Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review/Archive May 2018 - August 2018

My Revised Oxalaia restoration for the GAN
As FunkMonk aptly pointed out in the GA review for Oxalaia quilombensis, my restoration is in need of some updating; It's too heavily stylized, the coracoid should be at least a bit more prominent, fingers are way too thin and of almost equal length, claws look like they're about to fall off, jawline is wrong, snout doesn't match the holotype, and the feet are just downright weird. So I made a new one, (and a less blurry one at that). Good enough for the article?  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs) 
 * I think it's better but there are still some issues. First off, the teeth from the lower jaw shouldn't be visible at all, as the lower jaw is narrower (following Headden). I think the eye is too far up the head, but the head is an improvement. The torso appears to be too elongate, the arms should be shifter back a tough and the left leg should be farther forward until the two legs look like they are the correct width (rather narrow). And the toes should be about 150% their length. Thats all though I think. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Working on the other changes, but are you sure about the lower jaw thing? Because if so then these  two restorations on the Spinosaurus article would be a bit inaccurate.  ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  14:23, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well then maybe its not an issue, I should recheck Headdens blog post. But anyways if you're not specifically folowwing Headden the problem is moot. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:28, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, who was the one to point out problems at the GAN, has something to add. It looks a bit front heavy (unbalanced), perhaps a lowered tail or tilted body would change that. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, and as I'm thinking about it, I'm generally not sure if you should reconstruct it after Spinosaurus in the first place. I do not know so much about spinosaurids, but the recently revised body proportions of Spinosaurus, with the very short hind limbs you show here, have not been widely accepted yet, as there is the possibility that the Spinosaurus specimen is a composite (correct me if I'm not up to date). Also, I don't think there is any evidence for Spinosaurus-like proportions in spinosaurids apart from Spinosaurus itself. As these Spinosaurus proportions are unusual for spinosaurids (and theropods in general), you should think about reconstructing it after a more generic spinosaurid that is better known. Yes, Oxalaia was proposed to be most closely related to Spinosaurus, but if you only have a jaw fragment, that does not mean much. Choosing, e.g., Suchomimus as a template seems more prudent to me. As an alternative, you could also just show one or two related taxa in the article, without adding the life reconstruction; regarding the very scant material, this might be the most honest option. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't it the quadrupedalism that has not been widely accepted? And deemed practically impossible due to the inability for theropod hands to pronate? From what I've seen this is the most recent and rigorous interpretation of Spinosaurus's proportions, if it's not, then I fail to see why the skeletal mount in the taxobox and all three restorations of its article should depict it as such. Also, given that Oxalaia has been identified as a spinosaurine from its craniodental characteristics and the holotype matches that of S. aegyptiacus's upper jaw the best, I'd say reconstructing Oxalaia after Spinosaurus just seems like the most logical answer. Suchomimus is a Baryonychine, not even in the same subfamily as Oxalaia, so I'm not sure how it would make sense to use that as a base for the restoration.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  19:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, any chimera hypotheses about the 2014 specimen have fallen out of favor; it's the assignment to Spinosaurus specifically that's been questioned, since we know confidently now that there were multiple spinosaur species around that place and time.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:59, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, this literally just in, but the leg adaptations were indeed more widespread than Spinosaurus. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195667117305153  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:41, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is very good news! And at the right time as well, any new information regarding Spinosaurids is exciting. This additional information on Brazilian spinosaurids could be added to the Oxalaia article.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  22:13, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Probably better served in the Irritator article, since it's from the same formation.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 23:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I fixed the eye position, arms, legs, and feet. Also, you were right about the proportions, they were all over the place! The length of the tail had to be cut, torso shortened, arms pulled back. Is it good now?  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  03:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I still think the legs need to be closer in front-to-back position so the torso looks narrower, and the right toes need to be longer. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 03:50, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There we go, I hope there's not anything else left. The drawing's getting a bit too distorted at the legs so I had to darken it a bit so the detail isn't so visible.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  05:57, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, the new paper actually doesn't discuss hindlimb proportions at all, and the spinosaurine skeletal reconstruction they provide shows totally normal hindlimb proportions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think something intermediate between the "baryonychine" and Spinosaurus hindlimb length would be preferable. Surely there's got to be at least some reduction on the way to Spinosaurus, it didn't just suddenly lose its entirely limb length.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 15:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems to be going a little too close to original research... I think it's better to stick with the safer option and use Spinosaurus's hindlimb length. Even though in any case it's a highly speculative restoration and the actual animal might've looked vastly different to any other known spinosaurid, since proportions and anatomical features can differ wildly even among very closely related genera. I think it's best to be conservative about this and stick with what we know, unless a paper is published confirming 'intermediate' spinosaurid limb length, or better yet, a partial or complete skeleton of Oxalaia. Hypothetical restorations are only temporary in most cases, so I'll redraw it if new discoveries like those are made.  ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  15:59, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The stuff about the new specimen being a possible chimaera still hasn't been refuted examined in detail, and probably can't, because that skeleton was assembled from commercially collected parts that may or may not even belong together. FunkMonk (talk) 00:05, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure there was at the very least an abstract from last SVP about how it was almost certainly not a chimera.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 00:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * This is definitely an improvement over the last one. There do seem to be some strange spines on the fingers. Is there a reason behind this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It was supposed to be a little bit of fuzz on the arms, sort of like I did on top of the head, but it didn't quite turn out how I wanted it to. It's been removed now. Any other issues left? I'd like to have the restoration on the article before it's no longer suitable for a DYK nomination, which is only valid for 7 days after it gets promoted to GA status.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  22:00, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If nobody objects, I'll add it to the article, the DYK 7-day limit expires tomorrow.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  06:26, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Ostafrikasaurus
Here's an Ostafrikasaurus recon with the holotype tooth next to it. I went with a sort of intermediate form between a megalosaurid and Baryonyx, which seems like the safest option. This drawing is purposefully less detailed than my others as it is very hypothetical, any changes needed? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  17:02, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's a variant of the same image. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  17:14, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard to say anything about something so fragmentary, but make sure to get the basics correct; where's the hallux, and why are some teeth curving forwards? FunkMonk (talk) 17:18, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed the teeth and the hallux, I forgot Baryonyx's maxillary teeth weren't angled forward as much as those of Spinosaurus ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  17:49, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wasn't thinking of the angle as much as the curve of the teeth themselves. They would never have a concave curve at the front. But yeah, they could sometimes be angled forwards at their base. FunkMonk (talk) 17:55, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've adjusted the teeth some more, is this more what you mean? I'm not sure. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:29, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, your first edit was fine, I was just specifying what I had meant. The teeth can be angled, as long as they don't curve the wrong way. FunkMonk (talk) 18:31, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Any other edits needed? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  19:53, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder why the line of the thighs stop so abruptly at the back and the front. If you look at pictures of any plucked birds, there would be an indication that the thigh bulges out. And yes, I'm aware there would be a flap of the skin between the thigh and the body, but there would still be a demarcation. FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Working on that change, but why'd you link me a YT video for a song? I think it's a bit late for April fools. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  20:25, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol, seems I didn't copy the link correctly, so I accidentally pasted the last thing I had copied instead... Here is what I meant: FunkMonk (talk) 20:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There we go, I think the reason I stopped the thigh outline so early is because I used to have a tendency of making it too high, therefore separating the leg from the body too much and making it look like a human leg. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  20:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, a trick is to sometimes, if the animal is shown a bit more from the front, to show a flap of skin between the belly and the thigh, just to show how far down the leg attaches, like in for example 's Irritator image. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I've used that trick before. Fred Wierum's reconstructions are very good examples to use in general, one learns many things from them. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  21:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Request: size-diagrams for all Good Articles
Since a lot of size-diagrams are being made these days (many for short articles that have little space for more images), I thought it would be a good idea to list the most high-priority articles in need of size-diagrams, which are our Good Articles. With Opisthocoelicaudia done, all the Featured Articles now have size-diagrams, but since GAs have potential to become FAs, it would be good to prepare them all. These are after all supposed to be Wikipedia's best work, and some of the most viewed articles. FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So the list goes, with estimates from the Wikipedia articles (note some genera may have multiple species):


 * Megalosaurus - eight metres long according to David Norman (the old diagram seems to have been removed as inaccurate:) [P: 6 m]
 * I've almost finished it, I've just got to make some minor adjustments. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * See the Megalosaurus Skeletal section below for more information. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * User:PaleoGeekSquared did this, which is good, considering how slowly this project has been progressing. Who knows, perhaps I'll finish the skeletal someday. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:32, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Rajasaurus - eleven metres according to Greg Paul
 * User:Paleocolour already did this, so I'll strike this out. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Cryolophosaurus - 6.5 m (21.3 ft) according to Nathan Smith et al. [P: 6 m]
 * I'm working on this guy right now, I'll upload it when I'm done. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Finished. Is it okay? (I also added another Antarctic dinosaur!) --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The blue is too light to be readily visible, I feel. The skull is also too shallow. This is like if the jaw in Hartman's reconstruction was forcefully shoved up into the sinus. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, fun, could we have a human as well? The feet of the dinosaur also seem very short. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I darkened the background, relocated his jaw, and made his right foot more similar in length to his left. I'll add a human as soon as I can, probably in heavy winter gear, heh. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, I added the human. (This image actually is now a a user's gallery of images related to Antarctica! I guess it's probably because of the penguin.) Is it ready? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This one's good to me.
 * Added it to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Cetiosauriscus - up to 15 metres (49 ft) according to Thomas Holtz [P: 15 m]
 * I'm going to claim this one, didn't know this was a thing until today. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm reading the description of Cetiosauriscus but it's in German without the figures and I'm stuggling to find limb bone measurments. I see what I think are possible measurments but I'm not sure whether it is refering to cetiosauriscus specifically? Anyone know what the measrements are or know where to get the figures? or a translated copy? Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a WIP . I have basically hacked up the photo composite and rearranged it into something like a Mamenchisaur. It's so incomplete the end resault will look quite generic. I'm just digging for measurments to scale it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If this'll help the referred specimen is heavily described in here: https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsofzoo19051zool#page/232/mode/2up It's listed as Cetiosaurus, but that is from before the reassignment. IJReid  discuss 14:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link! Here is a link to the current version of the diagram. In the literature Cetiosauriscus is estimated at 15m long. It's not clear if it is closer to diplodicids or mamenchisaurids. The way I have illustrated here, it's more mamenchisaur and has come out at nearly 18m long. After realising this I scaled various skeletal reconstructions to have a femur length of 1.36m just to give an idea of what I should expect. For mamenchisaurs I was getting something like 17-21m and for diplodocids I was getting something like 16-24m. The exception was short necked nigersaurus which came out at about 13m. What should I do? I can't scale down the limbs, the tail is quite well known, if I were to restore that more diplodocid like the tail would only get longer. Should I just chop a few meters off the neck (which isn't known anyway) to comform to the literature? In which case it will loose it's mamenchisaur apearence. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it'll be fine as long as we note in the file caption that the neck is unknown. IJReid  discuss 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm looking at the Cetiosauriscus article - is "C. leedsi" not Ornithopsis? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * British fragments are confusing. Cetiosauriscus stewarti is based on material which was once referred to Cetiosauriscus leedsi. Cetiosauriscus leedsi was once Cetiosaurus and Ornithopsis. Currently Cetiosaurus leedsi is a nomen dubium, based on some caudals. IJReid  discuss 23:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * D'oh! This would have been helpful... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Othnielosaurus - 2 meters (6.6 ft) or less according to John R. Forster [P: 2.2 m]
 * I emailed Galton (asking for the Drinker description) and he replied, and also cautioned me that a redescription of Morrison ornithopods is in prep (Galton & Carpenter), which suggests that Drinker and Othnielosaurus are synonyms. Just warning. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, that's kind of ironic! --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Crossed this off as I already made it.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  01:13, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Corythosaurus - 9 metres (30 ft) according to Benson et al. [P: 8 m casuarius, 7.7 m intermedius]
 * Updated from my old Hypacrosaurus image. This is the last one that I'll claim, I'll leave the others for other users. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The tissue around the neck is a bit weird. I'm not sure the crest should be that embedded in the outline of the neck. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the crests should be more distinct now, and the dewlaps more natural. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A bit more for the crests? Particularly the Corythosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Stupid me, I meant C. casuarius. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 02:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think this will do. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124 contribs) 15:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Added it. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Gryposaurus - 8.2 meters (27 feet) According to Richard Lull, so maybe an outdated estimate [P: 8 m notabilis & monumentensis, 7.5 m latidens]
 * Working on it, see below. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Are the arms okay now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The dinosaur looks good to me, but I'm still concerned about the human, though, it looks like if he stretched his arms out, they would reach his knees... And the knees also seem placed too low. I think it would be much better to base the human on an image with more realistic proportions, especially since the dinosaurs are realistic. He just looks out of place. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * This was an older image that I created before you said I should change the human's proportions. The new human should be better. Is it ready for the article now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * For consistency's sake, either write out the length as a numeral (e.g. 10 meters) or as a word (e.g. ten meters) in all of your charts. I prefer the former. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, I remember saying almost the same about the arms in the past, looks much better to me. He should probably be modified in all your older images, to make them more useful. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I added it to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Kritosaurus - no size given in the article, strangely enough, but Paul gives a 9 metre estimate for the type species in his Field Guide
 * I decided to just jump ahead and knock out these last three (Kritosaurus, Othneilosaurus, Sinoceratops), since nobody else seems to want to do them. I used the skull in the taxobox on the Grypo's body, since they're similar enough to make the gryposaurinian pages in Paul's Field guide a taxonomic mess. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think it looks fine. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:16, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hypacrosaurus - 9.1 meters (30 feet), another old Lull estimate, so may need updating. Probably best to leave the referred species out, as it appears to belong to a new genus [P: 8 m altispinus & stebingeri]
 * I already have a size chart for this guy, I'm almost done updating it. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Revised, new style, and sans-Pualian taxonomy. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been more than 10 days, so I'm assuming it's okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah it looks acceptable. The background is interesting, but I don't object to it. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that stebingeri may be moved to its own genus, and it will by then maybe not be appropriate to keep them in the same image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, since we're here, I've had the thought - would there be any interest in potentially giving it its own article, similar to the Coelophysis and Edmontosaurus situations? There's likely enough material, its a relatively well studied genus, and it'd make sense given we're not confidant they should be classified together. In the event of a more definitive split, it'd merely be a case or renaming and article and making slight changes.  Luso titan  15:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My personal opinion is that such species should only be split here when they are actually formally split (which is in line with our general guidelines on species). Until that happens, they still de-facto belong to whatever genus they are currently placed in. Also, you never know if such species will just be moved to another existing genus, rather than to their own new genus (as happened with Dilophosaurus sinensis and some pachycephalosaur species, for example). FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that hadrosaurs are waaaaaaay oversplit (although not quite as bad as ceratopsids), so I will keep these two together until there's reason not to. --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Saurolophus - Lull again gives 9.8 m (32 ft) for S. osborni, whereas Donald Glut gives 12 m (39 ft) for S. angustirostris [P: 8.5 m osborni, 13 m angustirostris]
 * I'm currently working on Saurolophus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to a work in progress. . Regarding the length of Saurolophus osborni; from what I have read, there are only 3 specimens currently considered S.osborni, the largest is AMNH 5220 which is almost complete. Paul lists S.osborni as 8.5m long. Based on measurments for that specimen that is probably measured along the curve of the vertrabral collum, so its going to look smaller then 8.5m in the chart. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks neat, some restorations give them a frill along the back, not sure if it's based on anything concrete. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * A quick search says you're correct! Saurolophus angustirostris has those retangular spines above each vertebra. Considering Edmontosaurus and Brachylophosaurus also have them it's safe to say S.osborni has them as well. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here is an update with 'Midline Feature Scales' Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks much better ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Looks ready! FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like there's something around the head S. angustirostris that is rendering as a huge black rectangle... I can't figure out what it is. Could you try to fix this? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * SVG is being a pain. The small preview in a SVG test file looked good. I'm working on it. ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Wow, that looks pretty weird, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It was an invisable text box. Wiki commons renders them as black boxes. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Prosaurolophus - a strange Lull estimate of "0.9 metres (3.0 ft) long on a skeleton about 8.5 metres (28 ft) long", not sure if the skull is included in the latter length [P: 8.5 m]
 * I'll take this one now that the others I've made are almost (if not fully) complete. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Completed, based on Greg Paul. I just did P. maximus, as Paul gave no estimate for P. blackfeetensis. I didn't do .9 meters for obvious reasons. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe plant its foot more solidly on the ground? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it should be better now, no more levitating hadrosaurs! --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the torso's a bit shallow. I don't have Paul on hand to check, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are right, Prosaurolophus has a much higher back. Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Prosaurolophus looks good. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Hypsibema missouriensis - an article which has the distinction of being one of the few about a dinosaur species (because the type species of the genus seems to be scraps), Marc Powers gives 30–35 feet (9.1–10.7 m) for this species
 * Another hadrosaur. The model in the taxobox looks a lot like Gryposaurus, so I just grew my Gryposaurus silhouette to massive proportions, but I can tweak it if you want. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been more than 10 days, so I'm assuming it's okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not much known so not realy anything to object to. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Sinoceratops - Holtz gives a an estimate of 7 metres (23 ft); the article also has another estimate, but the source seems dubious [P: 5 m]
 * Already finished as well. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  01:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Eolambia - a current GA nominee, but seems sure to pass, maybe nominator has something to say here
 * I think the 6 m estimate is good; the 2008 reconstruction has too short a tail in my personal opinion. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm claim this one then unless someone else has started. I'm planning to make a skeletal, and maybe a full restoration too, so a scale diagram can be made from the skeletal. IJReid  discuss 01:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * On this note, I did a restoration of Eolambia long ago, but when it was re-described as having a drastically different skull, I modified the restoration so it could be passed off as Tanius, where it is now... FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Would it be preferred for me to create a single skeletal diagram of compilation with multiple scale bars, or multiple skeletal restorations of individuals to scale? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely one with both for Paleobiology. Don't know if the adult should go separately in Description as a size diagram. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Added a few estimates from Paul's 2016 Field Guide. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I already had a Gryposaurus, with three other ornithopods. I can make a different scale I you want. --Slate Weasel (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe separate out Gryposaurus so it can have it's own scale chart. I'll attempt Saurolophus if no one is doing it? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Gave Gryposaurus its own chart. I currently am working on a Megalosaurus size comparison. I also can update my older Hypacrosaurus chart sometime. (By the way, is the new Futalongkosaurus chart okay? (see above)) --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The Futalognko looks nice. About the Gryposaurus, I think that the forelimb needs some buffing up, it looks extremely skinny. IJReid  discuss 22:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also think it is better to do the ornithopods individually, now they obscure each other, so it is hard to see their lengths. Maybe artists can sign their names under the genera they want to do, so we don't get duplicates? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm continuing the Gryposaurus discussion above in its designated section. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could somehow indicate which size charts have been completed? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I struck out Cryo, could be done that way... FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Grypo was also finished, so I crossed that out, too. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking god, guys! This was long overdue... FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Megalosaurus and Eolambias were crossed out, but where are their scale diagrams? I only see skeletal diagrams, but though they have scale bars, they don't really convey their size immediately. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not even done with Megalosaurus yet! I am getting close, though. --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the current tiny size comparison of Achelousaurus enough, or do we want a larger one? Just curious. --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably wouldn't hurt making one, but I assumed it was enough at the time of nomination. But if a new image is made, I'll try to fit it in, and probably that restoration with the tiny size comparison could get its background cleared... FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Kentrosaurus
 * Here's a new Kentrosaurus diagram, one that isn't blurry and doesn't make your eyes bleed. (No offense IJreid)  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  22:01, April 14 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh no offense taken. I'm offended I ever actually made that hideous thing. It looks alright. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Paranthodon
 * I also vectorized your Paranthodon chart, which I can see you based off of the Jaime Headden skeletal for Dacentrurus.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  00:52, April 15 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you try to edit the head so its more similar in shape to the skull diagram in the article? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Done, how's that look?  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  01:55, April 15 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it looks fine. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Vulcanodon
 * Another updated chart, for vulcanodon this time.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  02:40, April 15 2018 (UTC)


 * Scelidosaurus, Othnielosaurus, Dinheirosaurus, and Sinoceratops
 * Hope you like these 4 more additions.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  10:56, April 15 2018 (UTC)
 * I think all of the images look fine. Is that the last of the Good Articles needing size comparisons? We could archive this section if it is. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep, this request is finally done! :D! Next project: B-Class articles! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold up, There's still 2-3 left, I'm working on them currently.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  17:23, April 15 2018 (UTC)
 * Nice work, and we of course also need to add them to their articles. FunkMonk (talk) 16:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I have created a size chart for Carnotaurus, Aucasaurus, and Majungasaurus, since they seem to be the best known taxa. Size estimates are based on their articles. I will upload it shortly. Is this combination good or should I add more? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:45, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Abelisauridae
 * How about Ekrixinatosaurus? (7.4m), It's skeleton has quite a bit of material, and given that it was one of the largest Abelisaurids after Carnotaurus I think it would make a good addition. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  00:23, April 16 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, you should switch the silhouettes of Aucasaurus and Majungasaurus, they dont match the coloured boxes and Majungasaurus is larger so it should go 2nd to Carnotaurus. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  00:35, April 16 2018 (UTC)
 * Added Ekrixinatosaurus, who brought along his close cousin Skorpiovenator (hey, I finally got around to updating that stinker!). I put Majungasaurus up front since it's pretty short, and I'm even more reluctant to sink it further back now that Skorpiovenator would also be in front of it, it would look kind of jarring. For example, in this old version of User:Dinoguy2's sauropod chart, he put Sauroposeidon behind Supersaurus for presumably the same reason I'm doing with Majungasaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * This diagram looks fine I think. But maybe should input if the colours are acceptable. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, in general, avoid using colours that are very similar, especially when the subjects overlap each other like this. Use a clear red, clear blue, green, so on, instead of vaying hues of yellow and orange. Otherwise it defeats the purpose of a readable diagram, even to people who are not colourblind. FunkMonk (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * How's this update? The colors seem pretty distinct now (I checked by turning it gray in GIMP), can you see them better now, ? Also, here's Conty's old abelisaurid size chart. Maybe I should add Rajasaurus snd Abelisaurus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:56, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Much better. Remember, sometimes we would have to mention the colour of the article subject in the caption, so if there are three different kinds of orange used, this would become impossible. Now, we can just say "Abelisaurus is shown in blue", for example, instead of "the darkest orange". FunkMonk (talk) 11:04, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this diagram good now or should I add a more primitive abelisaurid? Rugops is pretty famous, but poorly known in fossil material. Any recommendations? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:53, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Why didn't you use the size estimates and the existing skeletals from here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307925392_Allometry_and_body_length_of_abelisauroid_theropods_Pycnonemosaurus_nevesi_is_the_new_king ?

I'm still working on size charts for Ceratopsia and Heterodontosauridae, but in the meantime here's a scale diagram of 3 different oospecies for the Macroolithus article. I'm not sure if anyone's done a dinosaur egg size comparison before but, here it is anyways! What do you think?  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  00:01, April 16 2018 (UTC)
 * Macroolithus
 * should definitely have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. It looks fine to me, but if it were up to me I wouldn't put M. mutabilis, since this oospecies is only known from eggshell fragments, not even partial eggs, so the size is highly uncertain, unlike M. yaotunensis and M. rugustus. To quote Mikhailov 1994: "Size of eggs is not known, but judging by shell thickness and curvature of fragments, their length exceeded 170mm." Ashorocetus (talk &#124;  contribs) 01:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Didn't know wikipedia had a residential Dinosaur egg expert, pretty cool to know. Anyways, I made the changes to the chart, and also added in a disclaimer as to why the other two species aren't included.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  03:19, April 17 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha yeah I suppose that's me. The chart looks good (and props for the coloration), thanks for your work. Ashorocetus (talk &#124;  contribs) 15:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Cairanoolithus You just reminded me that I had an old file for this one! I'll update it and upload it soon. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Anyone know if the size in the article is for any particular species of Cairnaoolithus? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The two oospecies are essentially the same size (Cousin 2002 lists C. dughii as 17-18 cm and C. roussetensis as 15-19 cm, but keeping in mind there is also a lot of fragmentary material for both oospecies, there's no real way to pin down distinct size ranges for the two separately). Ashorocetus (talk &#124;  contribs) 01:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. How does this look? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:45, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks perfect. Ashorocetus (talk &#124;  contribs) 15:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:36, 2 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Massospondylus noted that the current size comparison we have for this guy looks kind of strange, so I'd like to offer you guys this one I created based on Hartman's skeletal a few minutes ago. This uses the smaller estimate that seems to be more widely used. Does the big 6m estimate belong to a different specimen? If so, I might include it... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the size but there is an image in this paper of the neotype, which includes a scale bar. So you could probably figure out scaling from it and use that. http://wiredspace.wits.ac.za/bitstream/handle/10539/13820/2010.v.45.YATES_AND_BARRETT_Massospondylus%20carinatus%20neotype.pdf;sequence=1 IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:15, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Finished my Heterodontosauridae scale chart, any changes needed?  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  03:32, April 16 2018 (UTC)
 * Heterodontosauridae
 * It looks like Abrictosaurus is restored with a canine, which is lacks in both jaws. Otherwise good. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed the teeth, they were definitely quite messy. Looks like we can cross this one off our list, next up, Ceratopsia!  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  17:04, April 16 2018 (UTC)


 * Struthiosaurinae: Well, here's a struthiosaurine: Europelta. The other two seem poorly known, and is the skeletal for Struthiosaurus okay? This size chart took a long time to make! Is it okay? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:49, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah the Struthiosaurus skeletal is suspect. Europelta should be good enough. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:29, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Currently working on this chart, which members do you guys think I should include? Ceratopsia is a massive group, and in any case it's best to go with the most well-known specimens.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  17:04, April 16 2018 (UTC)
 * Ceratopsia
 * Should definitely include the largest and smallest members, regardless of how famous they are. FunkMonk (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, my bad, I was referring to the amount of skeletal material, not the popularity.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  20:31, April 16 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, can somebody find me a reliable Torosaurus skeletal? Thanks.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  21:01, April 16 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if any even exist? The postcrania would be pretty much the same as Triceratops anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend using at least these taxa:


 * Psittacosaurus mongoliensis
 * Leptoceratops gracilis
 * Protoceratops andrewsi
 * Centrosaurus nasicronis
 * Chasmosaurus belli
 * Triceratops horridus
 * --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:25, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Images for Oxalaia


Heh, looks like we keep coming back to this one, don't we? I Checked the leg and foot proportions against the original illustrations so these should be fine in that aspect. While I was at it with my restoration I fixed the teeth and nasal crest so they wouldn't look so blurry. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  23:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking for swimming the arms should be in some sort of moving pose. I do think that the head might be slightly too large or the neck too thick in both standing and swimming. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Was hoping I wouldn't have to redraw the arms as well, since I'm getting tired of having to repeatedly modify this restoration, but if I have to then so be it. The head should be fine though, as Spinosaurus did have a particularly large skull-to-body ratio, it's one of the reasons Ibrahim proposed a quadrupedal posture in the first place. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  00:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The scale looks good to me, but the life restoration looks a little bit like a floating model, not like a real animal that is actively swimming (although this observation is more subjective than anything). I understand if you are tired of redrawing; an alternative would be to just use an existing Spinosaurus restoration for the article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:02, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, that's fine. I got around to redrawing the arms so we can put this restoration issue to rest, the finished version will be up later. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  04:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Uploaded it with the new arms, I'm pretty happy with how the anatomy on them ended up. Is the restoration acceptable for FA now? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  05:53, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, please replace it with the old one! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:34, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done! ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  08:32, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Megalosaurus Skeletal
I created this skeletal for Megalosaurus. It is based on: Any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * File:Megalosaurus_display.JPG
 * File:Humped_Megalosaurus.jpg
 * File:Megalosaurus_sacrum.jpg
 * File:Megalosaurus_femur.jpg
 * File:Megalosaurus_pelvis.jpg
 * File:Megalosaurus_tibia.jpg
 * File:Megalosaurus_fossils.jpg
 * File:Megalosaurus_dentary.jpg
 * Ths pubis and ischium need to articulate in the middle under the pelvis. IJReid  discuss 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The manus is way too small. It looks like an allosauroid overall, not a megalosauroid. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The maxilla and premaxilla in the mount are actually from Duriavenator, not Megalosaurus. IJReid  discuss 14:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I removed the Duriavenator parts and added some unknown material in gray. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Tail posture is weird and anatomically questionable. Possible to make it horizontal? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Format-wise, the Megalosaurus label in the image is redundant, and the scale bar should be in metric. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Found a useful paper. I think you've omitted/misplaced some material: Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Theropod Infographic
I was reading, on the page that has almost been forgotten about, so I thought that you might like an infographic. I can make some more for other groups of dinosaurs if you would like. Is anything wrong with this one? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Hehe, if this is to be a guideline, it should be extra accurate! There are some issues here (per Zhenyuanlong), including that the primary feathers are too short and don't seem to attach properly to the second finger, the tail feathers should be longer and progress further along the tail, and there should probably be noticeable feathers right down to the ankles. Other things to add could be noticeable toe pads, and a more s-curved neck with the head held horizontal. Of course it could hold its neck and head differently, but if this is to be a guide, it should be a more "idealised" image. You should maybe even hide the fleshy contour of the neck and the body by adding more feathers. Also, I don't think the pubis bone would be that noticeable under the feathers. It would probably make sense to make this specifically a guide to deinoinychosaurs/dromaeosaurs, since much of the info there applies specifically to them. Only two of the points would apply to Dilophosaurus, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * it says dromaeosaurs had “wings on their wings”. Feathers, presumably?—Odysseus 1 4 7  9  04:29, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hehe, oops, that should say "wings on their legs." I'll change it as soon as I can. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:11, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Gave it an overhaul. What do you guys think? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Much better. I would maybe expect to see indents for individual tail feathers, similar to the wing (but less deep)? Also, images should preferably not have borders. What's the reason for a grey instead of white background? Makes the image very dim.FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind, I went ahead and fixed some of those things. (e.g. lighter background, borders.) I also limited the tail fan feathers, as they were unusually long near the base of the tail which I don't think any dromaeosaur discovered so far has had them like that. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  19:46, April 12 2018 (UTC)
 * Update, fixed a typo... "Guidlines for Theropods"
 * Hehe, this image wins the gold for the most typos I've ever made in a diagram! (Even beats Opisthocoelicaudia!) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but it still looks more like a guideline to restoring deinonychosaurs specifically than how to restore theropods in general. Little of this would apply to, say, Allosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Largest Dinosaurs
I seems like this chart might to to get updated again. Futalongkosaurus has strange, almost turiasaur-like proportions and is too large. Shouldn't Argentinosaurus lack that dip between its neck and back? Also, it would be nice to have Patagotitan, too. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably best in cases like this (and above) to ping the original authors, here . FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How old is this? Having Futalognkosaurus over Puertasaurus seems odd.  Luso titan  18:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Last edit done by Dinoguy was on April 15, 2015. Also, Supersaurus could have gotten bigger than shown. Also, I think it would be better to show the tails of the Mamenchi and Argentino. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Also, according to Scott Hartman, the oldest acceptable estimates are from 2012. With that in mind, the 7 longest dinosaurs I can find are:


 * 1) Barosaurus? (~50 meters according to Taylor)
 * 2) Argentinosaurus huinculensis (40 meters according to Taylor)
 * 3) Patagotitan mayorum (37 meters by BBC, but I would rather have something more scientifically affiliated, mainly because of Liopleurodon)
 * 4) Supersaurus vivianae (35 meters according to Paul)
 * 5) Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (possibly 35 meters according to Paul)
 * 6) Xinjiangtitan shanshanensis (32 meters by Wu et. al.)
 * 7) Diplodocus longus (= hallorum (= Seismosaurus halli)) (32 meters as restored by Hartman)
 * But I don't have access to many other resources so I would appreciate further input. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know for certain that Barosaurus was proposed to be significantly longer than before based on the ex-Supersaurus cervical. See SVPOW. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Heh, how the heck did I forget that?! It was ~50 meters or something?! --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Somethings to consider, Paul has backtracked a little on the giant M.sincanadorum in his latest feild guide (see my mamenchisaurus species scale diagram above) and the idea of the super giant barosaurus unfortunately isn't properly published. Personally I'd avoid them untill more gets published, although it might not hurt to mention them in a few places. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm working on compiling a chart of sauropod length estimates here. Feel free to add to it if you wish. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I found another image on Commons, but it seems to have more problems. The Puertasaurus is based on the image I removed for having the wrong proportions (also, where the heck does the 35-meter estimate come from?), I'm not sure about Sauroposeidon's presence or proportions, the Argentinosaurus still has the proportions I was concerned about, and Patagotitan looks like a diplodocid. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The Puertasaurus was just replaced with mine, so it should be better now. Other issues are still relevent. Steve's Patagotitan size chart was pretty good. It looks like there is an SVG shape laid over a jpeg in the chart? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If the latter image is used as a starting point, there are a few changes I'd like made. The Patagotitan, Apatosaurus and Sauroposeidon should be replaced, they are either outdated or copyrighted. The text should be cut down to the bare minimum (length and weight aren't needed) and the grid should be made thinner and less obtrusive. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 04:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that User:Steveoc 86 has size charts of Patagotitan and Sauroposeidon. I just made an SVG Argentinosaurus, but I'm not sure where to get a vectorized Apatosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Another idea to consider - we could make a new one, if we really want to. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey all, I'll try to tweak and update this if I get a chance over the next few weeks. One thing I should note is that this is meant to depict an assortment of the longest dinosaurs, but not a "Top 7" list - I wanted to get some variety from different clades in there. With that in mind, maybe it would be best to restrict it to the longest known from good remains in each major clade? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that it might be good to have both Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan together in the image. Perhaps you could also get Xinjiangtitan into the image? It's also a quite recent discovery that's mostly sneaked away and lurked in the shadows, but it is BIG! I'm not sure about Mamenchisaurus, I'll let other users comment on that. Futalongkosaurus probably should be replaced with something bigger. But those are just ideas. --Slate Weasel (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you still plan to update this, ? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Scolosaurus Size Comparison
I made this image beck in July, but I only created it with SVG this moring. Is it okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Head's a bit flat (third from top): Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think the head is just too small overall. Neck, torso, and the dorsal portion of the proximal tail are also too thin. Osteoderm arrangement is also off, the back ones are too large and the top osteoderm of the rear half-ring is missing. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Rugops
I have a scale diagram for Rugops primus, any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It has an elbow joint, which I don't think it should have. It is a primitive abelisaur, but I think that its features should be based on other abelisaurids, rather than non-abelisaurid ceratosaurs. The black fingers give the impression of claws, which, once again, other abelisaurids lack. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose the idea was that it is related to Eoabelisaurus, which is a primitive abelisaur that indeed has the elbow joints. I can try and clean up the fingers to prevent the claw confusion. Paleocolour (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems like Eoabelisaurus is not an abelisaurid according to the latest analysis, while Rugops is. Its arms should probably be based on other abelisaurs, as they seem fairly uniform between Aucasaurus and Majungasaurus. See here. I have not yet found the exact source. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This is per the Furileusauria analysis: Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have fixed the arm. Any more changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Maybe clean up the hand a bit more? It still looks like it has claws, and it looks like it has 5 fingers now. --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned up the fingers, any other edits required? Paleocolour (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... I'm not sure if Rugops would have had digit IV as the remainder of one of the manual unguals or not. I'll let someone who knows more about abelisaurs comment on this, because I don't know, although my best guess would be yes. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Digit IV in Majungasaurus is composed of metacarpal IV and one terminal phalanx, which represents the plesiomorphic condition within Ceratosauria. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

The size of the skull should probably be considered, since it's the only portion known of Rugops; the proportions of the drawing indicate a Rugops around 3 meters going by the actual size of the skull, so in order for a TL of 4.4 meters the skull would need to be proportionally smaller.Austroposeidon (talk) 17:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

It indicates 3.5 meters actually: https://randomdinos.deviantart.com/art/Stem-Bird-Files-Rugops-592043923
 * Just so you are aware Mr. Hungarian IP, the commenter above, Austroposeidon, is the author of the file. He is randomdinos on Deviantart. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, okay, but still, it seems to have the correct skull size (31.5 cm) to me in his version. Morevover, the skeletal of Crizz30 (his skeletal can be seen on Rugops) also leads to a length of 3.5 meters: https://www.deviantart.com/art/Two-Random-Dinosaurs-691974070

Also, I read this in the description: "d o w n s i z e (based on more Ekrixinatosaurus-like instead of Carnotaurus-like proportions, but even with the latter it should still be 4.4 meters rather than 4.8 as before)", so I asked Henrique if he can give give me the version with Carnotaurus-like proportions, and here it is: https://i.imgur.com/h2V9jwq.jpg So, Paleocolour can use this version if he wants to use the 4.4 m estimate by Grillo & Delcourt (2016) instead of the not peer-reviewed 3.5 m estimate with Ekrixinatosaurus-like proportions.

Emausaurus
I found out that someone had posted this image on the article for Emausaurus without review. I think it looks good but you all may want to take a look at it. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The same author was the one who posted it, yes, the image is fine, but it is too hypothetical. The good point is that it fits the image of Scelidosaurus that we have and besides being neutral in the posture. We could see what the same author can tell us about it. User:Yewtharaptor. Levi bernardo (talk) 03:41, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see any proof that permission has been gained form the artist, though? FunkMonk (talk) 08:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Hello! The image was adquired by me from the artist of the watermark. This image wants to be Neutral on the position, due to the fact that for one side we have bipedal footprints from poland, but from the other we have cuadrupedal footprints from Trento, Italy. So, neutral. Armor based on aviable remains and Scelidosaurus.User:Yewtharaptor.(talk) 18:39, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

Anchiornithidae Size Comparison
I found this image on Commons, it seems kind of pixelated. How is it accuracywise? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:44, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure of the sizes, but perhaps the chart overall should be re-thought to compare the dinosaurs to the size of an average human hand instead of the entire human? Currently they are very small and hard to see details and differences in scale between individuals. Paleocolour (talk) 00:52, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that probably would improve its quality. I'll play around with it in GIMP and Inkscape whenever I get the chance. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Titanoceratops
I have created a restoration and size chart of Titanoceratops ouranos. The old size chart didn't have the man and dinosaur level so it was somewhat difficult to read. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well I'm almost certain the frill spikes would be significantly less noticable. But thats about it. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 03:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Could you raise the scale bar a bit so that it no longer crosses over the animal's frill? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Remember, if Titanoceratops is to be considered a distinct genus (which is controversial in itself), you can't restore the frill after Pentaceratops. That only applied when the specimen was assigned to that genus. You would have to restore the missing part of the frill after what that hypothesis considers its closest relatives, which are triceratopsini. The same goes for the other restorations which have somehow been added back to the article. We can't have it both ways; either it is a distinct genus, with a triceratopsin-like frill, or it is simply a specimen of Pentaceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Carcharodontosauridae Size Comparisons
A lot of images have been passing through, so I decided that I may as well add some more. I'm planning on making a size chart for Carchcarodontosauridae, showing important members such as Giganotosaurus, Acrocanthosaurus, Concavenator, and Carcharodontosaurus itself. I will upload each image separately to review each dinosaur one at a time, each in its own size comparison. Once the individual theropods are approved, I will compile them all into the final size chart. I'll start in a few minutes. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:45, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus
First up: Giga! Scaled based on Hartman, of course. This silhouette has been fit to the skeletal bit by bit with lots of attention to proportions. What do you guys think? Also, which specimen should feature in the final diagram? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:00, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It's always safest to go with the more complete specimens. There is even disagreement about how to extrapolate from that fragmentary dentary that was used for the highest estimates. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I heard about that controversy. If this chart is fine, then I'll move onto Acrocanthosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:50, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very good idea actually, how has no-one done a chart for this yet? Anyways, I gave them all a look and you should probably go with Giganotosaurus (Which you already have), Acrocanthosaurus, Concavenator, Carcharodontosaurus, and Mapusaurus. The other 6 known Carcharodontosaurids have remains too fragmentary to be worth putting in or to make good size estimates. You could also put in Tyrannotitan, but the estimates vary from 11.4 to 13 meters, not sure if that's too great a difference to include it or not.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  16:10, April 14 2018 (UTC)
 * Oops: I realized the boxes were both the same color. That should be fixed now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:18, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you used the latest skeletals for them (https://img00.deviantart.net/850b/i/2015/115/5/f/big_honkin__theropod_of_the_southern_hemisphere_by_scotthartman-d504ihw.jpg https://static1.squarespace.com/static/51bf1cd3e4b0a897bf54112b/51bf3928e4b09edc5f83d0af/551ac65ce4b0bf065e1d3c5e/1427818129289/?format=750w)? Your Giganotosauruses seem to be too long, as they should be 12.4 and 13.2 m long in axial length/along the centra/vertebral column if we go by Hartman's estimates. Have you considered using the skeletals of Franoys? They seem to be superior to me in a few aspects, like the correct femur length for Giganotosaurus (1.365 m) instead of the old, disproved figure (1.43 m).
 * The above comment comes from the "Hungarian Troll". I do think that the silhouettes could be based of a better source, but I see no issues with them as they are. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 21:35, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that the silhouettes are fine but I did oversize them a bit. I'll fix this as soon as possible. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:37, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Correct size now. Not sure if this should be used for the article or not. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:41, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Acrocanthosaurus
Next up: Acrocanthosaurus! Based on Hartman's restoration again, are the feet okay? The whole animal is 11m long, so is the scale bar too confusing? Should a specimen number be added? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:27, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * (By the way, could someone give me links to a good skeletal for Concavenator? Thanks.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:15, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Most accurate one I've seen in the past: https://franz-josef73.deviantart.com/art/Concavenator-Skeleton-341012632 ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  17:54, April 14 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not 11.5 m? Gregory S. Paul's Field Guide is a worse source than Bates et al. (2009).
 * Nice drawing. The foot is too long.--MWAK (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Is this better? Should it replace the current size chart that's used in the article? That one looks pretty strange. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:37, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Concavenator
Next one up, scaled based on the article. How is it? By the way, does anyone know of a good Mapusaurus skeletal? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:43, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
 * There's a guy called Franoys at DeviantArt who makes excellent skeletals that are very well researched and detailed, looks like he did one for Mapusaurus. Anytime Scott Hartman or Jaime Headden haven't done a skeletal for an animal he usually has.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  23:21, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Mapusaurus
According to Mickey Mortimer, there are quite a few specimens of Mapusaurus: The size range is immense: Any ideas on which specimens to choose? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
 * MCF-PVPH-108.202 Fibula (860mm), TL ~12.6m
 * MCF-PVPH-108.3 Parital Dentary, TL ~5.5m (juv.)

I would say the one which the skeletal of Franoys depicts.
 * There are six different specimens depicted, as far as I can tell . --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's been almost two weeks. Does anyone have any opinion on what to do? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:26, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not include both specimens you list, a juvenile and adult. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:11, 3 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also added '44, an intermediately sized individual. For the final scale chart, I'll use '202 for Mapusaurus, since it is a paratype. Hope I didn't keep you guys waiting for too long. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:17, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus
I'm gonna start on Carcharodontosaurus sometime this week. I'll use Franoys' skeletal for it, and I'll probably upload over my old Carchar image. I do have a question: what should be done about C. iguidensis? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:11, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Gave it an overhaul, how does it look? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks fine. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:11, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Centrosaurus
I noticed the Centrosaurus article didn't have any size diagram for it. This useful? Any changes? Paleocolour (talk) 10:31, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, Agujaceratops is kind of a weird choice to base the body on, considering that it is a chasmosaurine rather than a centrosaurine. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you should use another skull more safely assigned to Centrosaurus, the one you've used is only tentatively assigned; it is apparently a sub-adult or juvenile, and may also belong to Styracosaurus (with spikes not yet grown out). B or G here might be better. FunkMonk (talk) 10:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yurgovuchia
I have updated the skeletal diagram of this dinosaur. Credits and sources are in the file descriptions. Size was determined by using the scale bar on the original skeletal diagram. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I'm wondering whether we need a new skeletal, when we can freely use the one in the original paper? It is more "reliable" after all, per WP:verifiability. Also since the new drawing differs in some proportions from the original, which will be hard to justify to people who want us to stick as closely to published sources as possible. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * You reduced the neck by omitting two vertebrae and lowered and rotated the pubic bone?--MWAK (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Size comparison with sauropods, Carcharodontosaurus and Iguanodon
I decided to do a more diverse size comparison showing three titanosaurs, two diplodocids, Brachiosaurus, one theropod, and one ornithopod. Are there any errors or suggestions?Gamma 124 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I plan to update my Carchar soon. It seems like the image is pretty fuzzy, do you think that you could get a higher res version of this? Or can you edit SVG (all my silhouettes and size charts are in that format)? I think that Puertasaurus is too big, should be about 27-30m. I'm dubious of the 12m estimate for the Iggy (even more so of 13). Argentinosaurus should probably look more like Patagotitan in form. Also, why these dinos in particular? I understand the sauropods but Iggy and Carchar seem like pretty random choices. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * For Puerta and Argentino, I used Henrique Paes' estimates: 32,4 and 36,6 m, respectively. I could have used Oxalaia instead of Carcharodontosaurus, but it's known only from a few bone fragments. Also, Carcharo is longer than T. rex and more or less just as big as Giganotosaurus and Mapusaurus. I chose Iguanodon because it was the largest of your ornithischians (unless I missed something) - assuming it's 13 metres long, of course.Gamma 124 (talk) 01:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * And yes, I'll try to make a higher res version of this pic, and I'll include subtitles.Gamma 124 (talk) 01:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actually, Shantungosaurus is the largest orinthischian. It might be worth it adding at least Stegosaurus or Dacentrurus and some large ceratopsian (I can't remember which one truly is the largest, but I'm pretty sure that it's in Triceratopsini). Carcharodontosaurus is only known from a partial cranium (and some material that was blown up in WWII). Why not Spinosaurus instead? (By the way, I plan to upload a few more silhouettes.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I only wanted to use silhouettes from one single author, and Iguanodon is apparently your largest ornithischian silhouette. I saw different size estimates for Oxalaia ranging between 11 and 14 metres, so it's still a very troublesome animal, while most estimates for C. saharicus are between 12 and 13,5 metres. However, I'm planning to change Iguanodon and Carcharodontosaurus for other dinosaurs, but I don't want to include Spinosaurus. Its appearance is always changing and it became even more controversial after 2014. Maybe Pentaceratops and Tyrannosaurus would be good substitutes. Gamma 124 (talk) 13:33, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

If the point is to show diversity in dinosaur size, it seems weird that you show so many sauropods, and no representatives of many other groups? Where exactly is such an image to be used? FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, gridlines would be nice. (I just uploaded a Stegosaurus, by the way.) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:07, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'll remove Argentinosaurus. Recent size estimates range from 30 to 37 metres, and older estimates range from 22 to 40 m. Actually, it's better to remove Puertasaurus. There are even less Puerta bones than Argentino bones, and size estimates are also controversial, ranging from 27 to 41 metres. I'll also substitute Carcharodontosaurus for Tyrannosaurus because they have found almost complete skeletons of the latter and it's a much more well-known dinosaur. Pentacerarops and Dacentrurus/Stegosaurus will also join the others. Gamma 124 (talk) 14:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed Argentinosaurus instead of Puertasaurus, because that's a Puerta silhouette. And Iguanodon is back. There are now 5 sauropods, 3 ornithischians and 1 theropod. I'll add a small theropod and maybe a bird.
 * Well, Lythronax is pretty different from Tyrannosaurus in skull shape. Tyranno has a much deeper and boxier skull with less developed hornlets (more like bosses). Having three shades of gray is kind of confusing, and the two blues are really similar. A grid would still be nice. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:21, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Added a grid now. And I'll see if I can change the Stego's colour. Maybe it'll become pink. Gamma 124 (talk) 15:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * What's the point in including a fragmentary genus like Deltadromeus? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point. Especially because it could be the same as Bahariasaurus. Gamma 124 (talk) 16:11, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

The image is almost finished. There are now 4 sauropods, 3 ornithischians, 2 non-avian theropods and 3 birds. Gamma 124 (talk) 16:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * About the SVG format... well, I tried to convert, but the result was useless. Everything became black or white and some dinosaurs disappeared. Gamma 124 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Now there's a decent SVG version, but it's still black and white. Gamma 124 (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I still don't really see how this image is going to be useful at all. It's a combination of various relatively big members of each group, but only about half are candidates for the biggest in their groups (Puertasaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Stegosaurus, and Supersaurus), with the biggest members of most grousp missing since you lack silhouettes by the same author. So we've got a bunch of middle-of-the-road taxa size-wise plus some record-breaking taxa all in a size comparison, what use is that?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 19:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, hate to say it, but the birds are under a share-alike license, incompatible with CC0. You either need to remove them or change the image's license. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed Iguanodon and Pentaceratops, added Dinoguy's Shantungosaurus and Triceratops, and changed the license :S Gamma 124 (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Spinosaurus should be 15 m long.

Argentinosaurus size comparison
Any errors or suggestions? Gamma 124 (talk) 13:56, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


 * If you reconstruct it with a sloping back, the point of the coracoid jutting out should be at about the level of the hip joint. Here it's positioned much too low. As a result the neck base is too tall, the forelimbs are too short and the belly profile is too low. The hindlimb is in a retracted position. This should place the foot well behind the pelvis. This correction would also avoid the impression that the rump is very short and the tail is too long. In a graviportal animal, the hindlimb should not be very muscled.--MWAK (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The torso is odd in shape and looks quite short in length (it looks better in the older version), unlike how most are restoring it. Here are some examples of how others have restored it,     Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:59, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that dent in front of the scapula is way too exaggerated, like the neck is about to b chopped off. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The arm also looks kinda weird and shapeless. I think that it should be modeled after Patagotitan, which wa sits closest relative as I understand. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:46, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Update. Gamma 124 (talk) 15:02, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's looking much better. Whilst the skull isn't known, being a sauropod I suspect it would be a bit smaller. Regarding SVG; you say that you're having trouble with keeping the colour, what software are you using? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:43, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I would recommend using Inkscape. It's Free open-source software and the best adapted for SVG editing. I can try to fix the colors in your images if you want. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I typically make the silhouette in powerpoint first, then export it to pdf and import it to Inkscape. Actually making the shapes in Inkscape is kind of a pain tbh, but it's a great tool for pretty much everything else.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  15:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Really? I actually find it to be pretty simple. Than again, we do have fairly different styles. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the sauropod's currently levitating, could you fix this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup. Gamma 124 (talk) 22:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Megalosaurus Largest specimen size chart
The current chart on the wikipedia page features (if I recall) the size of the holotypic specimen, and not the largest specimen. Thus, I created this diagram representing the largest specimen, BMNH R1101, an ilium (measurements from Benson 2010). I can include the size of the holotype as well if you request it. Eotyrannu5 (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be best to also show the holotype. The neck seems very straight and horizontal, though? FunkMonk (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the larger specimen size to my chart.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  19:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the lectotpe (and paralectotype) specimen to the chart now Eotyrannu5 (talk) 20:13, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The large individual looks far too big now, remember that the measurements are over the curve in the vertebrae, not a straight line when standing as in life. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Timurlengia
I sketched this to try something it seems like a lot of other people do, which is draw directly on top of photos of skeletal mounts. So here's a sketch, based more or less on a mounted Raptorex skeleton (with modifications on the head and arms). Any issues before I go on? FunkMonk (talk) 04:58, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * An issue that pops out to me the most is the head, it resembles that of Eustreptospondylus more than a tyrannosauroid's. Take the nasal bones and premaxillae for example, they curve down too gradually; tyrannosauroid skulls usually have a more "rectangular" shape. I'd also try making the body a bit more robust (especially the feet) as it appears in the skeletal of the Timurlengia description paper. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, the skeletal... I must admit I kind of ignored it, given that the known remains have little bearing on its shape, but I have now modified the sketch accordingly, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 01:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I definitely think that it should at least some fuzz, since Dilong and Yutyrannus had full coats and Gorgosaurus had skin on its back that was sort of like chicken skin. I'm not sure about the specific pattern. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is just a preliminary sketch, though, details like that will be added when the important anatomy is correct. FunkMonk (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Started to add some colours (and the feathers are there), any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Nope, looks good. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 00:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's the coloured image, if anyone has something to add. FunkMonk (talk) 14:55, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Coelurus reconstruction from 2008



 * This reconstruction of Coelurus is still being circulated and I believe it's showing it's age with the wing and tail feathers that look too complex for a basal coelurosaur. Monsieur X (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the image looks fine, the feathers are nothing more advanced than what has been suggested for tyrannosaurs, and the anatomy matches the known material. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:53, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The wing and tail feathers don't seem to be vaned, so should be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I see, but shouldn't the wings be attached to the 2nd finger? Monsieur X (talk)
 * If it had primary wing feathers, yes, but it doesn't seem to have. FunkMonk (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Huaxiagnathus restoration from 2010



 * Thoughts on this Huaxiagnathus restoration? I think it might too scaly and has a rather small amount of feathers for something that might be a basal compsognathid. I could be wrong, but I think there might also be some anatomical issues as well. Although, The colouration of the skin and feathers does look alright. It looks similar enough to later compsognathids, while also being different enough. Monsieur X (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think there are some significant issues with the anatomy. The forearm and hand looks mangled, and the feet look incorrectly articulated and far too gracile. The eye might be too large as well. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:54, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Nemegtosaurus reconstruction from 2007



 * Thoughts on this Nemegtosaurus reconstruction? It looks inaccurate as the creature has an overbite and the fenestras, orbit and external naris are all showing, as if the skin was shrink-wrapped around the skull. Monsieur X (talk) 12:48, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really think there's anything wrong with this restoration. Sauropods generally all had overbites, and the fenestrae aren't visibly sunken just a different skin colour. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Still, I cant think of any living animals that have all the openings in their skull visible by any means, unless they're zombies or something, perhaps I could blend them in with a photo editing tool. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * They definitely look sunk-in to me.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 17:15, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * The visible eye is certainly too large, based on the sclerotic ring, it should only be the current size of the pupil itself. Though the fenestrae are probably too demarcated (could be painted over), many reptiles and birds have demarcated orbits, either by having a different texture, wattles, wrinkles, or colour. FunkMonk (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Request: Reconstruction and size chart for Lufengosaurus

 * While the article is well written, it doesn't contain any reconstructions or size charts of Lufengosaurus. With the only images being photos of mounts and fossils. Monsieur X (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How's this one I made a few minutes ago? I altered my Massospondylus to fit the proportions of Paul (2016). By the way, I'm gonna be much more active on WP now, and I'm definitely going to make plenty of prosauropod scale charts. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:52, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, I'll add it right away! Speaking of "Prosauropods", I will soon request one for Yunnanosaurus as well. You may want get started on that one. Monsieur X (talk) 12:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Request: Size chart for Yunnanosaurus

 * A size chart comparing Y. huangi and Y. youngi is needed for the Yunnanosaurus article. Monsieur X (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll get started as soon as I can on this. Is the life restoration in the taxobox a good reference for proportions? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:04, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * On closer expectation, I fear the restoration used in the taxobox might be inaccurate. Monsieur X (talk) 17:09, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The pronated hands are unfortunate. FunkMonk (talk) 17:59, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Went in and removed it ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Finished it, what do you think? I also made a chart for Jingshanosaurus in the process of creating this one. I could upload that one, too, if you want. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:32, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks alright to me, anyone else have any critiques before I update the Yunnanosaurus page? As for a Jingshanosaurus chart, I'm not too sure as the article might be too small to fit another image. I might need another opinion on that one. Monsieur X (talk)
 * I've been looking at information on non-sauropod sauropodomorphs, and I came across this page where I saw that another opinion might be helpful regarding whether to upload a size comparison for Jingshanosaurus. There's currently a lot of empty space in the Jingshanosaurus article as the text doesn't reach as far down as the information box on the right, so to me it appears there would be space for a size comparison. I think it could be good to have a size comparison for Jingshanosaurus, since its Wikipedia article currently doesn't have any size estimates, and other top Google results for this animal each give a very different length for it. I'm quite curious about what Jingshanosaurus's size really is. 2A02:C7D:B943:5F00:E6CE:8FFF:FE0A:2EA4 (talk) 22:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Images for the Siamosaurus article
I'm planning on making a brief remake/derivative work of this drawing for my upcoming expansion of the Siamosaurus article, I've decided to expand all the articles on lesser-known genera first before moving onto larger projects like Suchomimus, Irritator, and the much-needed overhaul of the Spinosauridae article. Just to get some more practice and experience as to the GA/FA process and writing articles in general. Any ideas on things to add/remove/change from this image? ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  05:01, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The big white square would be a good start, haha... Well, there is so little detail in the drawing that it is pretty safe accuracy-wise, but it might be a bit too simple and unrendered. FunkMonk (talk) 18:03, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's why I'm making a new version, I'm thinking about tracing on top of the original image and augmenting the detail since the composition looks pretty good as it is. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:13, 9 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Made this drawing of the holotype, not really much to review here since its a tooth but I'll put it up anyways. There are approx. 15 ribs on each side of the tooth as described by Buffetaut & Ingavat. Any new images will be added to the article once I've finished writing my expansions, not much room there as it is right now. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  13:54, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems fine, then. But maybe my old restoration should be checked up again too, not sure if those teeth are accurately placed. FunkMonk (talk) 14:08, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah the teeth seem incorrect for a spinosaur, and also the weird vertebral spine spikes and the single nasal spike look odd. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:36, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed with the teeth, no Spinosaurid is known to have them so uniformly sized. The nasal crest can be fixed by blending it into the head better, instead of having the bone protrude out of the skin like Triceratops's horns probably did. The spikes could either be removed or made to appear less like they're part of the actual neural spines, which would probably not be poking out like that. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:14, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Such "spike frills" are very common in depictions of for example Suchomimus and Baryonyx, though, which I guess is what inspired me. And they also seem to be commonly depicted in other theropods, so I think it would be ok, but as you say, without loooking like part of the neural spines. And yeah, the nasal crest looks kind of weird now (like 80s depictions of Baryonyx), in light of how the one of Spinosaurus turned out to look like, but remember, this image is from 2010... FunkMonk (talk) 01:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I did a bunch of changes, how does it look? FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good, you did some nice blending around the torso and spine, the head in particular is definitely a lot more "spinosaurid" now, with the more defined "fish trap" shape of the front upper and lower jaws. The teeth are still too small and equally-sized though, see these spinosaurid skulls for a guideline of how they should generally look.  ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I also just happened to finish my project, here's the new drawing of the Sao Khua Formation. It's nothing too impressive but at least it has more clearly visible details now. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  00:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't such a one-to-one recreation of the old piece of the Sao Khua Formation plagiarism? Am I mistaken in saying you didn't make the original?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 01:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Not as long as the original image has a free license. As for the teeth in my image, I intentionally made the teeth half covered by some kind of lip tissue, which makes them look smaller. FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, then the teeth are fine then. As for the Sao Khua image, it was released under the standard 4.0 CC license used with most images on the site, I have also credited the original author for the lineart on the description page for my derivative work of it, so as far as I know it is acceptable. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:21, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * According to the CC BY-SA 4.0 license:
 * You are free:
 * to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
 * to remix – to adapt the work
 * So this is definitely acceptable by the terms of the license, as long as Offy is credited (which they are) and the file is under the same or a compatible license (which it is)
 * As for accuracy, both sauropods have kind of floppy-looking legs. The arm of the front Phuwiangosaurus looks dislocated and the manus looks like it was forcibly dislocated from the radioulna. The skin flap also doesn't look like it takes the perspective into account (it looks like it stretches across 3/4 of the torso). The head looks like it was based on Malawisaurus, which may not be a good thing (as it was a very derived titanosaur, but then again, I'm not sure what to use as a model for the skull of Phuwiangosaurus. Siamosaurus looks okay, the reflection looks pretty nice, too. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah... Not too big on how the sauropod limbs ended out, I don't think I've ever actually drawn one, so I'm pretty in the dark about their anatomy (waay more familiar with theropods :P). Mostly I used this image of Euhelopus as reference, which comes from the same family as Phuwiangosaurus. The head looks like it matches, although I suck at perspective too so not sure. Are there any similar restorations of sauropods with this sort of POV so I know what to go for when remaking the leg outlines? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  16:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The only limb that doesn't look good is the right arm of the left sauropod. The upper part of the arm expands too much, it should be mostly straight vertical lines that attach on the side of the torso. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:40, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I take back my comment on the head. Didn't realize that it was a euhelopid and not a titanosaur. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Centrum Morphology Diagram


I created this image to help with the glossary. What do you guys think? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:24, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, should definitely see this. Aren't there also kinds that are flat in one end but concave at the other (such as platycoely)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to just have the white image of the vertebra themselves different shapes instead of lines that could be misinterpreted?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 15:42, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:59, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Slate Weasel, thank you very much for helping out, we are in great need for such basic anatomical diagrams. I expanded the definition in the glossary, hope that all terms are now covered. This would require the diagram to be expanded to include these additional forms. Do you have a Email address that you can add to your Wikipedia profile, so that I can send you a Wikimail with some pictures that you can use as source? Otherwise, it looks good already; I have some additional minor suggestions:
 * For the glossary (and perhaps most other uses), it would be preferable to have it on the right side (with "anterior" pointing towards the left); this way, it would nicely fill the white space right to the list.
 * I would use the adjectives (e.g., procoelous instead of procoely), as these are much more common.
 * Maybe remove the title ("Centrum Morphology"), we have the image caption for this; also, I would crop the image and maybe shorten the arrow "anterior-posterior".
 * Not sure about the grey background, maybe white and stronger colors look better and is more in the style of other diagrams we have?
 * Maybe the dotted line separating centra from the neural arches might irritate (is difficult to understand), maybe just remove, or separate centra using a stronger color?
 * The amphicoelous vertebra could be more conical (hope we find a way to send you images) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You should be capable of emailing me now. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:45, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Began making corrections. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:42, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * While it's being edited maybe include Biconvex (double convex ends) IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:38, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this look good? (I still have two more to add! --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks good! Some things below:
 * Not entirely sure about "biconvex", it is rare and it is rather a descriptive term (of which there are more to describe aberrant centrum morphologies), and it is absent from the textbook figures I have seen so far. I have the impression that this condition usually occurs at the transition between procoelous and opisthocoelous vertebrae. Does it ever occur in more than two consecutive vertebrae? To me it does not make much sense from a biomechanical point of view. But I'm not completely sure, perhaps User:IJReid knows more here? Anyway, I think the biconvexity shown is much too strong. Maybe we can keep it but label it "transitional" (as this term would also cover asymmetrical centra); this way, we would have eight morphologies in total, which would nicely fit into two rows.
 * Perhaps spell all in lower case, to be consistent with the lemmata (Wikipedia glossary guidlines require that terms are lower case).
 * Also, don't use the noun but the adjective (amphiplatian instead of amphiplaty)
 * perhaps increase contrast by using a deeper yellow for the yellow text, that one is hard to read. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:54, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * How about now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * the heterocoelous one is imperfect (it should be saddle-shaped, that means the convexity needs to be asymmetrical, with a convex part dorsally and a slightly concave part ventrally). For the second amphicoelous one, please add (notochordal) below the caption, to make the distinction. I'm also still not sure what to do with the biconvex thing, maybe we should just term it "transitional" and add all possibilities — concave, convex, and flat lines – to each end, to show that each combination is possible? Makes little sense to me to have biconvex but not the other transitional types that are possible. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:57, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this look better? You probably should add that detail on heterocoelous to the glossary. How does the transitional form look? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:18, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Titanosaurs have long chains of biconvex caudal vertebrae sometimes (Rinconsaurus, saltasaurids etc) often in the distal tail. If we include biconvex the diagram basically shows all possible combinations. I am unsure if notochordal caudals are present in any dinosaurs (remember the page will be dinosaur-specific). I have a paper that shows all possible combinations of articular surfaces if it is needed. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Good point, didn't thought about the distal tail, so we should perhaps really have biconvex as a separate category. We included the notochordal centra since they still occur in embryonic remains of dinosaurs. Do you think we should remove it? Could you send us that paper please, I think it will be of great help, I was already looking for additional sources on this topic. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * @&: I have updated the image awhile back to re-add biconvex. Is it ready now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:22, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's fine, still unsure of notochordal but it Jens says some taxa have it at some point I'll listen. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Added it for now, but we can still change it as needed, I will also give it some more thought. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Stylopod - Zeugopod - Autopod
I also uploaded this Allosaurus arm diagram that I created for the stylopod/zeugopod/autopod entries. What do you think? Is it currently okay, or should I change it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:50, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Could need some text? FunkMonk (talk) 16:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Like this? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:02, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks great. Note that the autopod itself is subdivided into the basipod, metapod, and acropod; we would need a figure for these terms as well, and it would make sense to have both in the same image. What do you think? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Which is which? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:47, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Carpus/Tarsus: basipod. Metacarpus/Metatarsus: metapod. Phalanges: acropod. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:35, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Great. I write the entry on the limbs soon, will include it then! (btw., you should have got mail by now) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Rearing Diplodocus and Friends
I'm working on a diagram showing rearing in Diplodocus, showing the Center of Mass as restored by Mallison 2011; the current iteration can be seen here:. I'm also thinking of adding in a rearing Brachiosaurs/Giraffatitan (I think most the studies on this have used B.brancai, now G.brancai.), Mallison concluded that it could rear but would be very unstable, it would be interesting to show the difference in Center of Mass between the two Sauropods. A rearing elephant could also be added because they often come up in discussions of sauropod rearing. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool! I remember that you commented about rearing mamenchisaurids during the review of my Omeisaurus image (which, darn it, I STILL need to upload with corrections...), so that also might be cool to include, I read in Paul's field guide that some of mamenchisaurs' chevrons had flattened bottoms where the tail would have rested. As for Diplo, are you planning on including D. carnegiei, D. longus/hallorum, or both? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:12, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It may also be nice to have the sauropods in two positions (resting and rearing) sort of like this thing I whipped up in about a minute: --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:23, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm not going to add in huge numbers of sauropods, just the ones which have been looked at in detailed biomechanical studies; Mallison looks at D.carnegei and G.brancai. Paul thinks that all sauropods could rear because they have many adaptations that aid rearing, but he hasn't done the same level of advanced biomechanical reconstruction that others have done (I don't necessarily disagree with him). Brachiosaurs seem to be the least adapted because they have weedy tails and long forelimbs which shift the center of mass forward. Diplodocus, of all sauropods studied, has the center of mass closest to the hip socket.
 * I have thought about showing the difference between a rearing and non-rearing posture but I felt the image would end up looking very cluttered, especially if other animals make it into the image; also, there are other images that already show non-rearing Diplodocus. The other issue is that, for me, it would have to show the difference between the maximum feeding height on all fours and the maximum rearing (the potential increase in feeding envelope), We don't know the true range of motion in a sauropod neck and there is a lot of debate around that, I think it's best to avoid that area. For me the image is more about the potential for rearing and COM position. Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:06, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I also think it's good to add more sauropods that have been studied, since this is probably going to be of more general use. Note that the rearing capabilities of Opisthocoelicaudia have also been studied. FunkMonk (talk) 14:30, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think there are any Center of Mass studies for Opisthocoelicaudia, (not having a neck doesn't help ;) ) and the paper doesn't estimate the mechanics involved. If I were to illustrate Opisthocoelicaudia rearing, I'd probably do it in a separate image specific for the article because it's not been studied to the same level. I agree it would be nice to have a general chart for rearing sauropods, the issue is deciding what should qualify as 'studied' because it's been argued they could all do it to varying degrees. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:32, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is an update with an Elephant and Giraffatitan . I probably will add in Opisthocoelicaudia, but I'm going to see if I can find any more sauropods that have specifically been suggested to have strong rearing adaptations in the literature. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:17, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is an updated version, I've added in Barosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia. A quick note, these are based on Hartman's skeletals and he's given me permission to do this. He's usually ok with wiki artists using his skeletals for things like this, but he'd like us to ask his permission first. Cheers. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * You seem to have given Opisthocoelicaudia an extremely long neck compared to most modern restorations (mine is only ~4m). I'll ping for more input on that one. Others look good to me. Also, when you say "based on" do you mean, "used for individual proportions" or "mostly directly traced over?" --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:47, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The neck is the length of Hartman's reconstruction, which he has just publically released on DA. He has restored at just over 5m, which is close to what the original authors estimated. For this image I have reposed Hartman's skeletals in photoshop and for the most part, directly traced. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:04, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added the image to the commons.Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Stegosaurus ungulatus life restoration
Here is the lineart that I scanned awhile ago. I will shade and color it later. Before I do that, I would like to make sure that it is proportionally correct. It is a Stegosaurus ungualtus, and I based it on Paul (2016). Thoughts, comments, corrections? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * One potential issue with Stegosaurus is that the 'Sophie' specimen shows the neck is longer then previously thought, I'd imagine that this would apply to S. ungulatus as well? Steveoc 86 (talk) 07:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Update with longer neck. Does this look better? (The skull of S. ungualtus is unknown, so it is based on S. stenops) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the neck and skull look good, but the feet have a weird toe arrangement IMO. The outer toe on the right foot looks too small and thin, and the toes on the left foot should probably have a longest middle toe. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated with some hand & foot corrections. I made the unguals taller in most cases, and I elongated the middle toe a bit. The innermost right toe is obscured by the larger middle toe. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah final change I think would be to outline the sole of the foot so the perspective isn't as confusing on the far foot. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:58, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Regarding the neck, Sophie shows that there were more cervicals and less dorsals, you could probably go longer on the neck. This is Sophie Obviously they are different species but from what I understand, S. ugulatus isn't as complete so any restorations probably use S.stenops to fill in the gaps. I don't know how reliable this is, but it hopefully shows what is known.  Another thing, just eye balling, is that the limbs look a bit emaciated. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Made the neck even longer, beefed up the limbs a bit. Does this look better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's looking better. I noticed the forelimb on the far side is too thin combared to the nearside. Lastly, in the same way you have illustrated the spikes with a defined edge as they enter the skin I'd imagine the plates should be rendered the same, considering they are probably keratinous. Cheers. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Updated w/ the suggested changes. For colo(u)r scheme, I was thinking of having the body be striped with brown and green, the plates be yellow with red tips, the feet and hands being dark green, the eye being orange, and the tail spikes being tipped with black. Anything that seems off with that? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:43, 21 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Here is the colored and textured version: . Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better if the colours of the body were better blender and not as clear cut, more splotchy etc. And the yellow-red transition is also too sharp. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Gave it some smudging, blurring, and airbrushing, how does it look now? I might also smooth out some of the obvious cutoffs between the scales. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:49, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Definitely improved. The brightly coloured feet look a bit jarring and the plate transition of colour is still soo sharp but otherwise it is good. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 13:37, 22 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Went ahead and uploaded it. I might darken it a touch. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:42, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Darkened it. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks fine to me. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  22:15, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Pyroraptor


The Pyroraptor article didn't have a restoration, so I decided to make one. Hopefully it's good enough. (User:The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 16:16, 21 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to let you know, new images go at the bottom of the page. This can be done automatically by clicking the submit a new image for review button. As for the image, I think that the eye may be too large. Also, the shadow doesn't match the body shape. There may be other inaccuracies, I don't know as much about dromaeosaurids as some of us do. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:25, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The coloration is very vivid, probably unfeasibly so. The red and yellow feathering in particular is unlikely considering that animals which have feathers with those colors need special pigments called carotenoids. The ability to use carotenoids in such circumstances evolved only in a certain group of birds. Non-avian feathered dinosaurs would not have bright red and yellow-pigmented feathers, instead using browns, blacks, ochres, and iridescence like ratites, Anseriformes (ducks and geese), and Galliformes (pheasants, grouse, turkeys, etc.), which are examples of birds that lack carotenoids in their feathers. The yellow snout and blue legs are less of an issue, but even then they are unusually vibrant. As Slate Weasel said, the eye seems unusually large, and the leg feathers look like weird triangles. However, I do like how you gave it kind of a fuzzy appearance in conjunction with new studies on the feathering of Anchiornis. Is the whole thing created in MS Paint? Because it looks to be near the high end of what that program is capable of. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, why was the image removed? A reverse image search didn't bring up any other results, I have no idea why it seemed like it was violating copyright. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:18, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Strange, the deleting admin could be contacted. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I shrunk the eye a bit, and the red, orange and black is supposed to remind one of fire and ash. And yes, it was done in MS Paint. Took me 2 days to make it.(User:The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 13:45, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The red and yellow are slightly more dull looking, but they still don't look like the kinds of colors that non-avian feathering pigmentation would be capable of. I recommend making the head and arms the same orange-ish shade as the rest of the forward part of the body. You could use creamy white in lieu of the yellow. I understand your reasoning for bright colors, but scientific accuracy is prioritized over artistic vision in these cases. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:52, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought it would be a good time to bring up this other Pyroraptor illustration I found on commons, which has never went through review yet looks to be in use on many articles. It has various clear issues right off the bat, like the sunken fenestra, the somewhat bizarre feet, some weirdness going on with the muscles of the lower right leg, as well as the overly lizard/snake-like eye.  ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  20:43, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think the only thing wrong now with Nameless' is the triangular feather tips, rounding those out would be about as good as possible with the technology used. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 21:40, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that JMallon's raptor has incorrect wing attachment. I'll replace it as soon as the new restoration stops getting deleted... --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I fixed the tips of the feathers, so my Pyroraptor is done. I finished the entire thing in a total of 4 days, then. Is it good enough for MS Paint, or hideous beyond measure? (User:The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 00:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, who keeps deleting my artwork? (User:The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 16:24, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I uploaded it again for the third time. Anyway, what do you think? (User:The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 16:50, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yours is good, no major issues that I can think of. One of the copyright bots or editors must be having some severe malfunctions, sorry about the difficulty they're causing. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Heck, it got deleted again! Why does this keep happening? Is it a bot or an admin? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:03, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It's Jcb, he says "These files are either professional artwork or DW of professional artwork. In both cases permission via OTRS is needed", which doesn't make any sense to me because the file was TNHFTOD's own work, so it doesn't need any other permissions. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 18:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This is my own work! Trying to find it on the Internet is not worth it. I still have the original file on my PC. He also blocked me from uploading anything to Wikimedia Commons, so you'll probably never see that Pyroraptor image ever again. (User:The Nameless Horror From the Ocean Depths) 14:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know, I don't understand Jcb's motivations. You'll have to talk to him (or other OTRS members) about it because I can't get any more information out of him. I've left a note on your talk page trying to explain the situation, which is still confusing to me. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:58, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to request for undeletion and also an unblocking. Ridiculous this is how we lost ArthurWeasley. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 18:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed. By the reasoning behind deleting this file, EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF PALEOART EVER SUBMITTED HERE should be deleted until we all confirm that we really did make them via email. I don't see any logic behind that. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:26, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wait, that's the reason Nobu Tamura isn't active on Wikipedia anymore? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  22:32, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep: --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I Read everything, that's just messed up. I recently had a similar thing occur to me at RedBubble, so I can sympathize with his situation. This sort of thing is just absurd! It should never happen to anyone on here who is clearly a valuable contributor with no malicious intent. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  23:25, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks like the image has been restored! I went ahead and tagged the Jordan reconstruction as inaccurate, it's also been replaced with Nameless's on every English article. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:16, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

About the new image of "Saltriosaurus"
The image was adquired by me from the artist Lucas Attwell again, like The Emausaurus restoration. This image wants to be Neutral on the depiction of a controversial genus as Saltriosaurus, and want to reemplace the Unacuratte image created by User:Mariomassone setting it as a Metriacanthosauroid. Restorated respeting the environment where it was found, with added contemporaneus fauna. Due to be the animal on an environment, the image is on the section Paleoecology. User:Yewtharaptor.(talk) 18:39, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not seeing any clear evidence of permission. You need to get it confirmed by the artist through OTRS. Otherwise the image might get deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Is this accurate?


I'm afraid that it isn't. Here's what I've noticed: There may be even more inaccuracies, so I'll ping and  for further review. This definitely needs a massive overhaul before it is ready for the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:14, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Mandible should not have solid bottom
 * Skull too narrow (one side made into the entire thing
 * No mandibular fenestrae
 * Only 1 orbit, antorbital fenestra, and temporal fenestra
 * No nares
 * Most of the fenestrae and most of bones are not of the correct shape
 * Yeah, those. The profiles not too bad and the width of the snout's about right, but that's about it. I mean no disrespect to the artist but unless he/she is willing to spend weeks correcting this, it's not salvageable. A 3d representation of the skull bones would need to have absolute accuracy otherwise it's misleading the viewer. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Many other issues I noticed,
 * Nasal crest should be a slender ridge across the top of the skull
 * Many misshapen or missing teeth
 * The posterior ends of the mandible should not connect like that, the lower jaw was split into two down the middle to articulate with the upper jaw (as seen here)
 * Bottom of upper jaw should be hollow as well
 * The skull was likely based mostly on a 2D image from what I can tell, and then later extruded and mirrored, without taking into account other non-lateral perspectives of the skull; resulting in a potato-ish shape.
 * I'm sorry, but honestly there's far too many issues for Bubblesorg to feasibly fix, I have quite a fair bit of experience with 3d modeling in Blender, but even I would not attempt to make a Spinosaurus skull model to place on a Wikipedia article. It would need to be done preferably by an expert on the subject, especially if it is to have a good level of detail and accuracy, they'd need to check a lot of sources and perhaps also contact some palaeontologists on the matter. Remember, content on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable and like Steveoc said, not mislead the viewer. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Wow, didn't know 3D models are possible in Wikipedia, this is definitively something we could use to better illustrate complex morphologies. Though I would never model something (the morphologies are much too complex), but use photogrammetry to make accurate models of real specimens. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:33, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I know some studies take 3D scans of their fossils, are any of these open access and available in a rotatable fashion?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 18:49, 28 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, I just uploaded one, though I have problems in rotating it to lateral view. In Meshlab it shows up correct after rotation, but this MediaWiki viewer uses its own way to rotate the thing, don't know why. Does somebody know? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Odd, I don't seem to have any trouble rotating it, perhaps you're getting lag from the number of polygons? My browser certainly just froze for a bit, it took a moment to load more smoothly. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  19:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That's very cool. Is there a way to set the starting position to a view more instantly recognizable at a glance?, like a side or a 3/4 view? Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That was what I was talking about. I tried to set the starting position manually, but the Wikimedia viewer chooses some random view. If I download the file and open it with Meshlab, starting position is fine. Any idea? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Hehe, somehow I missed that you had already done it, cool! I don't know how to change the thumbnail, but I assume it's simply because such a feature hasn't been implemented yet, and might have to be requested. And that isn't as impossible as it seems, I once asked the for the "play" symbol of videos here to be moved to the bottom corner instead of being in the middle of the thumbnail and obscuring the image, which was quickly implemented... FunkMonk (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The thumbnail shows the initial orientation of the model when you open it. I can change that (see upload history of the file) using my 3D-software, but when it shows up nicely using the 3D-software, the wiki media viewer will orient it differently. Maybe it swaps the coordinate axes, I don't know (to be clear what the problem is: The initial view shown by the wiki media player is different from that of external viewers). Do you know out of head were to file the bug report? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't remember where I complained, but I would assume this could be a good place: I also found this announcement of the feature: FunkMonk (talk) 16:46, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I will talk to them the weekend. If they, as they say, are going to implement textured 3D models as well that would of course be even better … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like there's an Aquilops skull here at SV-POW that wants to play, if you're looking for another 3D skull. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is 3D pdf unfortunately, the worst format you can use, this does not work with the Wiki viewer. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The actual paper has some objs as supplementary material (in the zips of File S7. to 10), perhaps they can be used? FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Uploaded stl from the Aquilops paper. And yet again, the thumbnail is pretty bad... FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I can't say I make anything out other than teeth no matter what angle I look at this from. I don't think it'd be of much any use to a reader. The Massospondylus is good, though.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 15:46, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you compare with the photos in the article, it should be easy to see what's what. But yeah, it would be nice if it was possible to upload 3D models with textures (a texture is included in the supplementary material), but that'll probably not be for a while. FunkMonk (talk) 16:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just submitted our feedback here: . --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it a little bit of it so what do you think about the progress so far? Also sorry about that first one. Its been some time since i have used blender.--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:38, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I think some Plos and PeerJ papers have 3D models as supplementary material, we could upload those here now it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I honestly think we should refrain completely from making self-made 3D models of skeletons, we should only use scans of actual fossils and reconstructions published by palaeontologists. A self-made model skeleton will never approach a scan in accuracy, and is bound to have many inaccuracies and be misleading. FunkMonk (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's probably the best idea, I agree. Same would go for this Basilosaurus skull he suggested on my talk page. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Dinosaur Glossary Diagrams - Any Requests?
Are there any images needed for the glossary? Pinging, , and. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe some kind of diagram of dental batteries of hadrosaurs and ceratopsians, as was requested here? Not sure what to base it on, though. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think a multiview of a sauropod dorsal vertebrae (something derived, macronarian or titanosaur) for the labelling of the laminae, fossae and processes. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 20:15, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Both suggestions are great. Unfortunately both entries are not there yet, but I'm working on it (on the dental battery at least, as I promised to keep the vertebra details for IJReid). Another thing I have in mind are anatomical terms of location and motion. Since those are so important, it might make sense to give an overview over those that are used in the research of dinosaurs (which are quite a few). This would be partly redundant to existing articles (Anatomical terms of location; Anatomical terms of motion), but we could show which are used and how they are used in dinosaur research. There are some that are not listed in those articles (e.g., hypaxial, epaxial; preaxial, postaxial). If we do this, we could really need a bunch of diagrams using dinosaurs as examples, would be cool. But still, the terms are not dinosaur specific in any way. Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe some of the images here could serve as inspiration: FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I could make a topology (dorsal/ventral, etc.) chart. Does anyone know of an image that shows Coelophysis bauri in dorsal view? I'd prefer to use that guy, but I am also willing to use Stegosaurus stenops, Diplodocus, or Massospondylus carinatus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Do we have any restorations of a dinosaur in dorsal view? FunkMonk (talk) 19:45, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe ceratopsian skulls but any other dinosaurs would really be nondescript in dorsal view (except ankylosaurs) IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ahh, speaking of ankylosaurs, you reminded me of this: FunkMonk (talk) 19:56, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a Coelophysis in dorsal view in the Colbert 1989 monography produced by Greg Paul (he has done quite a number of skeletal restorations in dorsal view); I'm about to send it to you, Slate Weasel. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought we were talking free images. But in that case, GSP's multi view Coelophysis is online here: FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I was aware of those images but I didn't know that it was online. Thanks for finding them for me. That makes life a lot easier when drawing Coelophysis. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:00, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * So I've added a lamina term to the glossary, but i'm not sure whether to add significant individual laminae as their own entries or include them all and make one extremely large lamina section. Depending on what we agree the images needed could be changed. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 21:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, User:IJReid! Regarding your question of how much detail is needed here: These lamina-terms are based on a straightforward system and the terms are descriptive, and if you understand that system, you will know exactly where the lamina is located based on its name (e.g., spinoprezygapophyseal lamina = between the neural spines and the prezygapophysis). So I would not go for individual entries for all laminae, but rather explain how the system works (with examples), and additionally list the important ones in the entry as examples. The background is: there are many descriptive terms in dinosaur anatomy that can be understood just by logic (e.g., "quadrate process of the squamosal"). Such terms are often defined ad hoc and are not standardized. Its like language learning: You are faster if you learn the individual words and the grammar, not by learning all possible sentences. That's why I think that we do not necessarily need to provide a complete list of laminae (and there are more then just those mentioned by Wilson, 1999). If we want such a list, it might be better to include it within an own article on saurischian vertebrae laminae. But these are just my 2 cents; please do what you consider best! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:17, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Topology
Here's the promised image. Any comments/suggestions/corrections? What do you think about the arm on the dorsal view? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it might be clearer if for example dorsal and ventral were in the middle of the body, perhaps try to make it more like the examples posted earlier. There is no clear indication where medial is either, could need an arrow, as well as more space between it and the two laterals. Also, rather than showing distal and proximal with an unnaturally outstretched arm, which seems a bit cluttered now, why not use the huge white space around the already stretched legs (or arm in the lower picture) for that? The upper image seems very cluttered. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To simplify it further and make it less cluttered, I think you could just remove the outsretched arm in the upper image, place the laterals on the flanks. It might also be better to place text within the silhouette, readers would think medial is at the front part now, which is misleading. You should place it at the midline within the body (with white text). FunkMonk (talk) 19:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this look any better? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is much clearer, yeah! FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Maybe make the text larger and arrows thicker? It should be well readable at thumb view. If that's going to look too distracting, think about using less contrast for the silhouette (maybe a brighter color instead of black). I also would add an arrow to lateral-medial-lateral, to make clear we are talking about directions. And I'm not sure about this idea, but it would make the usage of these terms even clearer: You could draw the top view Coelophysis with its body bended towards the side, so that the medial-lateral arrow is a bit oblique. This way it would be clear that these terms are independent from the posture of the animal. I mean: By looking at your current Fig, one could assume that the tip of the snout is "lateral" if the animal is turning its head towards the side, which is wrong of course; it is always anterior, regardless of the orientation of the head. Maybe something to try out? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be better to keep it as it is, since if I enlarged the text further, it would make it look like medial means "on the animal" and the lateral means "not on the animal." I think that the text is at the absolute biggest size that I can get it at without completely losing the meaning of "medial." At a size of 400px, the text is somewhat readable, by the way. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Tarbosaurus PIN 551-1
I made this tarbosaurus recently and i was wondering if it was good enough to put on its wikipedia page just as a general profile view Tarbosaurus
 * Seems a bit under rendered? I think the limb muscles might need to be beefed up. Also, the Tarbosaurus article has a lot of restorations already, not sure if there are room for more, without replacing those that are already there. FunkMonk (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * ok it was just a one day drawing for fun but thanks for the response anyway. --Kaprosuchusdragon (talk) 20:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to contribute more images, there are plenty of unillustrated dinosaur articles here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Cetiosauriscus Re-review
I've been thinking about changing my scale chart to show a few different silhouettes overlapping in an attempt to show the uncertainty in the proportions of Cetiosauriscus. The original chart, which is currently in the article, was designed to be a somewhat generic mamenchisaur, after Tschopp et. al. I noticed that restoring it as a memenchisaur produces a problem; there is no way to make it conform to the 15m estimates in the literature and this discrepancy might confuse the viewer. What I have done is produced a silhouette that is shorter necked, emulating some of the basal sauropods, which conforms better to published length estimates. When overlapped it shows differences in the areas that are unknown such as, neck length, torso length, tail length and depth of the pubis and ischium. Here is a link to the silhouette of a shorter necked, generic basal sauropod and  Here is a version showing the two overlapping,  I think it's better in showing the viewer where the uncertainties are but I'm worried it could come off as original research. Any thoughts? Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking that even in the shorter-necked version you can add another half meter to the neck, as we can easily play the 15m off as being in a straight line and not including curvatures of the vertebral column. Also, I'm not too sure about the length estimates quality currently as both are either as a diplodocid or "cetiosaur" and not a mamenchisaur, but, looking at Tschopp et al Cetiosauriscus isn't a mamenchisaur proper and could have a shorter neck, so showing it as a mamenchisaur might have some issues. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 18:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, if we agree on the overlapping diagram, a larger difference in shade would probably be better so the figure caption can eplain differences. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 18:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your imput. I don't mind lengthening the neck on the short-necked version. Tschopp isn't the only analysis that suggests mamenchisaur affinities there is also Heathcote & Upchurch 2003 (an abstract; in one analysis it sisters with Tehuelchesaurus, which form a clade with Mamecnhisaurus and Omeisaurus; and in a second it clusters with Memenchisaruus and Omeisaurus) and Rauhut et al 2005 (grouped with Omeisaurus). If it is close to those taxa, I agree that it doesn't automatically mean Cetiosauriscus has a very long neck but bracketing would imply it. For what it's worth, the neck in the 'memenchisaur' silhouette is already on the conservative side. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Considering Tehuelchesaurus preserves no neck, its very possible in Heathcote & Upchurch's phylogeny to give Cetiosauriscus a long neck, but Losillasaurus preserves some short cervicals so using the Rauhut phylogeny its not as likely a long neck is more reasonable. I think the long necked version is fine as is, and the short-necked version should have a half meter longer neck. I think the original research of the long-neck might be an issue, but I'll let others give input. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:17, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is an updated short-necked version, which I have lengthened to be exactly 15m. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that works fine and fits the general description by Paul of "cetiosaurs". Until we decide about the mamenchisaur I think that's a fine version to use. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool, I've just uploaded the short-necked version, I'll modify the description a bit. I won't bother with the overlapping thing for now, maybe if longer length estimates start appearing in the literature. According to Tschopp et. al. a detailed restudy by Upchurch and co. is on the way. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

"Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis
It's been a while since I put one of these up here, so here's a speculative "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis based on Ichthyovenator. This one's quite simple and styled similarly to my Ostafrikasaurus. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be less speculative to assume a single continuous sail, wouldn't it?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 01:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure... We don't really know much about Asian spinosaurids besides their teeth; the only body fossils found so far are those of Ichthyovenator and a fragmentary undescribed skeleton from the Khok Kruat Formation in Thailand. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A continuous sail is more likely, that should be changed. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Siamosaurus is another spinosaurid genus based on isolated teeth that cannot be confidently set apart from most Cretaceous spinosaurid teeth, including those from Asia attributed to Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis [1,14,27]. These teeth may turn out to be referable to Ichthyovenator-like spinosaurs [15]." - From a PLOS one paper on spinosaurid taxonomy, which is partly why I based my restoration on Ichthyovenator. I've got no problem changing the sail, just want to make sure we're not going into original research territory here. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  02:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the paper specfically suggests Ichthyovenator then it is fine as long as you mention what its based on and cite the paper. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How about the tail, would it be that flexible?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 03:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The article states it has been deemed a synonym of Siamosaurus, and we usually don't have articles for single species, so why isn't it just merged? Anyway, we should make restorations of completely unknown body plans as generic as possible, so I agree that sail shape is too specific. Also, the known part of such animals should be emphasised, so it seems odd that the teeth are barely visible here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, must've missed/misinterpreted that, I did personally consider "Sinopliosaurus" a most likely synonym of Siamosaurus but I wasnt sure if that had appeared in the literature. Do I just scrap this restoration then? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  13:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what your draft of the Siamosaurus article says, ""Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis was deemed "closely related to, if not identical with," Siamosaurus suteethorni.[15]" Haven't seen the source, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just checked the source again and realized we've been looking at this all wrong; "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis was never named as a new spinosaurid taxa, it was originally the name of the new species of pliosaurid S. fusuiensis. The paper is simply a redescription of the teeth as those of a spinosaurid, hence the quotation marks around the genus name. This should definitely be merged into Siamosaurus. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  14:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the drawing, maybe it could be reused for another genus with some modifications? FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, it would be easier for me to make a new one for Cristatusaurus, Suchosaurus, etc. than the annoyance of modifying this one. I don't regret putting it up here though, or we wouldn't have realized "Sinopliosaurus" needed to be merged. Shows that you can re-read sources a hundred times but new perspective from other people is always gonna help. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those two are likely synonyms of other genera as well, so I don't think they really warrant restorations... But how about Sigilmassasaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't Sigilmassasaurus even more controversial than the aforementioned taxa? Its classification and taxonomy seem to bounce around a lot. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The latest word seems to be that it's valid, whereas those two other taxa are considered either synonyms or indeterminate. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well then, what do you recommend I base it on? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Much more seems to be known from it, see this paper. So a generic spinosaur, with the shape of the neck being dictated by the known bones, of course. But yeah, probably best to close the gap in the sail, and make the hallux bigger and closer to the ground, which seems to be the case in spinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second "Sinpliosaurus" fusiensis is a spinosaur. The genus is not, but the species was only named for a few teeth so if the teeth are reassigned then the species is as well, and has priority over any other asian spinosaurs. http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwzxz/200905/W020090813377415269178.pdf IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it warrants a article, though, it must be a nomen dubium at best. But we don't really have any set guidelines for such cases it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Validly coined nomina dubia almost universally have articles (or are so obscure they don't appear on the site period), so there's no particular reason this wouldn't have one.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Only when it comes to genera. There is a long standing convention to keep dinosaur articles at the genus level, so this case represents a grey zone. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the convention, as far as I understood, is that only validly named genera have own articles, and this species has not been referred to such a genus. In the future, it might be described as the type species of a new genus, as an additional species of an existing genus, might by synonymized with an existing species, or might retain its current status forever due to inufficient data. In any case, it should be covered by the article of the taxon it was refered to (Spinosauridae), not by an article on its own (at least if we do not want to change our regulations). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since it seems the "Sinopliosaurus" article isn't going anywhere, I fixed up the restoration and will being expanding the article in the mainspace in conjunction with my Siamosaurus draft. The above suggestions (closed sail and visible teeth) have been added, can it be used now? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  03:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Paralititan
I was going to do a minor update to BiDgd's Paralititan just to correct the hind foot, which has strange concavity where there should be a fatty pad; but I want to change a few other things. I want to update the overall anatomy to better emulate other more complete giant titanosaurs. At the time this was illustrated, it had become a bit of a paleoart trend to show Paralititan with a shortish neck. Obviously, the neck is unknown but there now a few giant titanosaurs that show or suggest longer necks. Overall, it looks like the restoration was inspired by Opisthocoelicaudia which is a bit of an oddball, with is incredibly robust stout legs compared to other titanosaurs. A WIP can be seen here, (I'm going to reduce the robustness of the forelimbs somewhat more). Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it looks good. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 18:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Here is a link to the current version. I added some osteoderms; I deliberately made them smallish just for varieties sake, I don't want all the titanosaur restorations having the exact same style considering the unknowns at the moment. The other thing I have done is non-destructively desaturated the colours. I really like the vibrancy of the original but from what I understand (I'm by no means fully familiar with the science of pigments) the cerotenoid pigments needed for those colours are most likely found from the food Paralititan would have eaten. Unless Paralititan's diet consisted of brightly coloured fruits etc, I'm doubtful it would be able to maintain such vibrancy. Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Definitely an improvement. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:16, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think these colours are more likely, it seems DBogdanov had a phase where all his dinosaurs were purplish and yellowish, hehe... Can't say much about the rest of the anatomy, though. FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cool. Uploaded over the original. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Patagotitan Info
I'm not sure this is the place to post this but it might be something to think about because it could affect the accuracy of the scale chart I've produced and other artists restorations on Wikipedia; It's obvious looking at Figure 1 in Carballido et. al. 2017 that it's not super rigorous. I have spent some time scaling the few illustrated elements into the figure and it's apparent that the neck bones, thought to be 3,5, and 7, are scaled too large suggesting the neck may be reconstructed too long. There are a few attempts by individuals on Deviantart to restore Patagotitan,, which show this probably the case. (it's unknown how many neck bones Patagotitan had, however, Carballido restore 15 cervicals as opposed to say 14 like Futalognkosaurus, not impossible but..) There has been a mount produced for the Feild Museum, it's hard to find any photos that show the true proportions without perspective distortion, but some I found also suggests that the neck isn't as elongated as the Carballido diagram. (Interestingly, if you assume the known cervicals are 3,4, and 5, Figure 1 makes more sense; I'm just speculating, maybe that's what the illustrator intended but the authors later changed the positions and ran out of time to adjust the diagram properly, who knows.) Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It's also been pointed out that the reconstruction of the tail is questionable. See comment here, basically, they have made it incredibly long with little evidence to support it.

Triceratops
In general, this Tomopteryx reconstruction of Triceratops is unsurprisingly very good, but the face is distinctly scaly, with keratin only on the horns. Its been known for some time now keratin almost certainly covered the entire face of the animal, making this inaccurate. The article itself shockingly doesn't even get a single hit for the word keratin - the article seems to be suffering from having its FA review over a decade ago.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 17:28, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Is it "known", though, or not just a hypothesis held by a couple of people? I don't think any research has ever been published on this. I remember the time everyone drew porcupine ceratopsians due to some unpublished scale impressions, but later turned out it was a wrong interpretation. Better to wait until there is some actual study and consensus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not just a hypothesis, it's indicated by osteological correlates on the skull. Reconstructing the face with scales makes as much sense as reconstructing the horns with them. The idea goes back at least as far back as 2002 in the literature, with the study "Keratinous covered dinosaur skulls".  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 23:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That citation seems to only have been a conference abstract, though, has it ever been validly published? It doesn't seem anyone is really restoring them this way, even in scientific publications. So we can't really be first movers on how to do this, we need to base it on reliable sources. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Saurian and Mark Witton both reconstruct it this way (Witton mentions it here), so we're not the first movers at all - those are prettymuch the two primary reconstructions of the animal; scientific publications very rarely include any life restoration of the relevant dinosaur, so the lack of an appearance there is unsurprising.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 02:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * None of those appeared in peer reviewed scientific sources, though. Not that we couldn't make a new restoration that shows these features, I just don't think there is solid enough basis to remove ones that don't. It is, at best, a plausible hypothesis for now. But yeah, most dinosaur articles from before 2009 are in serious need of an overhaul. FunkMonk (talk) 22:32, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Quilmesaurus Skeletal
What do you guys think of this? Comments/Suggestions/Corrections? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:26, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks about right. Not much to comment on really. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 18:40, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'm new-ish here. I'm just popping in to suggest maybe making the head a bit bigger and the back and tail a bit less... wobbly. It's apparently closely related to Carnotaurus so I'd definitely recommend a bigger, more boxy head and just generally a thicker, more rigid look overall. Also, for aesthetics' sake, maybe change the pose to a more Scott Hartman-like thing? It would give it a more... formal look, for lack of a better term ^-^ --TKWTH (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I was wondering about that. Here's an overhaul: . Proportions largely based on Aucasaurus. I fear that I may have been a little overzealous with elongating the limbs. This might mean that my life restoration could use an update sometime soon. At least the skeletal no longer looks quite so wobbly :). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:37, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that feels a lot more natural. Making the life recon more like this would be nice.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:39, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Uploaded the skeletal diagram, is it ready for the article? I'll update the life restoration as soon as possible. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I noticed that some of the femur is grey, probably to fill in the gaps where bone material is missing. This is good, but also needs to be applied more consistently to the entire bone. Basically what I'm saying is that the grey should also fill up the missing proximal portion of the femur. You can probably use Jaime Headden's Carnotaurus and Majungasaurus diagrams to see what a complete femur (as well as general proportions) would look like. Also maybe make the head a tiny bit bigger and the body a tiny bit thicker, to give it Carnotaurus-like proportions. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The proportions are currently based on Aucasaurus. I'll implement your suggestions as soon as I can. Here's the updated life restoration. Any input? Is the neck to robust? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:11, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well done. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have added an entire femur to the skeletal. Thanks for suggesting that, since I realized that the femur and tibia formed an incorrect angle, which would have severely dislocated the femur beyond the pelvis. It should no longer have that issue. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:29, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If no one objects, I'll add the skeletal to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Return of Opisthocoelicaudia and/or Nemegtosaurus
Here's this old image of mine, which I thought could use some updates, since Hartman has made a skeletal for it: which shows considerably different proportions. This skeletal has already been used to create Steve's sauropod rearing chart, so I assume that it can be trusted for accuracy.

However, the size chart already shows the maximum estimate in the article (13 m). However, if the known skeleton is ~9 m in length, and the article estimates a neck length of 5 m, then that would mean a length of ~14 m, which, as far as I understand, has never been published, which may mean OR, but if the neck is kept at 4 m, then it would contradict the article's neck length estimate. (?!)

Any input or recommendations? Pinging, the nominator and the main reviewer of this image when it was created, and , who has used the skeletal in another diagram. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If you're using Hartmans skeletal, just run it by him first just to make sure he's good with you using it. The neck isn't known so maybe you could make it a meter shorter to conform to the published length estimate. The other option is to cite Hartmans skeletal and mention that the total length is dependant on how long the neck is restored. Cheers. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

1925 Brachiosaurus
Hi! I am no paleontologist, but I have worked a bit about dinosaurs on Commons by uploading pics from an exhibition in Paris (Trix is currently our guest), and of course as I like dinosaurs I have browsed Wikipedia articles and Commons files about them. Anyway, I often see the "Inaccurate reconstruction" templates, which are very useful and precise (I would like to know the means to translate them). So, when I found this old 1925 reconstruction of a Brachiosaurus, I knew it was inaccurate, as its tail touches the ground... and there are obviously other errors, but I don't known the topic well enough to point them out. I have taken the liberty to add the template on the file page, but it would be great if someone who knows more about Brachiosaur anatomy than me took a look and added the probable other errors in the description. Thank you very much for the huge work you achieve here ! --Eunostos (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think what you got there is pretty sufficient. What I'm wondering, though, based on the German captions, is if this depicts the species now known as Giraffatitan... FunkMonk (talk) 19:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was just about to say I have edited the template. I cannot tell the species from the anatomy though. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:14, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for pointing this out. I have added a few more. I noticed that one of the things that you listed was that there was only one claw on the hand, but sauropods (except some titanosaurs, which have 0) have only one manual ungual (see here for a sauropod manus). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:15, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I meant it should only have one claw on the hand :P. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 19:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Pantydraco restoration from 2007


This rather old restoration of Pantydraco looks off and oddly proportioned to me, any thoughts? Monsieur X (talk) 11:25, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Doesn't seem too bad compared to this diagram? It mainly differs in the parts that are not know anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's passable for now. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Xenoposeidon Rebachisaurid
Hello, some time without coming here and taking part of the revisions, but I have returned and I hope to help as much as possible again. Well, now that Mike Taylor's article on the classification and diagnosis of Xenoposeidon characters has been formally published in PeerJ I would like to submit my Xenoposeidon image under review. The details on which species and fossils I have based on, as well as other details, can be read and reviewed in DA, and as well as the way in which the drawing is made  so that they can make any comments, it also includes the response and opinion of my illustration, by Darren Naish (Who was co-author of the description of Xeno, as you already know) on Facebook. Any detail, or question of the drawing that for more minimum, comment it to me please. Levi bernardo (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it looks accurate for a more basal rebbachisaur. I can see nothing wrong at this point, apart from the *highly speculative* spines along the top of the spine. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh great, thanks. Well, I would not like to say that those spines are "highly speculative spines". Among the drawings that inspired me was that of Demandasaurus by Andrey Atuchin which has a spines along the top of the spine, (Also the illustration of the same genre hosted on Wiki also has spines) in addition to the variety of scales, osteoderms and different skin covers that have the sauropods is only a possibility that had spines. (Also, is not this dinosaur supposed to be a 'Xeno'? Hahaha) I could create an alternate version without them when I finished cleaning the drawing outline, thank you very much for your comment. Levi bernardo (talk) 16:36, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I see no issue with spines, integument that vanilla is perfectly acceptable on a sauropod reconstruction.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 17:18, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Minmi restoration from 2006


While I know Minmi is only known from fragmentary remains, but I don't think this resortration properly lines up with our modern understanding of Ankylosauria. This piece restores Minmi with what appears to be hunchback and a droopy dog-like tail, rather than a stiff one. Here's a similar image from 20th century Ankylosaur for comparison. Monsieur X (talk) 11:46, 26 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The image depicts Kunbarrasaurus, which is known from very complete remains. These are very basal forms which plausible had a more flexible body than derived ankylosaurids.--MWAK (talk) 05:53, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since it doesn't entirely fit the newer reconstructions of Kunbarrasaurus, I thought it could still be passed off as Minmi, since I guess we don't really know much about how it looked. FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Images by | Øyvind M. Padron
Hello again! In my never-ending quest for images for Wikipedia I have been granted permission by Øyvind Padron to upload images in his | 2017 ink portraits folder, found here. I have uploaded this Struthiosaurus image of his as an example, and he was fine with the credits and license used. I plan on uploading these and adding them to relevant articles over time. If you are all in agreement I will go ahead and begin that process over the coming days. Below is the message he sent me as proof he is fine with his images being used. Paleocolour (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC) "ZEGH8578 said the following: You have my permission to upload my images to Wikipedia, but please make sure of a couple of things

Firstly, attribute Author as: Øyvind M. Padron (zegh8578.deviantart.com/)

Secondly, since you'll be uploading, and not me, I won't be involved in the process, so make sure the CC lisence includes the point about proper attribution. I've seen some images where this part is, for some reason, omitted, perhaps overlooked: "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." Since the internet is as unruly as it is, my main priority is to be properly credited, as you surely understand.

Lastly, since - again - you'll be the one uploading, I'd appreciate if image descriptions were fairly minimal, in a way that reflects the minimalistic nature of the images themselves.

Regards, Øyvind M. Padron/ ZEGH8578"


 * Again, this should be done through WP:OTRS. Also, the accuracy of the Struthiosaurus is questionable, since Frotzler (2017)'s publication was unethical and ignored other in-progress work. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've talked with Øyvnid on DeviantArt, and he has confirmed both the permission and the licensing for all the images in his 2017-2018 ink portraits folder. I'm checking now to see if he stated all this in a publicly-viewable place, I talked with him through private notes which I'm unsure can be viewed by others ( tell me if you can see this) IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I am not able to see that link, it sends me to my own Deviant Art notes. Perhaps something like a screenshot would suffice? Would we be able to perhaps do this here? Paleocolour (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have sent Øyvind the link to the OTRS tool and hopefully this will work fine. Although I don't know if it will work to release the whole folder. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 20:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Øyvind says he has completed the OTRS now we just have to see how long it takes for the tag to appear on the Struthiosaurus image. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:34, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

More silhouettes
Here are my three latest silhouettes. What do you guys think? You've seen two of them before. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:06, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they all look good. Adding my Eoabelisaurus silhouette, might need a crop but I'm not good with vector images. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 14:34, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Are silhouettes useful to us? I can upload silhouettes for most of my reconstructions and size charts from the past if so. Paleocolour (talk) 22:58, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Silhouettes are useful when we don't have proper reconstructions to place in cladograms. For example, the Megalosaurus silhouette I used in my size chart for it is used in the cladogram since the restoration on the article isn't facing laterally. So you don't need to go to the trouble of uploading silhouettes from your previous images as they are all in a strict side view and serve fine in the clade trees.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  23:45, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it's good to have diversity, especially because I think repeating life restorations in a single article is redundant, but also because then we can use the silhouettes for incomplete taxa (like most massospondylids and nodosaurids for the silhouettes shown here). IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't think of it like that, this is a much better idea actually.  ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼   (Contribs)  00:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * If anyone can't edit SVG, I can vectorize it for you, if want (just be warned that thyreophorans take a lonnnng time). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:20, 6 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Added my Acrocanthosaurus because I think that it's probably the best theropod that I've drawn. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:07, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Added a Homalocephale. It came out looking kind of strange. Is it accurate? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think the rear leg accounts for the bending of the knee looks far too straight and far back. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:07, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Does it look better now? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:23, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah looks better. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:42, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have removed the inaccurate tag. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:50, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I disposed of my poorly researched Carchar skeletal by replacing it with just a silhouette based on the new scale diagram of that I created. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tsintaosaurus
Noticed this on the Tsintaosaurus and List of Asian dinosaurs pages, doesn't seem to gone through review before being added last March. The crest feels like it might be a bit too big (possibly misshaped, it's practically symmetrical) the animal is heavily shrink-wrapped (it's practically got a swan-neck) and the geometrical scalation pattern feels unlikely.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 16:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have (temporarily) removed it. Lists and formation articles seem to be flooding with old, inaccurate images. I have devoted much of my time on WP to cleaning them up. The image can, of course, be restored to the article if it is fixed. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:00, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * There was a bit of discussion about it on the talk page. It does seem kind of skinny around the neck too. I don't think it would take too much work to fix it, someone just has to do it. FunkMonk (talk) 17:03, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Akainacephalus life restoration
Found this illustration (by User:Dennonychus) in the article. The legs seem a bit too skinny. Thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The eye is certainly too big, should hardly be larger than what is here the pupil. FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The skull ornamentation isn't right, the quadratojugal horn is too far back from the eye, it should barely be past the orbit. The supraorbital boss is also too far back and the shape doesn't match up at all. The front of the face is nearly impossible to make out so I can't really even tell if the anatomy there is correct, which is a bit worrying since it's the most distinctive part of the face. For what it's worth, his DeviantArt post insists it's related to the other Laramidian taxa instead of Asian genera, so I'm not sure how closely he even read the paper...  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 18:38, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good move to replace the drawing for now. But remember to upload the high res photos from the paper, those jpgs are tiny! FunkMonk (talk) 19:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Akainacephalus update
Hi, thank you for the constructive criticism. I would ask sorry as well as I forgotten to submit the image on this page before putting it on Akainacephalus ' wikipedia page. This is a new version, I corrected eye size and adjusted placement of quadratojugal horn as suggested. I just wanna specify that much of the reconstruction is based on the paper's skeletal, where the head is slightly turned towards three-quarters and not strictly in lateral view, so don't consider the head as if it is exactly represented in lateral view (that is why the cheek may look too large). Also, I wanna answer Lusotitan about my commentary in Deviantart. First of all, YES, I read all the paper and supplementary information as well. As I wrote on Deviantart, there are MANY possible phylogenetic scenarios, just as noted by the authors of the paper. Moreover, asian taxa that are found closely related to Akainacephalus according to strict consensus topology are limited to Tarchia kielanae and Shanxia, while Nodocephalosaurus (which is Akainacephalus ' closest relative) is actually american. Furthermore, all of the other asian taxa (such as Saichania, Pinacosaurus, Zaraapelta etc) are more basal, leaving Akainacephalus ' clade linked to all of the other american taxa (Ankylosaurus, Euoplocephalus etc). Therefore, saying that Akainacephalus and his group is closer to american ankylosaurinae rather than to asian is not incorrect and does not contradict what is written on the paper.

I am available to fix the drawing further whether there are any inaccuracies still, thank you.


 * It appears that the left foot has no heel, and the distal tail is too thin. Perhaps add some more flesh on the underside of the foot and thicken the tail close to the club at least 50%. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I fixed those imperfections. Dennonychus


 * Also remember you can upload directly on top of a previous file, no reason to have separate versions at various stages of accurateness as individual files. FunkMonk (talk) 13:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

The skull ornamentation still seems off to me, retaining the same issues I mentioned above.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 15:42, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Sadly, the diagram in the paper is a bit deceptive. It shows a quadratojugal horn that is much too small. The same is true for the knob of the tail club. Your restoration is artistically pleasing but the general impression is perhaps too dainty. The limbs look so gracile. These creatures had massively muscled upper arms and lower legs. Also, like most illustrations of ankylosaurids, it fails to impress on the viewer the weird build of the group. As we know, the rump was strongly jutting out between the limbs and the thigh was a massive muscle sheet, twisted sideways at the front as it was connected to the ilium angling out. More to behind, that ilium capped the thighbone. I see how you subtly tried to reflect these facts, but if we want to inform the reader, we have to be more explicit. A simple trick would be to employ more clair-obscur. When painting ankylosaurids, think like Caravaggio, not Cézanne :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

DBogdanov's latest dinosaurs
Nice to see DBogdanov is still contributing images, but as usual, it is best to get them reviewed here. So here is the latest batch:

I see some potential issues with all of them, but the images are nice, so we could try to fix them. The Pinacosaurus is obviously drawn after the skeleton in the article's taxobox. It seems to incorrectly have a claw on the fourth finger, and a too large eye. I also wonder if it is missing cheeks, and if the hand on the left side is too sauropod like... Maybe has something to say about the armour? Seems a pair of horns over the eyes is also missing. The Acrocanthosaurus also looks like it's based on the skeleton in that article's infobox, but there is something off with the proportions it seems, perhaps due to perspective. The Amphicoelias looks like the tail is too short for a diplodocid? Maybe the body too. FunkMonk (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Amphioelias looks alright apart from the tail, assuming its a basal diplodicid. Pinacosaurus just looks wrong somehow but I can't place it. Acrocanthosaurus might be too wide looking at the leg separation, and the top of the snout looks too rounded. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 20:08, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These might be perspective things but Pinacosaurus' tail club looks flat as a fan and Acrocanthosaurus has a wack femur-to-tibia ratio.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 20:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Acro's foot looks like it may be dislocated in relation to the femur/tibiofibula joint. The perspective of that photo in the taxobox is very strange indeed, this is the second time that someone's used it to create a life restoration by tracing over it but getting the proportions wrong due to the perspective. By the way, Dmitry Bogdanov has a lot of non-dinosaurs that were recently uploaded, might be worth it to post those over on the Paleoart review page. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:29, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Pinacosaurus is little more than a sketch. Indeed the eye would not have bulged out. Some large theropod probably stepped on the right arm. The combination of a very flexed metacarpus with strongly extended fingers is impossible. For some reason, ankylosaurian armour is always restored as conical horns, while the real structure is that of a base plate and a keel.--MWAK (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I'll try to fix the Pinacosaurus, we have no other usable restorations for that. Anyone wants to try to fix the Amphicoelias? Should be much easier, as it's just the tail. FunkMonk (talk) 04:03, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I lengthened the tail of the Amphicoelias, as it was the easiest to do. Not sure if it looks entirely convincing, but anyone is of course wlecome to modify further. FunkMonk (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Tsaagan reconstruction from 2009
This reconstruction of Tsaagan has visible fenestrae, is there anything else wrong with it? Monsieur X (talk) 11:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not quite sure if the fenestrae count as sunken, which is bad, or not. There is no clear outline around the entire edge of any so I would say they look alright. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:39, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It certainly looks very shrinkwrapped and emaciated to me. A new restoration is probably best especially considering how Matt Martinyiuk himself has updated his depictions of it. We can also probably avoid the white feathering which seems to be a paleoart meme with this genus specifically. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Certainly looks very frail. I thought the "white feathering" was an artistic effect? Like it was transitioning into a sketch. Even so, may I ask why white plumage would be a problem? Seems a bit random to avoid a certain color for paleoart on a specific dinosaur... ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  19:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It may as well be an artistic effect, I was just commenting on how a lot of paleoart features white plumage for Tsaagan simply because it's name means "white" in Mongolian. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I've fixed some of issues with the restoration, I also added a feathered crest and changed colour of the feathers to more of a earthy tone. I've also have a crest-less version, in case the feathered crest seems a bit too much. Strangely, the image is not showing up on the english sites, but it could just be a glitch on my end. Monsieur X (talk) 07:54, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * You just need to refresh/purge the pages. FunkMonk (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Fukuiraptor restoration from 2007


I think this restoration is showing its age, it depicts Fukuiraptor as a Allosaurid, rather than a member of Megaraptora. Even if Fukuiraptor was an Allosaur, it probably wouldn't have Crocodile-like armour or visible fenestrae. Monsieur X (talk) 12:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How does a megaraptoran look, though, and how does it differ? FunkMonk (talk) 14:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah this one is substandard. There's a nice composite megaraptoran skeletal here that shows it would have had a longer snout, larger hands, larger feet, shorter legs, and a longer tail. Also I agree the odd scutes along the back need to go. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Pwnz3rdragon is no Scott Hartmann, but I do agree that his skeletal is much more accurate than the old restoration. Fukuiraptor is the most basal megaraptoran, which does complicate things because we're not entirely sure where they lie on the dinosaur family tree, it could be as neovenatorids, tyrannosauroids, or just basal coelurosaurs in general. But yeah, there needs to be an update or new illustration regardless. That old Aerosteon illustration could also use some work. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Fukuiraptor consistently places next to Australovenator, and all the features above are known from Australovenator if the material is preserved, so it seems likely that they would also be found in Fukuiraptor. Re: Aerosteon, the horns are for sure wrong and the hands too small, but the low file size and perspective complicated evaluating it. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * In more recent analyses, Fukuiraptor is basal to Australovenator and other megaraptorans. It's not exactly a megaraptorid, so it would presumably lack certain derived features. The hand of Australovenator did differ from that of Megaraptor slightly, with stuff like a slightly larger claw for the third finger. In Pwnz3rdragon's restoration, the hand was modeled after Megaraptor. It's just good to be aware that a composite megaraptorid skeletal is just that, a composite. Plus it didn't incorporate any Fukuiraptor elements, so it may not necessarily be accurate to a basal member of the group. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * PWNZ3R-Dragon seems to think that megaraptorans are somewhere in basal coelurosauria, and I'll trust him on that, he seems to have done his research. If we were to take, say, Zuolong as our 'base' coelurosaur, perhaps consider making Fukuiraptor look like a sort of midway point between Zuolong and Australovenator, leaning more towards the latter. Zuolong has a rigorous skeletal on its page, and a pretty good (if currently undergoing minor revision) Australovenator skeletal can be found here: https://www.deviantart.com/plastospleen/art/Australovenator-wintonensis-Skeletal-702430210 --TKWTH (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I also support that phylogenetic interpretation, and a reconstruction of Fukuiraptor as intermediate between basal coelurosaurs and Australovenator would make sense, although Cau (2018) has suggested that Zuolong is actually a basal tetanuran. Maybe a large compsognathid like Sinocalliopteryx or an early tyrannosauroid such as Dilong would be better. Novas (2014) has shown how similar the skull of Megaraptor is to that of Dilong Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Assuming any non-allosauroid phylogenetic placement, Fukuiraptor should have a longer lower skull (as seen in Megaraptor, Dilong and Sinocalliopteryx), much longer fingers of unequal lengths (like every coelurosaur), a longer tail (should probbaly have that anyways), and a slightly shorter femur and tibia. As well as removing the "scutes" and probably adding some feathers (IIRC a new Concavenator osteology thesis suggested the ulnar knobs were not for muscles, the abstract didn't say more but emailing the author we could probably find out if it means feathers). IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:19, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree on all of these points, and at least simple feathers are necessary for Fukuiraptor regardless of the situation with Concavenator. Speaking of that situation, it is interesting that the ulnar bumps might turn out to be quill knobs once more, although I hope the new paper also brings up the point Andrea Cau made about the bumps apparently being on the front edge of the bone. I recommend that all reconstructions of megaraptorans submitted to this image review be put on hiatus until the paper comes out on August 10th, considering the new soft tissue revelations that may come about from that paper. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Aerosteon Reconstruction
Hey guys!! I saw some of y'all were talking about a possible Aerosteon image revision, and so I thought to throw in my recent-ish depiction of it and see what you think ^-^ PWNZ3R-Dragon's skeletal was used as a reference :) --TKWTH (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The featheration looks a little cartoonish in shape and style. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 20:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's true, but honestly it's the best I've ever got feathers to look lmao. I guess that's just the style I work in, and hey, it gets the job done, doesn't it? xD It's not like cartoonish reconstructions haven't been used before, remember the old Noasaurus?
 * It is stylized and cartoonish, but it's certainly more accurate and artistically pleasing than the old image. Although using the old Noasaurus to justify a cartoonish style is a bit conterproductive because of how awful that image was. The third finger can probably be a bit smaller, based on the condition in Megaraptor and Murusraptor. Is the big keratinous lacrimal structure in front of the eye supported by osteological correlations? Because the postorbital is mentioned to have a slightly rugose raised edge, but that bone is behind the eye. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:23, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't think proto/downy feathers of this kind would ever look like that, would be better to make it shaggier. So it's not just a stylistic issues, down just doesn't create contours like that. Looks more like the feathers of for example an owl, when it should be more like a ratite. FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

"Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis
It's been a while since I put one of these up here, so here's a speculative "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis based on Ichthyovenator. This one's quite simple and styled similarly to my Ostafrikasaurus. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It would be less speculative to assume a single continuous sail, wouldn't it?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 01:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure... We don't really know much about Asian spinosaurids besides their teeth; the only body fossils found so far are those of Ichthyovenator and a fragmentary undescribed skeleton from the Khok Kruat Formation in Thailand. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * A continuous sail is more likely, that should be changed. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:36, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Siamosaurus is another spinosaurid genus based on isolated teeth that cannot be confidently set apart from most Cretaceous spinosaurid teeth, including those from Asia attributed to Sinopliosaurus fusuiensis [1,14,27]. These teeth may turn out to be referable to Ichthyovenator-like spinosaurs [15]." - From a PLOS one paper on spinosaurid taxonomy, which is partly why I based my restoration on Ichthyovenator. I've got no problem changing the sail, just want to make sure we're not going into original research territory here. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  02:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If the paper specfically suggests Ichthyovenator then it is fine as long as you mention what its based on and cite the paper. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * How about the tail, would it be that flexible?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 03:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The article states it has been deemed a synonym of Siamosaurus, and we usually don't have articles for single species, so why isn't it just merged? Anyway, we should make restorations of completely unknown body plans as generic as possible, so I agree that sail shape is too specific. Also, the known part of such animals should be emphasised, so it seems odd that the teeth are barely visible here. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, must've missed/misinterpreted that, I did personally consider "Sinopliosaurus" a most likely synonym of Siamosaurus but I wasnt sure if that had appeared in the literature. Do I just scrap this restoration then? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  13:56, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * That's what your draft of the Siamosaurus article says, ""Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis was deemed "closely related to, if not identical with," Siamosaurus suteethorni.[15]" Haven't seen the source, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I just checked the source again and realized we've been looking at this all wrong; "Sinopliosaurus" fusuiensis was never named as a new spinosaurid taxa, it was originally the name of the new species of pliosaurid S. fusuiensis. The paper is simply a redescription of the teeth as those of a spinosaurid, hence the quotation marks around the genus name. This should definitely be merged into Siamosaurus. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  14:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * As for the drawing, maybe it could be reused for another genus with some modifications? FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nah, it would be easier for me to make a new one for Cristatusaurus, Suchosaurus, etc. than the annoyance of modifying this one. I don't regret putting it up here though, or we wouldn't have realized "Sinopliosaurus" needed to be merged. Shows that you can re-read sources a hundred times but new perspective from other people is always gonna help. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:11, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Those two are likely synonyms of other genera as well, so I don't think they really warrant restorations... But how about Sigilmassasaurus? FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Isn't Sigilmassasaurus even more controversial than the aforementioned taxa? Its classification and taxonomy seem to bounce around a lot. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:33, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The latest word seems to be that it's valid, whereas those two other taxa are considered either synonyms or indeterminate. FunkMonk (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well then, what do you recommend I base it on? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Much more seems to be known from it, see this paper. So a generic spinosaur, with the shape of the neck being dictated by the known bones, of course. But yeah, probably best to close the gap in the sail, and make the hallux bigger and closer to the ground, which seems to be the case in spinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second "Sinpliosaurus" fusiensis is a spinosaur. The genus is not, but the species was only named for a few teeth so if the teeth are reassigned then the species is as well, and has priority over any other asian spinosaurs. http://www.ivpp.cas.cn/cbw/gjzdwxb/xbwzxz/200905/W020090813377415269178.pdf IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if it warrants a article, though, it must be a nomen dubium at best. But we don't really have any set guidelines for such cases it seems. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Validly coined nomina dubia almost universally have articles (or are so obscure they don't appear on the site period), so there's no particular reason this wouldn't have one.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 19:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Only when it comes to genera. There is a long standing convention to keep dinosaur articles at the genus level, so this case represents a grey zone. FunkMonk (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, the convention, as far as I understood, is that only validly named genera have own articles, and this species has not been referred to such a genus. In the future, it might be described as the type species of a new genus, as an additional species of an existing genus, might by synonymized with an existing species, or might retain its current status forever due to inufficient data. In any case, it should be covered by the article of the taxon it was refered to (Spinosauridae), not by an article on its own (at least if we do not want to change our regulations). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Since it seems the "Sinopliosaurus" article isn't going anywhere, I fixed up the restoration and will being expanding the article in the mainspace in conjunction with my Siamosaurus draft. The above suggestions (closed sail and visible teeth) have been added, can it be used now? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  03:31, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why not, but I wouldn't spend too much time on that article, before we actually know if it is going to be stand alone or not... FunkMonk (talk) 04:18, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm not gonna put too much effort into it, mostly I'm just taking the chance that I'm currently adding info from the corresponding paper to the Siamosaurus draft. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  04:29, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * By the way, that was some great detective work with identifying those Siamosaurus tooth photos! Maybe we have some Japanese speakers who can read the text in the original photo? FunkMonk (talk) 05:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I was very happy to find images actually directly related to the subject, I was looking through the album of the same person that took the Ichthyovenator fossil pics, and I just happened to have read the Sebayashi papers recently so I noticed the similarities. The translation idea sounds good, any ideas about how we might find said speakers? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  19:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe see if there are some active users in the Japanese native speakers category to ping: Category:User_ja-N FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This image is problematic, though, I just noticed it is a photo of a photo on a museum sign, therefore not fair game... Perhaps it would better to just have an image that shows the two actual teeth in the middle of the photo. But that one I linked probably has to be deleted. FunkMonk (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I do have an aesthetic concern about the image, as the head and body don't seem to match, and the region between them is also very peculiar, sort of making it look like it was stitched on. Accuracy-wise, however, I don't see any errors. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Could it be an illusion caused by the patterning on the neck? ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  13:59, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Sinraptor restoration from 2009
Any inaccuracies with this reconstruction of Sinraptor, other than the slightly visible fenestrae and rather strange colour scheme?

I have prepared an image that fixes those last two issues (no more yellow polka dots), but I want to know if there's anything else wrong with it. Monsieur X (talk) 08:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The lifted leg looks very strange, the metatarsals and foot wouldn't bend upwards like that during a stride. Could maybe be fixed by rotating it down. Anyhow, good job with fixing images so far, I saw you had made some other corrections on Commons. It is much better than losing the images. FunkMonk (talk) 09:46, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I tried to fixed the foot and metatarsals like you said, though I'm not sure if I did it right. Monsieur X (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe a bit further down than it needed to be, but I think it looks better. Maybe that dark area around the back of the jaw should be smoothed out too? It gives the impression that many restorations fail by doing, that there are no depressor mandibulae jaw muscles hugging the back of the skull and surrounding the ear: Oh, also, now there is a hallux on the same side of both feet! FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The feet are very unclear, with that darkened colour and odd positioning I had to look at it closely for a few seconds to tell what was which leg, and that was at full size. It blends together in a very bad way. Even having looked at it for about a minute it looks like its legs are crossed, it's completely disorientating.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 01:00, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the problem is that the right leg was copied and pasted, I don't think the change has to be that drastic, the old left leg was ok in shape, just needed to be rotated. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The perspective of the skull and mandible also don't match, the mandible is seen more from the side. The skull doesn't seem to match the rounded shape from the Currie paper. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 02:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're better just scrapping this altogether.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 02:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree. I tried, but the new things listed are way beyond my skills, so I concede defeat. The JPEG compression artifacts were also a nightmare and made it hard to edit the legs. Monsieur X (talk) 05:35, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think it can be saved, but it might be easier just to make a new image. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Struthiosaurus
Apparently inaccurate according to the dinosaur email list Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've heard that this skeletal is problematic. That's why I only used Europelta for the Struthiosaurinae scale diagram. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:02, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As an aside, have you read this paper? apparently they've found some in situ pelvic armor for the unnamed hungarian species.

Carcharodontosauridae Size Comparison
Finally just did it. Sorry about sort of a sudden lack of productivity. It seems like you should just keep working at your section or have it consumed by the archives )! Ah well. Any thoughts? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 20:49, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the recent phylogenies, it seems Neovenatoridae does not exist, and Neovenator is simply a basal carcharodontosaurid like Concavenator, so I think it should be added to the diagram. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just to note, there is (probably) a difference between "carcharodontosaurid" and "carcharodontosaurian". Neovenator is part of the latter group, but not the former. Also, Siats is another valid close relative of Neovenator, so "Neovenatoridae" does exist even if megaraptorans and Gualicho are unrelated to Neovenator. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanboyphilosopher (talk • contribs) 02:41, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think that I'll just stick to featuring uncontroversial carcharodontosaurids for now. I wish that smaller carcharodontosaurids fossilized better, poor Concavenator looks really puny. Unless anyone objects, I'll add this to the article sometime tomorrow. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:32, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Cedarosaurus
I noticed that the Cedarosaurus article was in desperate need of images, and that Scott Hartman had a skeletal for it, so I decided to pitch in and test out my recently developed digital art skills on a dinosaur. The size comparison was scaled using the 1-meter scale bar in Hartman's skeletal, and the life restoration's line art was created using the same profile as in the size comparison and then was colored, shaded, and given texture using GIMP. Are these images accurate and usable? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The pixels look a bit sharp, smoothen out? And maybe maybe some more shading around the belly to make it look rounder. FunkMonk (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Does this look better now? I added more shading, but I'm not sure if I like how the effect turned out. Should I lighten it a bit? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe it would help making the shading on the rest of the body darker as well, right now the contours are extremely vague, it is a bit hard to see any details. Kind of looks like a sauropod ghost... FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I've increased the saturation and added more color and contrast. It's several million years too late to be a prehistoric ghost. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:27, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking better to me, must say it is slighlty disrupting that the image is cropped right to the silhouette, would be nice with a bit of space... Ghost! FunkMonk (talk) 16:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What about the size comparison? Using Hartman's scale bar, it's ~20 meters or so, but Paul estimates only 15 meters. And don't forget about this kind of Ghost ;). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:26, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, have to wait for some of the diagram guys for that one, not my strong side... Sorry for ghosting out on you!FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2018 (UTC)


 * It's been a week, and nothing further has been added about the life restoration. I will add it to the article. Unless any inaccuracies are pointed out, I will add the scale diagram sometime today. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus Skull reconstruction


Skull reconstruction is very outdated and reconstructed as if Cryolophosaurus is a derived giant member of Carcharodontosauridae, which is completely inaccurate given both its Early Jurassic age and consistent position as a basal Neotheropod in phylogenetic analyses. The skull should be restored with a much more typical generic theropod long skull profile like this Scott Hartman restoration Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:21, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm, those are actually the newer, more dilophosaur like reconstructions, which has a kind of subnarial gap or kink in the snout. Compare with this earlier, more allosaur-like reconstruction: So as for now, it is in line with its phylogenetic position (sister to Sinosaurus, which also has a subnarial gap), and is not supposed to be carcharodontosaur-like (they don't have subnarial gaps). Hartman also acknowledges this in the comments, his reconstruction has a slight gap. As for what it "should" be reconstructed as, we simply don't know at this time, but it seems more new material is awaiting description. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The skull is still very boxy for a basal theropod, and it doesn't look anything like the skull of Dilophosaurus or Sinosaurus, which have a much more typical long narrow profile skull, given the fact that the front part of the skull isn't preserved in Cryolophosaurus it doesn't seem parsimonious to me restore the skull so boxy without evidence, given that all other basal theropods have typical fairly narrow skulls. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:44, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What makes it boxy, though? I think it's just the perspective. Here is a better profile view of that reconstruction: The snout looks pretty elongated to me, compared to the old reconstruction. And the subnarial gap and premaxilla is extremely dilophosaur-like, maybe even too much (Sinosaurus has a much smaller gap and shorter premaxilla). Only early theropods and spinosaurs have such a gap. The main difference from Hartman's skeletal seems to be the more convex than straigt upper profile of the skull, and the larger subnarial gap/longer premaxilla. FunkMonk (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I definitely think the Dilophosaurus crookedness plays a large part, but I think it is also the shape of the antorbital fenestra that really gives the impression, and I think the skull is 10-20% too dorsoventrally expanded. Also the skull is much bigger in proportion to the rest of the skeleton in the museum reconstruction compared to scott hartmans skeletal. The museum skull top is very curved, while the top of scott hartmans reconstruction is mostly flat Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * We can't really say if one snout reconstruction is more correct than the other, the most important thing is just that it looks like an early theropod, and the subnarial gap makes this unmistakable. Whether it would have had a straight or convex snout profile, though, is impossible to say. One commentator to Hartman's image (Mike Hanson, who is also a veteran skeletal artist), who has seen the material, also criticises his reconstruction in this regard: "The reconstruction of the snout is interesting, along with the more 'tetanuran' aspects, but having discussed the animal at length with some of its primary researchers, I think that even if it does turn out to be a basal tetanuran, it still probably had a lot of 'dilophosaur features' though I don't think I can discuss a lot about this at the moment in detail." Here is Hanson's skeletal for comparison: As for the postcranial skeleton, possibly that's still the old version, not sure. In any case, I think it premature to remove any of these images as incorrect until the material is described and figured in full. FunkMonk (talk) 20:15, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Mike Hansons interpretation the most reasonable I've seen so far, with a much less pronounced kink to the level of the teeth in the maxilla post gap, and a dorsoventrally narrower/anteriorposteriorly longer profile to the skull compared to the museum reconstruction, it looks very much like what I'd expect for a basal neotheropod skull. Has the skull not been fully described in "Osteology of Cryolophosaurus ellioti (Dinosauria: Theropoda) from the Early Jurassic of Antarctica and implications for early theropod evolution"? Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:36, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the postcranial skeleton, it appears much of it has never been described or figured (see Hanson's caption). As for the skull, well, yes, but that still leaves us with a missing snout... There is also a comment to Hartman's image that implies the downturn of the snout may be due to distortion in the fossil, but again, that isn't mentioned in the published literature as far as I know. But that is what has lead to the seemingly deeper reconstructed region around the antorbital fenestra. There was an abstract poster that implied more material is awaiting description too, so we shouldn't jump the gun yet with any one interpretation. FunkMonk (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link, the abstract says "These anatomical data argue against allosauroid affinities", which to me suggests that they originally thought Cryolophosaurus was an allosauroid, which would explain the Carcharodontosaurian like reconstruction. Looks like we'll have to wait for the paper to come out Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully, there will be parts of the snout in the bonebed they mention. As for the allosauroid affinities, that's what lead to this reconstruction (note missing gap and short premaxilla) and the one I linked earlier, not the current one. Strangely, Hanson's life restoration of Cryo, based on his own skeletal, shows a much more convex skull profile, not sure what's going on: Looks more like the museum version... FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It very much feels like the subnarial gap was tacked on to the Allosauroid like skull of the museum reconstruction without fundamentally changing the overall morphology of the skull as a sort of stopgap measure when new phylogenetic data came out Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * This comment by Hartman explains the deep skull reconstruction: "One side of the skull (the one that is more commonly shown) has crushed nasals that curve down - that's what's lead a lot of people to create a deeper skull. The other side shows that the nasals actually are fairly straight (at least as much as is preserved)." I just wonder which side is the correct side, then, which can only be determined by an actual study... FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 20 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting, looks like we'll have to see when the new paper comes out, given the average time between an SVP abstract and the paper coming out I'd give it solid 5+ years before we see it though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)


 * On this note, I just saw a new Cryolophosaurus restoration on Commons, and though artistically good, it has some anatomical issues, and should probably be tagged a such. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * And take a look at this discussion, seems a completely new reconstruction has been made, and we have a free photo of it! Note that the new reconstruction still has the "dip" in the snout, unlike Hartman's. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah the new reconstruction looks a lot more reasonable to me, I'm very happy with it being used in the article, the subnarial gap looks quite natural Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Siamosaurus again



 * I'm back to working on the Siamosaurus article, so here's another image I'm working into the draft. One with the various Asian spinosaurid teeth will be up later. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  05:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be fine, as long as it looks like the fossil. On what grounds is it going to be used in the article, has anyone suggested it belongs to Siamosaurus? The article looks like it will become very image heavy, ironically with more life restorations than most better known taxa get... FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's not even from the overlying formation, the Siamosaurus holotype is known from the from two formations below this, the neural spine is more equivalent in age to Icthyovenator, and given that the 'gres superiers formation' is just effectively the Khorat Group in an adjacent basin, this seems like a much more likely identification. I think if you are going to depict material that could possibly belong to Siamosaurus they should be from the Sao Khua Formation only. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Uploaded the diagram of the Asian teeth, let me know if there's any aesthetic/informational changes needed. In regards to Hemiauchenia's comment, I very much appreciate your input, but please keep in mind that the draft is currently very rough. At the moment I'm entering information whilst buried in research papers, so some of the current text or images may or may not make it into the article depending on what I find. Mostly I'm just putting together a picture of the new article's overall structure; once I add in everything I can find, I'll start pruning things off and refining the finished draft. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  23:52, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * As long as the teeth match the fossils, there isn't much of an error margin. By the way, as I mentioned earlier, I think it could be a good idea to upload a version of this Flickr image that crops so both teeth are in the same image, then you don't have to use that very long vertical image, they are always a bit problematic for layout. FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea, I went ahead and did that. Here's the new image layout. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  01:33, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me! FunkMonk (talk) 01:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Alwalkeria reconstruction from 2009
I'm gonna be honest, this Alwalkeria looks bad artiscally with it's weird, ugly and overdone photoshop filters, but is it accurate? Monsieur X (talk) 09:57, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Don't know much about the material to say much accuracy wise, but the background is pretty garish... FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * It's pretty inconsistent in classification, but even considering that it is a "saurischian" dinosaur, it's pretty inaccurate in several ways. Even if one assumes early dinosaurs were not fully feathered (which is its own can of worms), their scales would be tiny and pebbly rather than large and oval-shaped. Also, the teeth overlapping the lip is a general issue, and the eye being a green globe is quite jarring. I'd recommend removing it, there's no real way to make a better reconstruction until we know what Alwalkeria is. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The jury is till very much out on the lip issue, and probably will never be solved unless we find a mummified head, so that shouldn't make much of a difference. But yeah, those scales are huge... Could be blurred out, maybe. FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Honeatly I think we should lean towards lips for now. Crocodiles are all we have to go on for liplessness, and pretty much every other reptile has lips, so I don't see why (especially basal) dinosaurs shouldn't, especially given how derived and specialised crocodiles are, plus how the keratinised face (which dinosaurs largely only partially have) may factor into crocodiles' liplessness.--TKWTH (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that's a personal opinion, there is no scientific consensus. So I'm not saying we shouldn't restore them with lips, or that it isn't the most likely scenario, rather that it can't be used as a reason to remove an illustration for being inaccurate. But if someone wants to fix older restorations accordingly, why not... There are just more pressing issues (sunken fenestrae, pronated hands, inaccurate feathering, etc.) which need to be dealt with in various images. Granted, such issues are harder to fix... FunkMonk (talk) 23:35, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Right then, would it be alright if I replace the image with a basal Saurischian like Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus or any other suggestions as an example of what it could've looked like? Monsieur X (talk) 08:57, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure if any other genus is similar enough to act as a stand in. I think the best solution would be to either manipulate the image or make a new one, but of course, someone's gotta do it... FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to throw something together, manipulating this image sounds annoying and it's a bit unpleasant to look at either way, with that gradient background and odd shinyness. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The gradient and shadow give it an off putting 2d cutout effect also, removing the gradient and shadow entirely and just have a white background is probably the preferable outcome Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:31, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The lifted hind-leg looks practically deformed, I would vote against modifying it.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 04:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Utahceratops Size Comparison
My latest size comparison is on the right, and it's the first ceratopsid that I've done for quite some time (remember Pentaceratops back in the summer of '17?). This is also the first size comparison of any animal whose name begins with "U" that I've done. Once Nothosaurus and Zygophyseter pass, I'll only have V and W left! Also, after that sudden burst of productivity, I've sort of overrun the image review pages with size comparisons - sorry about that. I'll continue making them, but at a more docile pace for a more detailed review. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I wonder if the lifted foot would be held so flat, I think the toes would be more curved, like in a walking bird. Like in this diagram: But nice to get a size diagram for this guy, I've been thinking of expanding the article... FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The foot's position has been altered. It's always convenient when the article itself has the skeletal diagram within in it, and it is also a rather pleasing diagram to have within am article. The toes are not bent as far as in the Kosmoceratops diagram, since rotating the foot made it look more like it had just been lifted off the ground. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:04, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Mass cropping
I noticed has been cropping a lot of the dinosaur restorations on wikimedia, I'm just wondering whether or not this is a good change? Because I think it's most often good to have some white space around an image, especially a dinosaur restoration, since it makes it easier on the eyes. Having the animal cramped into a tight box looks very jarring honestly, and I believe this applies to photography (scenery, wildlife, etc.) as well. But idk, maybe it's just a personal thing... Let me know your thoughts on this. ,, , , , -- ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:53, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, It's visually better with some space. Tight cropping like that makes an image look crammed and busy. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Cropping is sometimes for the better, but it shouldn't be done excessively. With my Cedarosaurus restoration above, FunkMonk suggested adding some more space, and I think that implementing that made the image much more aesthetically pleasing. Images like really do benefit from cropping, however. I think that this is just one of those things that we need to balance out: too much or too little cropping's just distracting. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't I invited to my own intervention? I'm kidding of course. Maybe I did go mad with the cropping, to be honest I don't think my cropping was all that consistent. Some of this may have to due with being taught to always have a major focus and leaving a limited amount of space. Did this Prenocephale image really need all that empty space, especially on such a puny wiki page. Anyway, feel free to revert or edit the offending images. And here I thought my eccentric art teacher didn't leave a mark on my brain. Monsieur X (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I reverted all the unnecessary cropping and kept the ones where the white space was truly too much, such as a few of the Nobu Tamura ones. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  00:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree with with the Prenocephale revert, the animals should be front and centre with their behavior being the main focus. Compare it with Antonin Jury's Prenocephale restoration, it has a simple background and has the animals in the centre. Foolp's on the other hand has them at the bottom with a distracting and loud green coloured background in the centre, my edit puts the animals and their flank-butting behavior in focus, and reduces the impact that background once had. Monsieur X (talk) 12:01, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You make a good point, I've re-cropped it. The background has no details/elements anyways. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  15:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Bannykus & Xiyunykus
Reconstructions of the two new Alverezsaurs. I believe they've only just gotten pages, which are currently pretty sparse. Tomopteryx (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * They look good to me, I assume you used the skeletals in the paper. It's pretty nice that both skulls were pretty well preserved, in addition to Xiyunykus' hand, which would probably be the greatest uncertainties in restoring the animal. Waiting for a second opinion. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a perspective thing, in the Xiyunykus image, it shouldn't be possible for a toe on the foot in the background to reach below the level of the foot in the foreground (would mean it was closer to the foreground than the foot in front of it). FunkMonk (talk) 14:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I uploaded a new version with the leg shifted. Let me know if it needs to be shifted further. Tomopteryx (talk) 00:02, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks better, still reaches below the level of the front foot. Personally I would just move the claw alone so it is more foreshortened, or direct it more forwards. FunkMonk (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Done Tomopteryx (talk) 00:28, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Perfect! FunkMonk (talk) 01:38, 29 August 2018 (UTC)