Talk:Dinocephalosaurus

Why do people insist on putting this animal in the category of Dinosaur. It isn't a dinosaur!


 * Because its name makes it sound like one...? Looks like we need a new category, ' Prehistoric reptiles'. I'll create it and then you can fill it up...The Singing Badger 18:11, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a plan. I know lots of them.   :)  Nodosaurus

my is this page "Dinocephalosaurus orientalis", why cant it just be "Dinocephalosaurus" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ammonight423 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a quirk of how the article was created. It could certainly be moved to Dinocephalosaurus, although I'd want to check for other species of Dinocephalosaurus first. J. Spencer 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is this article placed in the Category:Sauropterygia? I've been thinking Dinocephalosaurus was a protorosaur... Darth Ag.Ent (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've removed it from that category. ArthurWeasley (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

it's not an embryo!
Why exactly do you think your image is better than mine? If the purpose is to show a developing organism, which I believe should be called a fetus (that is, it has bones) mine is much better. Readers can even see the fetus in the thumbnail. If you want to show the fish meal in the fossil, then go ahead and make your own emphasizing that aspect. DennisPietras (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The "fetus/embryo" distinction is completely semantics. In fact, the paper actually explicitly calls it an embryo, hence the terminology that I went with. If you have an issue with that, please take it up with the authors of the paper, not me. As for my rationale in replacing your image, the life reconstruction lacks context without the original fossil (and it highlights not just the fish, but also the embryo in (c)!). Having multiple images where one image would perfectly suffice is, in my opinion, completely unnecessary. Your image also seemed to have been quite low-resolution compared to the original. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Wasn't your File:DinocephalosaurusFetus4TC.jpg image clipped from http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14445/figures/3? While File:DinocephalosaurusFetus4TC.jpg certainly highlighted the fetus, I do think that the complete image adds to other aspects of the article.
 * I did make a change in the caption from embryo to fetus, as the stage of development is clearly the latter, at least according to those two articles. I think a more commonplace understanding of embryo & fetus apply here.
 * Peaceray (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Slightly related, I think if the article is expanded, it may be a good idea to separate the images (at least the restoration) in the taxobox compilation? I think the compilation is just a result of space limitations in Nature papers, a limitation we don't have... But I'm not too fond of the "insert" image of the embryo, leave the artwork as it was intended... FunkMonk (talk) 09:15, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Image by David Peters
The latest image you added was the original research of one David Peters, whose conclusions (based on tracings of fossil photographs) have been widely rejected by the palaeontological community. I have taken the liberty of removing it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that correction! Would you please consider making a note about the rejection of paleontologists at commons:File talk:Dinocephalosaurus reconstruction.jpg?
 * Also, would you review the record that I created at wikispecies:Dinocephalosaurus?
 * Peaceray (talk) 02:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that commons:Template:Inaccurate paleoart exists, I have applied it to the image. As for the Wikispecies page, I am not fond of Linnaean taxonomy, but I suppose there are no real outstanding issues with it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 02:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)