Talk:Styracosaurus/Archive 1

bonebed in Arizona??
Hey, does anybody know anything about the bonebed discovery from Arizona? can't find anything on google Cas Liber 06:13, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
 * class=FA
 * I've found nothing, either, so I've removed it. Firsfron of Ronchester  21:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

A to-do list of sorts
My, someone's been busy! The article is looking great and getting close to FA nomination (this is an all-too-premature congratulations).

Ideas:


 * I think there's some stuff floating around on the sort of environment styracosaurus may have lived in that would be good ot put in Paleobiology - and possibly expand on the herding bit. Am at work at the moment so can't do too much. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 05:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the idea of sexual dimorphism is fascinating and there must be more material to add to that discussion somewhere. cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 05:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
 * My thanks to both you and Dinoguy for the fixes. I'm not sure this article is anywhere close to FA status, but GA might be passable. I've submitted to scientific peer review for a once-over. It is my hope that there's someone there qualified to review it.
 * I agree the herding issue must be discussed somewhere: no herding evidence has been found for this genus, as far as I'm aware: only isolated individuals have been found (no bonebed). I will gladly try to scrape together more bits on the sexual dimorphism angle, but it's awfully late here. I know that you're at work, and awfully busy, but if you find something later on, feel free to add it. Again, thank you very much for the comments. Firsfron of Ronchester  06:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I can't find anything else directly on Styracosaurus: the question is whether the article benefits from indirect discussion eg. adding bit on likely Protoceratops dimorphism and inferring that Styracosaurus may be as well. The same goes for embellishing on herding behaviour. The article is nuice and well-rounded. Qustion is, is it long enough? cheers, Casliber | talk  |  contribs 05:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Long enough? Probably not. I plan to add a few more bits, as suggested in peer review, but even then, it likely will only be as long as Albertosaurus, the shortest FA. Don't sweat it, though, Cas. GA is not out of reach. :) Firsfron of Ronchester  05:37, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, check out another FA - Make Way for Ducklings - I just highlight this as if the information is limited then comprehensiveness can be achieved with a shorter page. I reckon this looks really good now. Question is, do the others agree? Circeus? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 14:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Good point, Cas; that article is only 16.9, considerably shorter than this one. I was just worried that people would comment that this article isn't as comprehensive as other dinosaur articles (because it's shorter), but J. has corrected a few of my mistakes, added more refs, and the article is now 23k long, 13th longest dinosaur article on Wikipedia. I've just sent this article to GA, but do you think it's FA-suitable? Firsfron of Ronchester  00:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I do but I am generally satisfied before others, being way down on the slob-prefectionist axis. Circeus is the most thorough so if he's happy then I think it's all systems go....cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 00:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * You call yourself a slob, but I don't look at it like that. I think of all the work you put into Stegosaurus, for example, as top-notch. I do agree Circeus is extraordinarily thorough, though. Since J. contributed a lot to this article, I've asked him for input about this as well.  Firsfron of Ronchester  00:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I didn't say I actually reached the slob end of the axis, just very close :) cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 00:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, I'm groaning at that terrible pun... Firsfron of Ronchester  07:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

OK -added a note from dinosauria. Shoudl be reworded but I gotta run now. Also - there is a section on pros and cons of herding being an explanation for bonebeds in dinosauria. Do we want this in here? If so I can add later too. cheers, Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 03:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, please, if you can tie it in to Styracosaurus somehow. Firsfron of Ronchester  03:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Having been through it a couple of times now, I think it's pretty close. The only things that may be of concern are the differing ref formats (some using cite journal/book templates, some not) and the "rediscovery of the S. parksi site" info; wish we could find a source there. J. Spencer 16:05, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * While I appreciate your thorough copyedit, the units of measurement no longer adhere to Manual_of_Style_%28dates_and_numbers%29. Units are supposed to be spelled out, unless they appears in parentheses. The example they give is: "a pipe 100 millimetres (4 in) in diameter and 16 kilometres (10 mi) long" or "a pipe 4 inches (100 mm) in diameter and 10 miles (16 km) long". Firsfron of Ronchester  21:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's rather curious. It makes more sense to spell each term out once and then shorten the rest of the way. I suppose the terms in parentheses are so well known as to not require being spelled out once?  I shall give someone a piece of my mind, once someone tells me where I left it. J. Spencer 21:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know why they've chosen to do it that way, but someone made that decision and it somehow become consensus. Like the in-line citation craze, which I personally don't like very much. Thank you for fixing it. :/ Firsfron of Ronchester  21:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is unusually scant of images, so if anyone got some images of skeletons or similar, it would be cool to have them uploaded. Funkynusayri (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. Unfortunately, I don't have any images of Styracosaurus laying around. Firsfron of Ronchester  17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

EL
One of the external links in 404. I commented it out. Would anyone familiar with that site get it right please? -- Y not? 22:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. It's no longer hosted by the University, but I think it was working recently. Thanks. Firsfron of Ronchester  22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated refs
If you look through the references, Dodson (1996) is repeated four or five times. It's a great book, but... Sheep81 10:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * They are not repeated references. During one FACing, I was told by an established FAC reviewer that specific page references should be done for each citation. Footnote #3 references pages 165–169. Footnote #12 references pages 197–199. Footnote #18 references page 244. Footnote #30 references page 266, and #33 references page 269. Firsfron of Ronchester  11:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Units?
I'm querying weighing nearly 3 tons - which ton are we talking about here? Given that this is a scentific topic, I suggest that the article use tonnes, with a possible parenthesised Imperial equivalent following. Will someone check the actual weight (I note there's no reference given), and then edit the value and link accordingly, please? Kay Dekker (talk) 09:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, the weight is referenced to Lambert (1993). From the body of the text: "Individuals of the Styracosaurus genus were approximately 5.5 m (18 ft) long as adults and weighed around 2.7 tons.[2]" It's not cited in the lead because WP:LEAD states "Because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source." We normally have not been placing citations in the lead of an article when the citation is already present in the text. The ton the article is referring to is the US ton, as this is an American dinosaur. A link to short ton might be appropriate. Thanks for your adjustments earlier. Firsfron of Ronchester  14:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

from wiki: albertosaurus and conform my own impressions: "There is abundant evidence for gregarious behavior among herbivorous dinosaurs, including ceratopsians and hadrosaurs.[25] ".24.132.170.252 (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Flat cheek teeth?
It says in the lead "It also had a beak and flat cheek teeth, indicating that its diet was herbivorous." First of all there should be nothing in the lead that isn't given elsewhere in the article, and I can't find this information about the teeth anywhere else. Secondly - what are "flat cheek teeth"? Are they flat on the top surface or flat vertically? I presume it means the top surface is flat suggesting they were for grinding and not slicing through flesh, but it's not clear. Also, isn't there a better name than "cheek teeth"? Are they molars or doesn't this name apply to dinosaur teeth? Richerman (talk) 16:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a section on the teeth and the animals' diet here. "ceratopsid teeth sliced but did not grind".
 * I know there's a section on teeth (I missed the bit about slicing not grinding) but it doesn't say anything about the teeth being flat, so I'm still not sure in which direction they were flat or why that would indicate that its diet was herbivorous. Richerman (talk) 12:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ceratopians are a bit tricky, in that there's a decent chance the smaller genera were more like pigs equipped with front-mounted garden shears than bog-standard herbivores. All ceratopsians were probably cutting something that offered resistance into short lengths, and herbivore is favored over carnivore for other reasons than just tooth form (big stumpy body, lack of separate pointy teeth, and so on). Still, those beaks would offer a nasty defensive bite; a parrot will hurt your fingers, a Psittacosaurus could mangle your hand, a Protoceratops could mangle your arm (as seen with the "Fighting Dinosaurs" Velociraptor), and a Triceratops would be like an elephant with a Jaws-of-Life cutter instead of a trunk. J. Spencer (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

FA?
How did this article become featured? I have seen a lot of non-featured articles that are much better than this.. -GabaG (talk) 16:54, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (It seems the article may have been partly vandalized with some removed content when i wrote that earlier. However still /\..)-GabaG (talk) 16:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

VANDALISM ALERT!!!
The phrase alan childs ia a queer is found on the main page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.110.14.52 (talk) 17:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Redirect
Styracosaur should be created as a redirect to this article. Regards. --87.217.184.242 (talk) 00:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Edits, February 2012 (Thescelosaurus quote)
i am updating this article as i just did to the centrosaur article to reflect the actual quotation from the thescelosaur reference given...i noticed the error because i was fairly certain "ceratopines" is not a word...the sentence from the reference reads as follows: "The centrosaurines, as previously described, are usually recognized by their prominent nasal horns, subordinate brow horns, short squamosals in a short frill, a tall, deep face relative to the chasmosaurines, and a projection into the rear of the nasal fenestra." in the article it read "...deep face relative to the ceratopines..." so i fixed it. i realise that i am new to this editing thing but i am only trying to help...thank you...i am going to go check the other chasmosaurine centrosaurinae etc Ruraltexas (talk) 10:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you - the source originally did use "ceratopines" (because that is technically how Ceratopinae should be spelled, not Ceratopsinae), but later gave up the spelling and ended up using Chasmosaurinae on the grounds that Ceratops isn't necessarily a ceratopsine as the group was traditionally defined (long-horned ceratopsids). J. Spencer (talk) 23:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * thanks for your prompt response...learn something new everyday, all the years i've been messin with paleo i just never ran across 'ceratopine'...question--i know we respect thescelosaurus as a verifiable source,  i was wondering about the merit of using the identical quote in both the Centrosaurus article and the Styracosaurus article regarding the aforementioned quotation .. i suppose it's an aesthetic issue for me...it doesn't detract from either article...just curiousRuraltexas (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like you said, it's not a big deal, but we can probably find a better source, perhaps something from the recent horned dinosaurs volume. J. Spencer (talk) 17:45, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:15, 1 May 2016 (UTC)