Talk:Kosmoceratops

"Κόσμος" does not mean "decorated" nor in Ancient, nor in Hellinistic nor in Byzantine nor in Ottoman nor in Modern Greek
Seriously. "Κόσμος¨ means "world" or "Universe". "Κοσμιμένος" (active voice) or "Κοσμώμενος" (passive) the adjectective of "Κοσμώ"/decorate

From a greek guy.

Project2501a (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * On a related point, why is the current translation using the verb? The paper is clear in what sense the name is being used by the discoverers ,


 * Etymology. The generic name refers to kosmos (Greek), meaning ornamented, and ceratops (Greek), meaning horned face. The specific name honors Scott Richardson, who discovered the holotype and many other significant fossils from GSENM.


 * Why the article doesn't just state, "Kosmoceratops (from Greek, meaning "ornamented horned face")" I don't know. ChiZeroOne (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, to be clear, the verb is currently not in the transitive form so it makes the description sound odd. ChiZeroOne (talk) 16:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The word "κόσμος", does in fact mean ornament/decoration. The word currently given, κοσμώ is utterly bizarre (it could, I suppose be a contracted verb or something), but I see no evidence that any verb is meant from the kosmoceratops.  I will clarify the etymology and link to Wiktionary entries.  Atelaes (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Images
Are these images not copyrighted to the authors of the paper? They're not even low-resolution, which they need to be if it's literally the only available image of the animal for quite some time. I'd remove them myself, but I'm reluctant to since they haven't been removed by anyone else (makes me wonder if I'm overlooking something). Shouldn't we wait for a fair-use reconstruction of the animal? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * They do not come under fair-use so low resolution doesn't apply. If you click on the pictures it shows that they are licensed under a creative commons attribution 2.5 licence, as it says on the PLoS website which the image file links to.  This license only requires attribution.  On Image_copyright_tags/Free_licenses it is listed as free-use for the purposes of Wikipedia.  I'm not an expert in this side of Wikipedia but as far as I'm aware this is perfectly allowed.  ChiZeroOne (talk) 18:21, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, PLoS is pretty cool, huh? All the licensing information is explained on the image description pages. mgiganteus1 (talk) 18:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for clearing that up. I've never seen images from a recent scientific paper legitimately used on Wikipedia so I didn't know what to think. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 01:58, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No? Every single new animal published in PLOS One has images directly from the papers on Wikipedia, including such "stars" as Darwinius. See this: http://www.ploscollections.org/article/browseIssue.action?issue=info:doi/10.1371/issue.pcol.v02.i02 FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Another (minor) reference
If anybody is looking for another reference, this week's issue of Newsweek has a two-page article on the Kosmoceratops. It probably doesn't say anything new, but having some diversity in the references is nice. I would add it myself, but I'm not sure where the references are wanted. JonCatalán(Talk) 03:56, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Map
The large scale map in the lower left corner of the map is incorrectly labelled. Colorado is labelled "Wyoming" and Wyoming is labelled "Colorado".Bill (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Odd, considering it is from a scientific paper. I have now swapped the state labels in the map. FunkMonk (talk) 08:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing the map. Unfortunately, your changes seem to be restricted to the original. The smaller version that is embedded in the article is still the incorrect version.Bill (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be a cache issue; if you refresh or "purge" the page, it should update. FunkMonk (talk) 08:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Failed peer review paper
Hi, I see you removed some text based on the fact that a paper failed peer review. The thing is, the paper and it conclusions was still discussed in subsequent literature, so leaving it out leaves a gap in the logic and sequence of events. It is part of the relevant literature on this subject whether it has passed peer review or not. We could perhaps state in the article that it failed peer review, if that makes it clearer. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, that JVP conference article, though the abstract was published by a journal, is still a conference abstract. FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Being a conference paper is irrelevant, this was published in a journal, you cite it as a journal. Also a failed peer-review paper cannot be used to backup claims. If others cite it, then cite those sources. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Stop converting this to a cite conference, this was published in a journal. cite conference is for conferences proceedings publishing in books and will wrongly italicizes the title because it assumes you're giving the title of a book. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * The abstract was published in a a book (full citation "Fowler, D., Scannella, J., and Horner, J. 2011. Reassessing ceratopsid diversity using unified frames of reference. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, SVP Program and Abstracts Book, 2011: 111A.") The site I copied the citation from just gave an incomplete reference. So yes, it should just be expanded, but still use the conference template. FunkMonk (talk) 10:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * As for the peer review fail, it is central to a discussion of the evolution of this animal, and has been refuted by other writers. We can't just give the refutation without context. Maybe it needs a wider discussion of how to tackle this. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's central and you're discussion the refutation, it should be made clear that the claim has failed peer-review to begin with. But that also leaves questions of WP:DUE weight. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll try to do that. Yes, since some of the subsequent sources refute it in detail, I think the original arguments need to be explained too. And the article currently makes it clear that those claims have been refuted. And to make this stronger, I'll add the fact that it failed peer review. FunkMonk (talk) 10:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I tried to complete the conference book abstract, but maybe I am mixing incompatible parameters. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

New
This is such a new article, is it accurate and useful?Crusader4 (talk) 16:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * , it's actually 10 years old! It was started back in 2010. This is what's called a Featured Article, meaning that it has undergone peer review by multiple editors and is considered one of the best articles on Wikipedia. You'll notice Featured Articles by the little bronze star in the top right corner of the article. Enwebb (talk) 17:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, not sure what is meant by "new", it was recently featured, yes, but the article is pretty old. FunkMonk (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)