Talk:Ichthyovenator

Anatomical precision
Shouldn't we be using more precise anatomical terms than "back vertebra" and "breast bone" and "back two ribs"? Save that stuff for simple.wikipedia.org, in my opinion. 184.98.98.158 (talk) 13:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Better InfoBox Image
The current image seems quite unscientific, heck it doesn't even have the iconic Spinosaurid mouth! Shouldn't we get the owner of the image to upload a better version? Mjmannella (talk) 6:55, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On the subject of images,, given that we only know the feet of Spinosaurus, Ichthyovenator should probably be depicted with a forwards facing hallux as well. I think the restoration (and skeletal silhouette) can be fixed by simply painting the hallux out on the right leg. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Huh, I never realised that we have hardly any foot bones from spinosaurs, looking at the Jaime skeletals I see only a pedal ungual from Baryonyx and one phalanx from Suchomimus. Shows just how fragmentary this clade really is. Anyways, fixed the hallux on both images. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  19:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, yeah, it seems the only evidence we have is the foot of Spinosaurus here, and tracks form Spain, both which show the hallux touching the ground and facing more forwards than most theropods (I believe). So that should probably be the default assumption for spinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I just saw this photo on Commons, is it the holotype or a cast? FunkMonk (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Based on the cracks, discolouration, and textures consistent with those of the fossil photos in its description paper, it appears to be the real holotype, . Conveniently, the image also includes a skeletal illustrating some of the newer material! Which I may be able to use as a guideline to update my own skeletal currently on the article. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  21:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Cool, I wonder why it's in Paris? Isn't the specimen number for an Asian museum? FunkMonk (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Hmm, comparing it with photos of the holotype from the paper once more, I've just noticed there's some dark patches and discolouration on the neural spines that isn't evident on the Paris museum image. So it's probably not the holotype, which explains the inconsistency you just pointed out with the specimen number, . Either way, it's still a very useful image! So thanks for bringing attention to it. I'll add it as I start expanding this for GAN while I wait for Siamosaurus to get reviewed. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  11:52, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 * This free photo of a mount on Flickr looks pretty cool: Not sure how we missed it, but it's unlabelled after all. There are also other specimens from Laos without captions in that album. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up! Nice to get a free photo including the rest of the remains. Unfortunately the four distalmost tail vertebrae aren't in the most up to date arrangement, so perhaps they could be cropped out and I can upload a second version of the image with those bones by themselves? - The unlabeled specimens appear to be of Tangvayosaurus and an indeterminate iguanodontian (both from the Gres Superieurs Formation), and Phuwiangosaurus from the Sao Khua Formation. I'll have to take a closer look through Kumiko's albums, there's lots of really useful images, including an even better one of that Baryonyx mount!. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  08:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, unfortunately the Baryonyx is very dark and blurry up close, but I'll see what can be done in Photoshop... I also made a section for unidentified photos from the expo here: FunkMonk (talk) 08:43, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, whoops, I probably should've checked to see if you'd uploaded it first! - anyways, did some edits to the Baryonyx mount photo but I'm not sure it's good enough for the taxobox yet? The other image still looks sharper and clearer overall. But added this one to the article in the history section anyways.  ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  09:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good, maybe I'll try to desaturate it a bit, because photos often get more saturated when one turns up brightness. As for cropping the tail in the Ichthyovenator, I wonder whether the configuration is (or even can be) set in stone? A bit of a shame to lose the vertebrae. FunkMonk (talk) 10:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I realised that, so just extracted them into a separate image so they wouldn't go to waste, the article's looking better illustrated than ever I must say! - According to what Allain told me and what we know from Spinosaurus now, the mount's arrangement doesn't seem very likely. I've noticed you can also tell this by the width of the neural spines and the size of the transverse processes (note how both these features are more inconsistent in the mount, decreasing and then increasing again compared to the arrangement in the Paris skeletal ). ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  11:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, who would have known Ichthyovenator would become such a popular museum exhibit, and that we would get so many photos of it? You are certainly prepared for when the rest of the postcrania is described. Let's hope for cranial material! FunkMonk (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Junk links?
Why do we have a "featured article" with links like 2012? This goes against WP:EGG and MOS:UNLINKDATES. Was someone asleep when they reviewed this? Or is MoS compliance no longer considered important in FA? --84.64.237.205 (talk) 10:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The article does not link to the year 2012, but 2012 in archosaur paleontology (as you probably know since you looked at the wikitext to place it here), since it's relevant to the naming and description of the animal. Most dinosaur GAs and FAs have those links, you're free to check. But we of course don't do that for every single year mentioned either, only those relevant to the taxon. This doesn't even go against WP:EGG or MOS:UNLINKDATES by any means, the latter even notes "Dates should be linked only when they are relevant to the subject", which is the case here. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  10:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , and that's WP:EGG right there. How is it "relevant to the naming and description of the animal"? --84.64.237.205 (talk) 10:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what you are talking about? Of course the article doesn't link to the article about the year "2012", but to another article called "2012 in archosaur paleontology", and these two things are totally different. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 11:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think we've established that. Have you looked at WP:EGG at all? That might be a good place to start. Then you can start on How is it "relevant to the naming and description of the animal"? Or just remove these distracting and useless links, per WP:OVERLINK, which would be my preference. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 11:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Then just remove the links since you keep insisting, though I'll still ping since he is the main author of the article, and knows more about this stuff. Also, people at WP:DINO and WP:PAL are well aware of these links, and tend to just leave them how they are, and as mentioned by PaleoGeek above, many dinosaur FAs and GAs have these types of links, so removing them might just be a waste of time.  Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 14:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:EGG notes "If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense.", it may not link to 2012, but it is relevant to the description of the animal since those articles are largely lists of named archosaur taxa during that year and information about said nomenclatural acts. And if you'd checked WP:OVERLINK, you would also see this particular section giving an extremely similar example "1787 [1787 in science] might be linked from a passage discussing a particular development in the metric system which occurred in that year." - Removing them does more harm than good and they're not unnecessarily distracting either. I agree with JurassicClassic that it would also be a rather big waste of time for editors who could instead deal with actual problematic MOS issues. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Goodness., it's a shame you have so little faith in your fellow dinosaur editors' ability to edit correctly. Maybe we should bring in a peer review process, to screen out poorly constructed articles. We could call it, let's see, what about "Featured Article"? , for the third time, How is it "relevant to the naming and description of the animal?" Still patiently waiting for your answer. I don't need you to explain or read aloud the MoS guidance I referred you to, I don't need you to advise me on better uses of my time, but I do need you to tell me why this link is vital to the article. I see it was queried at FAC too. --84.64.237.205 (talk) 20:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * By little faith what do you mean? As for your suggestion of a peer review, Ichthyovenator should be requested for a reassessment because once an article has reached FA, it doesn't need to be peer reviewed, this is because it may have already went through one (which is the most common way), or through an extensive GA review. Also, such links don't even make an article poorly constructed. Jurassic Classic 767  (talk | contribs) 08:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This IP sure knows a lot about the inner workings of Wikipedia and the dinosaur project, so hardly a random drive-by comment? Anyhow, I'm not sure how those links hurt, no one has ever complained about them at FAC, and there has been quite a few. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Not being sure how the links hurt is not a criterion for keeping them, and as I observed earlier, this was queried at FAC. Links should only be used where they give some benefit to the reader. I guess if there was a benefit to the reader, it would be easy to point out what it was. When folks resort to ad hominems, it's often a sign they have no better arguments. Does anyone have any actual reason for keeping them, or is it ok if I remove them again? --84.64.237.205 (talk) 10:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you've already resorted to such condescending comments earlier in the conversation; "Goodness., it's a shame you have so little faith in your fellow dinosaur editors' ability to edit correctly.", but that's besides the point. Did you read what I wrote in my comment at 15:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)? You seem to have dismissed/ignored everything I pointed out and keep insisting that I repeat myself on why these links have a valid reason to be there and do not even go against MOS compliance. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  11:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IP, you've clearly made up your mind that the links are junk and no amount of reasoning can sway you. Linking to the 2012 article for paleontology enhances understanding of the discovery and naming of the genus by placing it in the context of contemporary literature. I can see an argument, however, for removing it from the infobox where the contextual value is decreased. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)