A misfit
So, I changed the reference to Parasaurolophus appearing unnamed in "both" Jurassic Park sequels to "the next two." I understand that it appeared in Jurassic World as well, but was it referred to by name this time?
Another thing: The first few times I encountered periods and commas interacting with quotation marks while I was proofreading this page, they were outside the quotes (i.e., word word word "word", word word word...). So for the sake of internal consistency, I've been changing subsequent instances to that format where they were previously inside the quotes (word word word "word," word word word...). But it's beginning to seem like the latter format is the more common. And, frankly, I like it better. Should I go back and change them all to the latter format, or keep changing the remaining ones to the former?
Note to all: I don't participate in the forums here unless something much more important than TV Tropes content is at stake.
Pilgrim Adept
We have some problems with Science Marches On - as of 2015, Brontosaurus has shown to be distinct from Apatasaurus and is a (probably) valid genus again, making a large amount of the Apatasaurus entry inaccurate or in need of rewording and every instance of "brontosaurus" in quotes unnecessary, at best.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurushttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus
Stenonychosaurus has made a comeback too, with Troodon being declared a dubious genus due to only being known from teeth.
Torosaurus and Triceratops were most likely NOT the same creature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torosaurus
I'd dispute that Archaeopteryx might actually be avian. As far as is known, aside from occasionally flying, there is nothing to show that it wasn't just another feathered dinosaur.
Hide / Show Replies
You mean like it says in the hottip note? I put it there as a commentary on the definition of dinosaurs at the beginning of the article. Feel free to remove the note if you think it will improve the writeup.
Even the authors of the Xiaotingia paper (who recovered Archaeopteryx as a deinonychosaur) note that the support for the new hypothesis is statistically weak right in their abstract. Other recent analyses have shown it to be a non-eumaniraptor paravian, and one more thorough (though unpublished) analysis continues to recover it as an avialian. The archaeopterygids could go anywhere in Paraves at the moment, and we shouldn't adhere to one particular result that may or may not be any more likely than any of the others. The truth is that at the moment we really have no way of reliably resolving the phylogeny of the basal members of Paraves (as we would expect), and they'll almost certainly continue to be bounced around the family tree for years to come.
I didn't say deinonychosaur. I said feathered dinosaur. One study you noted might say it wasn't a eumaniraptor, but it also says it wasn't a bird either. I don't speak whatever language the other is written in. Also, where do statistics enter into this?
I said deinonychosaur because that is the result from the main paper in support of Archaeopteryx as a non avialian, and used the non-eumaniraptor paravian example to show that it's not possible at the moment to settle on any one phylogenetic tree and that several recent independent analyses have had different results (though none are particularly far from each other). Not to mention that the article cautions, "... working out the relationships among these confusing and often very similar feathered little maniraptorans is not going to be easy. Indeed, don’t go thinking that the notion of a non-avialian Archaeopteryx is necessarily here to stay!" For Theropoda, there is a "translate to English" button at the top of the page, and in any case that isn't required to read the phylogenetic tree in the article. On statistics, in any result of a phylogenetic analysis, each relationship in the phylogenetic tree comes with a bootstrap value that is an indicator of how likely the topology is correct. My point is that it's impossible to ascertain where archaeopterygids go in Paraves. They could be non eumaniraptors, they could be deinonychosaurs, they could be basal avialians. It might be best to simply say that they are basal paravians of some sort for now, because this is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.
I may add that Archaeopteryx has never been avian proper. Avialian, maybe.
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
Unless you use the broad usage of Aves where it is a specifier, so it'll always be an avian (sensu lato) by default. Sometimes I think we should just stay away from Aves, as there are at least two different definitions out there in wide use that are drastically different from one another.
Let's just follow Dr. Holtz's encyclopedia and leave it at that. I know that sure is what I'm doing.
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
So the description of Raptor Attack got cut for being longer than the examples. Any room for the cut material somewhere (not necessarily this page, considering it's being trimmed)?
Hide / Show Replies
I suggest keeping it where it is. Just trim it down and add more examples.
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
Eriorguez: "Mmm, could we try and shoehorn the Dromie scale chart somewhere? It covers precisely the 3 animals discussed there... "
I don't really see how this is necessary, as the two major ones are depicted in scale in the illustration already, and the scale chart is linked to on Wikipedia.
Hide / Show Replies
Mweheheh
I like the new card image, but Tyrannosaurus Rex grew up to 13 meters, bigger than the 10 m stated on the card.
Peace is the only battle worth waging. Hide / Show Replies
I think that's there as a key for its size. IE: This is 10 meters compared to the length of T. Rex.
But it did throw me off at first, so take of that what you will.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
(Cardmaker here)
Yes, that's just a 10 m measuring line. My plan is to show all dinosaurs with nose and tail at the edges of the box (i.e. no uniform scale), and show a 10 m / 5 m / 1 m / 0.5 m measuring line next to them.
By the way, the silhouettes are borrowed from Wikipedia, along with any errors in anatomy or scaling.
I hope that the info on the card is obvious enough for a dino buff at least, but it still seems to lack something. Suggestions?
Also: one obvious improvement is to make the measuring line a lot thicker, making it more obvious where it begins and ends.
Late Cretaceous. It's a bit too sciency for most to understand that the K is shorthand for cretaceous because C is already taken by the older Cambrian.
Since the time period is mentioned in the articles, I doubt it's necessary...
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
Would a human/commonplace object (because of the sauropods) silouette as comparation fit well?
Also, going by Dinoguy's scale charts, there is no silouettes of Carnotaurus, Megalosaurus (there is a non-giant Torvosaurus, tho), Ornithomimids, Oviraptorids, Coelophysis (it used to be one), Plateosaurus, Ankylosaurus, Styracosaurus, Protoceratops, Parasaurolophus (but has Charonosaurus), Corythosaurus (has Lambeosaurus), or Maiasaura...
Edited by Eriorguez
The figure of a person is a good way to go for most cases, I think.
But for the big ones...Perhaps something larger like a car.
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
For the record, knowing Matt Martyniuk any of his scale charts (i.e.: many of the ones on Wikipedia) have got accuracy covered, so I wouldn't worry too much about them.
Edited by albertonykus
C, by the way, is for the Carboniferous, not the Cambrian.
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
D'oh!
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
Reality check! In the past few days both my pre-teen kids have been ill and I've had to take them both to see a doctor. Nothing really serious, luckily, but I've had no time or attention left to work on the cards. Problem is,
- time will continue to be scarce
- the cards are labor-intensive
- at some point, a card will need to be updated; will I be available to handle that?
- at some point, some new dino will be added to the page; will I be available to make a new card?
Perhaps only a picture of the animal would be the simplest measure. Or an outline of their basic form...
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
... ... ... oh, you're right :( I'm not going to be able to do this as it should be done, and even if I did it's going to explode as the page evolves. I started working on a PHP gadget to create images from a text description, but eh.
Unless someone else steps up, let's go with simple images. Too bad we can't use this one: http://solarbird.livejournal.com/1059757.html
Well, a buddy of Albertonykus and me has kindly acceded to illustrate the page, with modern restorations that do not suffer much from being cropped, while having good detail when seen at fullview: http://tomozaurus.deviantart.com/art/Great-Stock-Theropods-266337421
Yay! Could do with some more contrast, though.
Edited by hoodiecrow
Well, gentlemen, Anatotitan is going the way of the Torosaurus, as an ontogenic stage of sorts. Shall we take it out of the list, or what?
Hide / Show Replies
God I'm old, I still want to call them Anatosaurus (and back when I played Runequest we still called them Trachodon). Yes, in that case I say we take it out. Maybe mention it briefly under Edmontosaurus (which I presume is the remaining genus).
Edited by hoodiecrow
Well, it is, as long as Anatosaurus is not brought back (which may be a reasonable option, all in all)...
Convulted taxonomy, and mention that, all in all, the stock creature is the giant duckbilled one?
I'm not all that good with ornithopods, but I can and will tell you that "Anatotitan" is officially gone and Anatosaurus appears to be here to stay.
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
I forgot to mention that Edmontosaurus is staying, no matter what.
Peace is the only battle worth waging.
Anatosaurus hasn't been formally resurrected yet in a technical paper, but it'd be easy to do so now (and some paleontologists have started using the name again for the younger "Edmontosaurus" species). The paper sinking "Anatotitan" is still very recent, but it's certainly had little hubbub surrounding it.
Edited by albertonykus
Well, got the cladograms with the clade names:
http://imageshack.us/f/198/stockdinosaurscladogram.png/
Fairly well done for dinosaurs in general...
http://imageshack.us/f/855/stocktheropodscladogram.png/
And theropods are a bit of a large mess. I almost ran out of clade names, and had to use the old Coelophysoidea because Dilo+Averostra has no name (well, Neotheropoda. Which is one of Coelo/Dilo/Cerato, and birds/Allosaurus, so quite inconvinient). And, in any case, it is not fully cleared out, like the Compy as a Tyranno bit there.
Technically all stock Maniraptors are Averemigians, and just calling them Maniraptors would be a bit of a generalization, but works fine.
Crestless Hadrosaurs are nowadays classified as Saurolophines, as Hadrosaurus is basal to true Hadrosaurs (Lambeosaurine + Saurolophine ones).
Deinonychosauria is Deinonychus + Troodon; so Archaeopteryx cannot be one unless it is a Troodontid. So, Archaeopterygiformes for all; closer to Archie than to sparrows, and needs to get some use. While we are at that, placed Deinonychus as a Velociraptorine, but could go ANY way withing Eudromaeosaurs.
Allosauroidea instead of Carnosauria. Carnosauria has a lot of baggage, Allosauroids are all but 2 or so carnosaurs, and pretty much every reference to Carnosaurs is to Allosaurs.
In any case, those ones would solve more doubts that they'd cause, as long as some aclarations are made. Shall I go for it?
Edited by Eriorguez Hide / Show Replies
I like the second one, but two problems:
1. Deinonychosauria was not more derived than Avialae.
2. Compsognathus was not a tyrannosauroid. I know you've mentioned it before, but if you move Compy (or keep it where it is and relabel it Coelurus), all will be well.
Edited by Spinosegnosaurus77 Peace is the only battle worth waging.
The positioning of sister groups doesn't matter in a cladogram. Putting Avialae where Deinonychosauria is right now indicates the same thing as what is already shown here.
Erm, 3 things:
1. If all 3 stock dromies share an entry (due to their similar role), why don't Ornithomimus and Gallimimus share one? Their story in pop culture and substitution of one for the other paralell the raptors to a T, and on top of that, name distinction is used even less often, so I judge they should share an entry (which would be a simple merge and aclaration).
2. The stock animal that usually goes by the name of Oviraptor is Citipati. The entry as it is now calls Oviraptor an emu-sized animal, which it isn't. Should the entry be renamed to "Citipati, going by the name of Oviraptor", or something like that?
2. Would this article benefit from images, in the way used in things like Character pages in this Wiki? I think having accurate restorations would be a good way of pointing out how those animals actually looked (very important in the raptors!)... Finding good ones, with a consistent style, would prove to be problematic, however.
Hide / Show Replies
1. Probably a good idea.
2. Oops? I'll look into it.
3. As a matter of fact, I was thinking about adding some kind of "badge" or "card" for each dinosaur, with a silhouette, name, and basic information like carnivore-omnivore-herbivore, size, period, and maybe something more. I think that images of reconstructions, skeletons, etc, are better left to Wikipedia.
Edited by hoodiecrow
Okay, that card stuff sounds good; I'd love to contribute but I can't draw to save my life, much less several similar animals while highlighting the differences, keeping the relative size, and with a consistent style.
Well then, merging Gallimimus and Ornithomimus, and mentioning Citipati in Oviraptor?
Well, for those 2 (and the raptors), how would it run: 2 or 3 separate cards, or a single card comparing and contrasting the animals?
MisunderstoodGuy
I began proofreading and copyediting but decided that a more radical approach was needed.
The page is humungously oversized, with oodles of information mixed with outdated factoids and repeated passages, most of it unrelated to tropes. I'm making it possible for a reader to pick up the most relevant items, especially connections to popular media and, in relevant cases, tropes.
Thanks!
Us Dino-Nerds can be a little overzealous with data.
Or just nerds in general...
Reviewing movies is a lot like Paleontology: The Evidence is there...but no one seems to agree upon it.
For the record, I'm a dino-nerd myself, and I could very easily see myself writing up a page like this one. I respect the intentions and sheer amount of work put in by the original author, but the page simply doesn't work. It's a Wall of Text that tries, and fails, to get the reader excited about dinosaurs.
I hope to be able to change that, and if it means I have to cut out tons of interesting information, well, most of it is on The Other Wiki.
Should we overhail the ornithiscian/sauriscian distinction for the more recent Onithiscelida
/Sauriscia distinction?