Talk:Zalmoxes

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was not moved. - UtherSRG (talk) 21:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Zalmoxes → Zalmoxes (dinosaur) – Or maybe Zalmoxes (genus). While this is an interesting article, Zalmoxes is just another spelling of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: Zalmoxis. I believe it is quite confusing for a name variant of one topic to be used for another topic. Especially since the dinosaur was named after the primary topic. Zalmoxes should be a redirect to Zalmoxis. Not entirely sure, but Zalmoxes could be simply the Latin form/translation of the Greek Zalmoxis. relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC) Codrin.B (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Support as requester.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * But it is not the common spelling. if you search Zalmoxes with an e, almost all results are for the dinosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It is a fairly common spelling. And it depends how you search. How about these Google Books searches: Zalmoxes Dacia, Zalmoxes Thracian. To me, when something is named after something else (i.e. the deity), that something else should have the primary topic and the redirects of all spellings. Otherwise it gets unwieldy and confusing for the reader.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:PRECISION. There is no indication that Zalmoxes is "just another spelling of" Zalmoxis on that article. If it were, the dinosaur would still appear to be the primary topic for the -es spelling. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:10, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See the searches above for the alternate spelling. Indeed, Zalmoxis needs to be updated to describe that spelling. I don't think WP:PRECISION applies.--Codrin.B (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since Zalmoxes is precise enough without a qualifier, WP:PRECISION applies. The hatnotes on each article will direct readers to the other as needed, unless there is some indication that the dinosaur isn't the primary topic. Google Books searching also yields the dinosaur, and books search on "Zalmoxes dinosaur" (without the quotes) gives 40 hits, "Zalmoxes getea" (without the quotes) gives 2, so there's no indication that the divinity is the primary topic -- being named after the divinity doesn't mean the dinosaur can't be the primary topic. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you made an error in your search. You probably meant Zalmoxes getae as in Getae not Getea. This search yields 56 results, in addition to the hits for Zalmoxes Dacia and Zalmoxes Thracian. Also, I can't possibly imagine how a dinosaur named in 2003 after a god would get more press that the actual deity, about whom people wrote for more than 2000 years, starting with the Ancient Greeks.--Codrin.B (talk) 21:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you are correct. "Zalmoxes Getae" gives 19 Books results ("about 56" on page one, but you have to click on the final page to get the actual number of results. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Either number is fine as long as we stick to one counting system when comparing. Google indeed omits certain results once you start navigating to other search results pages and does a recount on the last page. But I would be surprised if people would use that number when comparing. BTW, the Zalmoxes article itself notes that Zalmoxes is a spelling variant of Zalmoxis (probably the Greek to Latin conversion). Either way, I made my points. I'll let the consensus decide. And I am glad they discovered that dinosaur in my homeland ;-) --Codrin.B (talk) 21:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Most sources seem to prefer the I spelling. The E spelling may be a transcription error, or the result of the word not being in the nominative.  In any event, the manumitted slave of Pythagoras or native god of the Gete is comparatively obscure, with a mere 15 lines in W. Smith. A smaller classical dictionary (1877), 460.  The present solution with the hatone leading to the Greek god or whatever provides a satisfactory solution.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Restoration review
I suggest a review and probable removal of the second restoration from the top (The orange one.); it has a weirdly shaped skull (Almost looks warped ._.); shrink-wrapping; weird "webbed" hands; highly under-muscled arms ("Man arms"; one the more common ornithopod restoration mistakes.); lack of extensive "cheeks"; odd tail proportions; and "bird-feet" .142.176.114.76 (talk) 14:39, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The eyes are way too big on both restorations. The top one benefits from seemingly being traced after a skeletal restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Is it a good idea to have a bristled restoration on this site? I know the Siberian ornithopod is being described soon, but until then they should probably be avoided. Do we replace them then? At least the bottom one?142.176.114.76 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't really have anything to replace them with at this point, so we can only remove. Bristles should be alright, there's no direct evidence against... FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the enfluffening; I'm simply not sure we should go that way on this kinda site yet; thought the Siberian ornithopod could change that. As for restorations, think we could get permission to use this: http://www.deviantart.com/art/Zalmoxes-robustus-9863421 ? Looks good to me, the same guy has quite a few other good ornithopod restorations as well; Dakotadon: http://sputatrix.deviantart.com/art/Iguanodon-lakotaensis-43606364 (Accuracy debatable.); Agilisaurus: http://sputatrix.deviantart.com/art/Agilisaurus-louderbacki-69280634 ; Hexinlusaurus: http://sputatrix.deviantart.com/art/Hexinlusaurus-multidens-69258041 ; Oryctodromeus: http://sputatrix.deviantart.com/art/Oryctodromeus-cubicularis-69823130 ; and Lesothosaurus: http://sputatrix.deviantart.com/art/Lesothosaurus-diagnosticus-44725391 . The accuracy of these are debatable to some extent, but they are fairly good, and many of these pages lack restorations. Of course, I again note that we would need permission for use of these.142.176.114.76 (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The poses there seem a bit unnatural/exaggerated, though, and we have restorations of several of them already. And as for "shrinkwrapping"... FunkMonk (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The physical characteristics are good however; and we are lacking one for Dakotadon, Hexinlusaurus, and the subject of this talk is a replacement restoration for the second one on this page. Also, aldo extreme, they are within the range of possibility.142.176.114.76 (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The large species (Zalmoxes, Dakotadon) are ok, but the legs of the smaller ones seem way too extended, you never see birds with their legs stretched out to the very extreme like that. By the way, here's a free image of a Zalmoxes model, sadly it has pronated hands. FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That flikr user has uploaded many free images, such as this inaccurate ("sigh") Struthiosaurus . IJReid (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, did they actually pay someone for that? Looks like a bad suit from an old Godzilla movie. FunkMonk (talk) 09:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That Zalmoxes (The flikr thing) also has a questionably upright posture, forward facing eyes, a lack of muscle (Thought not quite shrink wrapping.) and what appears to have an overly long tail. Also, a model isn't the best restoration available.142.176.114.76 (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Onychosaurus
Last year, Onychosaurus was as a synonym of Zalmoxes, though no supporting reference was given. However, Onychosaurus currently redirects to Rhabodon, and over at the list of dinosaur genera, it is noted as a "junior synonym of Rhabdodon, or a dubious ankylosaurian". So which is it? Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 23:22, 21 September 2020 (UTC)