User talk:Dinoguy2/Archive 8

RE:Use of footnotes
Hi. Well, "what is the rationale behind this?". I use this for an easy way to edit articles and saving the space that occupies the entire references (specially with templates), that make this process harder and annoying, for things like the time that you need to spend discriminating between the text and the references.

I started using this after watching the great results in the articles that was editing the user FunkMonk (Dodo, Rodrigues Solitaire, Mauritius Blue Pigeon,etc). He is now using some templates to go direct to the full reference (but with the disadvantage that you can't go from the full reference to the part of the text where it is or to the footnote).

I didn't notice the new feature that pops the reference up on hove. It's definitly a great addition.

As you can guess, i have no problem with the "extra-step" that you mentioned. But, if there are so many users that see this as a drawback, well, go ahead. After all, the interface and the format of Wikipedia articles should be comfortable not only to those who edit it, but specially for those who read it. We are all here to spread knowledge, so, in other words, obviously I will not oppose if this way to use footnotes generate those kind of inconvenient for the readers.

One last thing. In Gansus article, i turned it to my last edition. Look carefully, because I not only changed that "footnotes format" ;-) (you can change it now to the full reference format, anyway). The other articles that i can remember that i changed were Enantiornithes and Palaeognathae.

Best regards.--Ornithodiez (talk) 01:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Burgess Shale
How did the scale says Laggania. How did you get those pictures except for the Opabinia picture. I would like the one that says Peytoia a better name for this anomalocaridid. User:98.177.220.111

I'm liked the Wiwaxia size because of the last edit you fixed the giant size so it will not be bigger than Opabinia.

Taxonomy templates bird changes
Hey with the changes you just made, the taxobox at Tyrannosaurus (for example) doesn't show Theropoda or Dinosauria anymore. It shows Avemetatarsalia instead. Was that your intention? I don't see why this is an improvement. Also, I reverted your change to Taxonomy/Aves, since it broke bird species taxoboxes (I think the template depth is too much or whatever). ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 07:04, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Dilophosaurus
J.Spencer tells me that you are our resident theropod expert. So I ask When you have a moment if you can please check the additions I made to the Dilophosaurus page. I also did some re-organization. Please know that my bias is toward categorization as expressed by my possible overuse of titles and headings. This style is useful to me for organizing data but may be distracting to Wikipedia users. That said, I attempted to use the same section headings that I saw on other major dinosaur pages in Wikipedia. As I wrote to Mr. Spencer, I'm new at this and would appreciate some constructive criticism.Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 00:03, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I reviewed your modification and understand the basis for revision. I will keep bullet lists to a minimum despite my personal preference and will stick with reader-accessible terms. Thanks again.

Classification and Dilophosaurus
Hi, I found your response on the talk page the Dilophosaurus article very helpful. I can appreciate that (as you wrote) "Consensus based on sources older than 10 years or so is pretty useless when it comes to phylogeny", and I will focus on the ten year window your recommend as it relates to data regarding phylogeny. Also, I see now that when Paul and some others use "Averostra" they are discussing that clade that the majority of researchers consider to be "Neotheropoda" Thanks!!!Evangelos Giakoumatos (talk) 01:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Fossil star
Yikes, and did you see this? FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! And yeah, very cool that so much attention was paid a glorified margin doodle :) MMartyniuk (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have a question you may be able to answer, when citing authors, when should parenthesis be used, and when should it not? Especially in taxoboxes? FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sharovipteryx, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chris Bennett (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 01:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Modern bird
In your opinion, which modern bird best resembles their dinosaur ancestors? Wodenhelm (Talk) 03:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Eutherian–metatherian divergence
Hi. Could you provide an explanation for your recent reversion of my edits to Metatheria? A Nature article by Luo et al. is a reliable source by anybody's standard, and most molecular clock estimates also date the eutherian–metatherian divergence in the Jurassic. While the fossil range of Metatheria does extend back only to the Cretaceous, the template does display the specified interval as "Temporal range", so it would seem that the parameters should relate to temporal, not fossil, range. Isn't writing, "Metatherians first appeared in the Cretaceous Period" a violation of WP:UNDUE? Surely, a paper with Luo as senior author cannot be regarded as fringe material. Peter Brown (talk) 16:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts on the 'Largest Theropod' chart
(Note: I was intending to keep this short, but it ended up being much longer than I hoped, so sorry if it drags on a bit!) Hopefully this will come across as constructive:

Lets start with something that applies to all 4 of the theropods. I know that in the case of Spinosaurus/Carcharodontosaurus, the depth of the torso is somewhat un-known, but holy cow have those guys been piling on the pounds! I'm sure you have your reasoning, but, in my opinion, they are all very chubby, Carcharodontosaurus in particular. T. rex is comparable to Scott Hartman's skeletal, although it isn't the same 'shape', so there isn't anything wrong with it per se. Giganotosaurus matches Hartman's skeletal in shape, but is a good deal chubbier, and the Carcharodontosaurus is insane for an animal universally restored as gracile in skeletal reconstructions on the 'net, and far bulkier than any other known carcharodontosaurid. Very few ribs are known, but those that are seem to imply a gracile build. I can't judge the Spinosaurus as I don't know where it's back would actually be. All of the tails seem extremely droopy too

Onto individual species.

The Spinosaurus is labeled as MSNM V4047, but appears - from what I can tell - to be the type specimen, IPHG 1912, but with a hugely long tail, and possibly a head the size of MSNM V4047 (Hartman's skeletal is scaled to IPHG 1912, not MSNM V4047). I suggest either an up-scale on the body, or re-label plus down scale on the head. MSNM V4047 is oft. quoted as 20% larger than the type specimen, but after playing around with Hartman's skeletal 11-16% seems more likely imho; the premaxilla looks to be either 81cm or 85cm long based on the figures in Dal Sasso et al. 2005, whilst Hartman restores IPHG 1912 with one ~73cm long. An animal this large hits a standing length of 15 meters, so an artificially lengthened tail is not needed, and the axial length would be nigh on 16 meters, so it matches published estimate fine.

The Carcharodontosaurus skull doesn't follow what was preserved of SGM-Din 1 very closely. . It's placement in 'second' is pretty confusing too, since essentially the only known part of it - the skull - is smaller than Giganotosaurus' (156 vs ~162cm; old gigantic estimates of Giga's skull are incorrect, see it's talk page), and the only study that I know of that concluded Carch' was larger is Therrien and Henderson (2007), who used the type specimen of Giganotosaurus, a rounded up figure for Carcharodontosaurus skull length and an equation based solely on skull length.

Giganotosurus/Tyrannosaurus have the similar issues with the skull not fitting what is known, and Giggles has the old super-extended skull.

__ Have you considered using a slightly different format, where a well known specimen of a species (e.g. Giganotosaurus type specimen, Sue etc.) is shown, with a larger silhouette for a fragmentary giant in the background (MUCPv-95, MSNM V4047, SGM-Din 1 etc.)? It might be a bit convoluted for an image containing many genera mind, especially if intended to be seen at a low resolution in an article. Something akin to this that I put together for use on a forum:

I hope this didn't drag on or come across as too negative. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 22:36, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=557543409 your edit] to Ejinhoro Formation may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].

spinosaurid size
hi, sorry if this is too much of a bother. I have some questions about spinosaurid size. First question: you commented on user talk:spinodontosaurus that baryonyx and suchomimus are almost always underestimated, claiming that their bone length suggested a bigger animal then most estimates suggest. However reading through the spinosaurus talk page archives I am inclined to think that baryonyx measured around 8 meters and scaling it to be  20 percent longer leads to an animal with the same bone lengths as suchomimus which results in a body length of 9.6-9.7 m for the latter. Second question : you commented on user:spinodontosaurus's talk page about a certain statue some limb material an an undescribed pd neural spine. Could you elaborate about this since the link about this that spinodontosaurus posted on your talk page no longer works. Third question: you commented on user:spinodontosaurus's talk page that the maxilla length proportions between the holotype of spinosaurus and MSNM V4047, which according to spinodontosaurus leads to the latter being only 11-16 percent bigger then the former rather than 20 percent may lead to the Dal Sasso specimone becomeing larger. But would not it actually lead to a reduction and not an increase in size, also while the maxilla length difference in Heartman's skeletal is 11-16 percent the length of the mandibel fragment given by Stromer for the type is 75CM which would lead to a scull length of around 1.30-1.37 m. Here is an estimate for the type specimone's length: since there were 14 dorsal vertebra (theropod database lists a 15th and a 16th vertebra for the suchomimus type but since that specimone was described in 1998 and reading the spinosaurus talkpage archives I find that even in 2007, 9 years later it was believed that there where 14 dorsels so its likely an error) and taking an average of 18CM (steeveoc86 says that the avrege is less then the sum of the length of the shortest and longest vertebra divided by 2 and my experience with baryonyx shows that it is around {the length of the shortest vertebra+[ the length of the shortest vertebra + the length of the longest vertebra divided by 2]}divided by 2 which in this case according to the bone length figures listed by the theropod database is 18CM) we get a figure of 2.34M for the combined length of the dorsals excluding the first dorsal (which is functionally a cervical), then we add the 5 sacral vertebra( I have only the length of the first sacral which is 155MM while in acrocanthosaurus the average length of the sacrals is less than the length of the first sacral but I am hesitant to use that as a model for spinosaurus and I do not know the length of even a half of the sacrals for any spinosaurid so I am using the length of the first sacral as the average length of the sacrals) then we add the 2 caudals between the iliol blades the length of the proximal caudal that Stromer is around 10CM so takeing that as the average length of the 2 caudals then using the length of the 6th cervical which is 185MM to estimate the length of the neck we get a neck length of about 1.8M then adding a scull length of about 1.37M then adding tale which is likely about the same length as the rest of the body then multiplying it by 1.1 in order to account for the intervertebral disks, we end up with an animal about 14.25M in length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aliafroz1901 (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok but you still haven't answered my first 2 questions. By the way could you please provide a link to Heartman's reconstruction as I have not seen it and thus am prone to make mistakes regarding it.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 12:41, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I have already red throu the theropod database entry on baryonyx, however reading throu the spinosaurus talk page archives made it clear to me that Mordemar's 9.1M estemet which is bassed on Heartman's reconstruction of baryonyx is so highe only because Heartman's restoration of baryonyx used an intervertebral disk ratio of 25 percent, if you limit yourself to a ratio of 10 percent then baryonyx is only about 8 meters long. You still haven't answered my second question and you seme to have missed my request for a link to the Heartman reconstruction.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 10:34, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 09:50, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok just had a look at the Heartman restoration and to my absolute shocke it depicted the holotype at a mere 9M and he gave the Dal Sasso spesimon a snout length of around 1.25M and his skelitel for it comes off at a mere 13M, why is this so.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 07:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Diogenornis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Rhea


 * Rheidae (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Rhea

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 4
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Dendrornithes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Raptor


 * Metaves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Nightbird


 * Neoaves (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Raptor

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 22:51, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Megapnosaurus/Coelophysis problem
Hello Dinoguy2. I am informing users who might want to say something about this. If you have an opinion please add it. Thanks. Reid,iain james (talk) 01:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Also, if there is anyone else you think might want this sent to them you can inform them. Reid,iain james (talk) 01:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Tetrapod
I agree staying at the level of class in the Tetrapod infobox is the right compromise. Thanks! -- cyclopia  speak!  11:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Help on Tactopoda
Hi! I'm Dino guy 3, and my friend Awesome210 really needs your help on the Tactopoda page. He needs the cladogram fixed, but has been locked out of Wikipedia. Even if he wasn't, he's not that good at typing up cladograms. So, you see, he really needs your help. I would appreciate it if you fixed the cladogram for him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dino guy 3 (talk • contribs) 23:51, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Megaraptora and Allosauroidea
Hello Dinoguy. I'm Lord of the Allosaurs, a herpetoculturist and dinosaur enthusiast, and I'd like to talk to you a bit about Fernando Novas' study on Megaraptora that found them to be coelurosaurs. Now, first I'd like to clarify that I'm not criticizing Novas in any way, but simply voicing my concerns with taking this study as fact so early. Firstly, as every other study on Megaraptora has found them to be closely related to carcharodontosaurids, I have a feeling that this study may be an outlier, rather like the one study that found Tyrannosaurus rex to have a bite force of over 200,000 newtons. Additionally the discovery of Maastrichtian-age carcharodontosaurid maxillae and teeth from a large carcharodontosaurid of late Coniacian age (from the same formation that produced Futalognkosaurus if I remember correctly) are evidence that, even if megaraptorans do turn out to be coelurosaurs, Allosauroidea would not have gone extinct with Mapusaurus.

A link to the Brazilian carcharodontosaurid maxillae: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667112001176

Thanks for reading :) --The Lord of the Allosaurs (talk) 15:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Balaur (dinosaur), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Basal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Your book
This is not really related to WP but I hope I can ignore all rules for a second. I have bought your A field guide to Mesozoic birds and other winged dinosaurs and I found it really awesome. Thank you for contributing your wonderful reconstructions on Wikipedia and for publishing such a sweet book! I hope more will come in the future. -- cyclopia speak! 10:37, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Fair point!
You made a fair point, though I do think the articles about dinosaurs need to hammer home the fact that birds are theropod dinosaurs. But, yes, my mistake. The Mummy (talk) 17:37, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Boreoeutheria
Hi. I am Awesome 210. I know, my friend said I couldn't get back on. That was because I forgot my password. Anyway, I really need some help right now. I tried to correct the cladogram on Broeoeutheria, but it doesn't look right at the moment. I would really appreciate it if you fixed it for me, because I have always been bad at uploading cladograms onto the internet. I let my son, Joshua the 10-year-old biologist, try, and he totally failed. Please help me. Awesome 210 (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Taxobox of Dromaeosauroides
Hi Dinoguy2. I noticed that the taxobox of dromaeosauroides is broken and I cannot find anything wrong. Since you have formatted the taxobox could you please identify the problem and fix it. Thanks. Iainstein (talk) 20:19, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also happened to Toyotamaphimeia, so it must be some kind of general issue... FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * And something very weird happened to the taxobox as a result of this change.... PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC) Ignore my comment above - the template had been vandalised . PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Therosaurus
Cite error: The named reference DFG97 was invoked but never defined >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Therosaurus&diff=573008943&oldid=290182743 Please clean up thanks --Frze > talk   09:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Nedoceratops
Hi Dinoguy2. I'm informing you about a discussion I'm having on whether or not to split Nedoceratops off from Triceratops. As you were the one to redirect it the first time after it had been unredirected I would greatly appreciate your opinion here. If there is anyone else you think would make an addition to this discussion could you inform them for me? Thank you in advance. Iainstein (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Quick notice, if you really care..
Kwami removed your T.rex image for such glorious reasons as "It's OR, how would it shed heat" and called it "bad photoshopping". Just so you know, not trying to instil hostility here. He put it up on [this] section of the T.rex talk page. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:50, 20 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, I did re-insert it anyways, since the consensus was "yay", not "nay", but you know, trying to settle the dispute civilly and all. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:55, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Anapsida taxonomy template
Howdy; I'd appreciate your commentary on this edit, which sort of undoes an edit you had done a few months ago. Also please see the note on the talk page. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 19:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Also this edit to Diapsida, which AFAICT is similar in nature. ErikHaugen (talk &#124; contribs) 20:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Me being behind both edits, we could perhaps discuss this centrally, and not spread over several talk pages? Petter Bøckman (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Arcovenator
I find it peculiar that you can be so precise about the age range when I've found nothing that allows such precision. Any source beyond the paper for it being 74 mya? --Dracontes (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Then perhaps the best option would be to contact the people manning the template so they can fix things. I'd say having even as a temporary fix "somewhen between" before the range would be clearer and closer to the facts where pertinent. Also Tortosa et al. 2013 do state that scrappier fossil remains elsewhere in the formation do show a likely wide temporal range for the genus as is evidenced by the range bars on the cladogram. --Dracontes (talk) 19:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Deinonychus
Why would animals eat smaller prey alive - they're easily capable of killing them? And I've seen videos do golden eagles killing hares with their talons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.154.236 (talk) 18:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)