to update Amargasaurus, which was not in chronological order (but now is, at least in parts). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2019 (UTC)