This page is mainly for reviewing the accuracy of dinosaur life restorations (usually by the artists themselves, but anyone who wants an image scrutinized is welcome to post it for review). Any other image, such as size comparisons or photos of skeletal mounts, can also be posted here to review their accuracy.
If you want to submit dinosaur images for accuracy review, place them here as well as links to what you used as references. If you want to participate as reviewer, you can put the page on your watchlist. New images of any type can also be requested by including "Request:" in the section title; if submitted, such an image will thereafter be reviewed here. Sections are archived automatically after some time when a discussion stalls, to encourage speedy responses from both artists and reviewers. It is allowed to revive sections if they have been archived before being resolved, unlike regular talk page archives.
Modifications of previously uploaded amateur restorations to correct anatomical inaccuracies is encouraged (including by others than the original artists), but modifications of historical restorations are discouraged, as these should be used to show historical ideas. Modifications to restorations published in peer-reviewed journals should be uploaded as separate files, so that both versions are available.
Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be tagged with the Wikimedia Commons template "Inaccurate paleoart" c:Template:Inaccurate paleoart (which automatically adds the "Inaccurate paleoart" category (c:Category:Inaccurate paleoart), so they can be prevented from being used and easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE[a], but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions (this is often requested during WP:Featured Article reviews).
If an image is included for historical value, the image caption should explain that it is an outdated reconstruction. Images of historical interest should not be used in the taxobox or paleobox, but preferably in a section of the text discussing the history of a taxon.
Criteria for removing an image:
Images should not speculate unnecessarily beyond what has been indicated by reliable sources. Therefore, depicting overly speculative physical features, behaviors, and pathologies should be avoided, to prevent WP:OR issues. Restorations that show serious pathologies known from fossil evidence are welcome, but should not be used as the main representation of a given taxon. These should instead show healthy, typical individuals, and not focus on unknown areas of their anatomy. Since Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia rather than an art gallery, it is not the place for artistic experimentation, and we cannot include every piece of available artwork.
Image differs appreciably from known skeletal elements.
Example: A Deinonychus reconstructed with four fingers.
Example: An oviraptorid known only from postcranial elements reconstructed with teeth, a feature made highly improbable by its phylogenetic position.
Image differs appreciably from known non-skeletal elements.
Example: An image of Microraptor lacking primary feathers.
Image differs appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements.
Example: A Nomingia depicted without feathers, since a skeletal feature (the pygostyle) and phylogenetic bracketing (more advanced than Caudipteryx) imply that it was feathered.
Example: A Ceratosaurus depicted with advanced feathers, since a skeletal feature (osteoderms) and its proximity to Carnotaurus (extensive scale impressions) imply that it lacked advanced feathers.
The discovery of Kulindadromeus and integument in exceptionally preserved heterodontosaurids provides evidence for some form of filamentous integument being the plesiomorphic condition in Ornithischia. As loss of filamentous integument is well known in many dinosaur clades, skin impressions and thermodynamic considerations should be given priority over phylogenetic bracketing.
Image pose differs appreciably from known range of motion.
Example: Theropod dinosaurs reconstructed with overly flexed tails or pronated "bunny-style" hands.
Exception: If the range of motion is debated in the scientific literature, as is the case with sauropod neck position.
Image differs appreciably from known size estimates.
Example: An image of an adult Torvosaurus which shows it being as large as an adult Apatosaurus.
Exception: If the size of the animal is contested or the individual in question is a gigantism-inflicted individual.
Image differs appreciably from known physiological constraints.
Example: An image of a dinosaur urinating, giving birth to live young, or making vocal sounds with its jaw, all made unlikely by phylogenetic position and physical constraints (archosaurs less basal then songbirds likely could not vocalize too much, if at all).
Image seems heavily inspired by another piece of media or directly copied from it.
Example: A image of Tyrannosaurus or Velociraptor depicting them as they appear in Jurassic Park being used in the articles on the genera, or an illustration of Deinonychus being a direct trace of another illustration of the same genus.
Image depicts a scene which is anachronistic or contradicts known geographic range.
Example: Megalosaurus bucklandii chasing an Nanosaurus agilis, two animals which did not live together.
Example: Dinosaurs from the Triassic or Jurassic depicted walking on grass, which did not exist at that time.
Exception: Photographs of life-sized models taken in parks. It should be made clear in the caption that these are models.
Life restoration of Oxalaia quilombensis based on its closest relative Spinosaurus.
I'd drawn this and posted it on the article for Oxalaia quilombensis, but realized several hours later I'd forgotten to put it up on the image review page first. Sorry about my mistake. == PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 17:58, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the pupil, but the new version isn't showing up on the thumbnail for some reason. Also, remember, any innacuracies there may be should be based primarily on general Spinosaurine anatomy. O. quilombensis has hardly any skeletal material, so any reconstructions at this moment should be based on phylogenetic bracketing, with a healthy amount of speculation. == PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are there any more inaccuracies I need to fix? My image has been up for a couple days and I'd like to know when or if it can be put up on the article, Thanks. == PaleoGeekSquared (talk) 01:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it can be put on the article, although you may want to look into removing the "watermark" as those are discouraged. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:47, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eotyrannus scale diagram based on the holotype (and only) specimen. Missing elements filled in with Dilong and other close relatives. I know it's likely it had feathers, but I wanted to keep the silhouette simplistic. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 08:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Feathers are often excluded from such size comparisons or skeletal restorations anyway. Remember to add "own work" or such to the source field. FunkMonk (talk) 08:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've recreated my Ostafrikasaurus size comparison using the same format and style as my Afrovenator chart, I based it off of Baryonyx, particularly Scott Hartman's skeletal. The original never went up for review anyways, so, better late than never. >>: PaleoGeekSquared (Talk) (Contribs) 20:48, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The new one is better than the old one, although both hind feet are far too robust. I'm unsure of the size, because Ostfrikasaurus is just teeth, and it also could be a ceratosaur ... IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I definitely think you need to change from an extravagant victorian person to a normal silhouette. The person is far larger than Halszkaraptor, and as such draws most of the attention, when a human isn't even necessary to include. I see no inaccuracies in the dinosaur. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:50, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Simpler silhouette is now in place. By the way, does anybody know how to fix the rendering of the file? It keeps showing up completely different to how it would in Inkscape or from opening the image in its own tab. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)23:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming that you're referring to the text? I'm not sure, but that has happened to all of my diagrams. I'm not too concerned about it, but I think that there's probably someplace on Commons to ask for help if you really want to fix this. The new human silhouette definitely looks better, it may be worth it to use this file in your older images, too. I do have a problem with the scale bar, though. It seems to be saying that the dinosaur is 60 cm long, but if that's the case, then it should be much smaller to compensate for the neck length. Or it could be interpreted as saying that the length from the scapula to tail tip is 60 cm, but that seems confusing. Could you try to make it a bit clearer? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind the rendering, I moved the text a bit and it looks a lot better now. And I admit you're right about the silhouette, I shall start changing them at once. Also, about the scale bar, it's simply referring to that particular distance between those two points on the grid, not the length of the actual vertebral column + the skull. Why? Should I change it? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)01:41, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Scale diagram of the holotypic specimen of Baryonyx walkeri. Using the vertebra from the Wessex formation as basis for the size of Baryonyx's "hump" (Hutt and Newbery, 2004). Measurments of hooltypic specmien obtained from Charig, A. J.; Milner, A. C. (1997). Note: This is not meant to be a replacement to Paleogeek's spinosauridae chart, it is simply for the Baryonyx page. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 14:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, although the tail seems long. Maybe that's not an issue since we really have no spinosaur tails that are even half complete. I've never seen an illustration with a hump, but if the vertebrae is referred to Baryonyx thats not an issue. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That hump should be removed, I don't remember where I read it (maybe SVP abstracts of last year), but it seems those vertebrae will become the basis of a new taxon. Also, what's wrong with the existing size diagram in the article? FunkMonk (talk) 22:56, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some concerns are noted in the above section, although the lack of crests may be due to the strong outline, and a spinosaurid spinal column has been found in the Santana and used to restore Irritator with. The tail in this image does seem to be extremely long. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:07, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I probably won't remove the hump unless you find that article, for now it is still referred to Baryonyx. (It's also one vertebra, not many vertebrae.) With regards to the current scale diagram, there are many problems, most notably the skull. And finally, I'll make the tail smaller. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 08:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was never formally referred to Baryonyx to begin with (no published paper), and even the abstract wherein this was proposed only said it belonged to a related animal:[1] Also, since the neural spines of Baryonyx are already known to be short[2], we'd need much more solid evidence than a single vertebra never formally assigned, or even proposed to belong to Baryonyx. Hartman's skeletal is still the best bet.[3]FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Refer to my comment in the spinosauridae chart. The vertebrae is referred to Baryonyx in both HUTT, S. and NEWBERY, P. 2004. and NAISH, D. 2011. It should still be included, until the SVP abstract is properly published, and the conclusion that it does not belong to Baryonyx is made. In Hartman's skeletal, the proportions of the dorsal vertebrae are much bigger than the measurements provided in the original description. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 09:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hutt and Newbery 2004 is that abstract I just linked to, and no, they didn't assign it to Baryonyx, as you can read there. The Wikipedia article is incorrect n this regard and needs to be corrected. And Hartman hardly shows a "hump". FunkMonk (talk)
They used the vertebrae as basis for them to lump Suchomimus in to Baryonyx. The vertebra was referred to Baryonyx in said paper, an as stated they even go as far as to questionably use it to refer Suchomimus to Baryonyx. You also use Headden's skeletal as a reference, yet you state that Hartman's skeletal is the "best bet" even though their proportions are different? Don't get me wrong, there is something fishy about referring these remains to Baryonyx mainly due to proximity, but I think that for now it should be used for Baryonyx, especially how part of the neural spines of the dorsal series is broken (as per the original description). DaCaTaraptor (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What paper, though? As far as I know, no word other than that abstract for a SVPCA talk has ever been said about this vertebra. And the idea that Suchomimus is Baryonyx has pretty much been abandoned since. FunkMonk (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just an abstract. Here's the full reference: HUTT, S. and NEWBERY, P. 2004. An exceptional theropod vertebra from the Wessex Formation (Lower Cretaceous) Isle of Wight, England. Proceedings of the Isle of Wight Natural History and Archaeological Society. 20, 61-76. It was also mentioned in Naish (2011) where it was figured (according to theropod database: " Hutt and Newbery (2004) describe a dorsal vertebra (cast UOP C001.2004) showing Baryonyx had taller dorsal neural spines than previously suggested. This vertebra was originally in a private collection but cast as UOP C001.2004, and has since been officially deposited as IWCMS 2012.563 (Mattsson, pers. comm. 2015). It is illustrated in Naish (2011)."). DaCaTaraptor (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would be nice to see whether the actual source refers the specimen to Baryonyx or not. The abstract wouldn't indicate so. Also, if this was such a clear case, I'm sure Hartman would have taken it into account. Also, that quote doesn't indicate whether Naish confirmed that identity or not, it just states he figured it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:33, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty obvious now you're not going to change your mind. I'm just going to take this one down because it's not of much use anyway, and it's controversial. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that there are a few things that could be improved here. The proportions aren't very representative of titanosaurs, as the limbs are too long and the neck too short. The feeth also seem wrong, I think you make the metatarsals work as a shin, instead of being covered in flesh and flat across the ground. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a very obvious cut and paste on the neck region, seemingly a bad MS Paint edit. The entire drawing seems to be an excuse to draw a generic sauropod (and not even a particularly well-researched one at that) with many speculative additions to make it 'cooler'. Huge spines, Doctor Seuss-style coloration, bizarre toes, and I don't even know what that is on the snout. I don't want to be rude, but wikipedia needs good paleoart and this is not the right direction. Sorry. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The neck also seems extremely thick? The legs seem to be more based on theropods than sauropods. As for the armor, I think it would be best to stick with either Saltasaurus osteoderms or Ampelosaurus spikes (although other editors may not agree) instead of both. Of the two varieties, I prefer the former, as this shape is more common. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:32, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely improved. I think now there are some specific changes that need to be made. The arms extend too far up onto the body, almost the entire arm is below the torso so there should be no line extending up as far as you have it. The thigh is too skinny for a sauropod, it should be about twice as thick. it would be better is the tail were included, and the image cropped down to exclude all the whitespace above and below the animal. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's better, but it still looks much too simplistic to be serious scientific illustration. Where are the teeth, the front toes, skin folds, or any indication that this drawing has weight or realism to it. I would recommend redoing the image from scratch, so that you won't be so restrained by the original concept's design or proportions. Doing so would also let the tip of the tail be visible in the image, which would make it a little less jarring. Nevertheless, I appreciate your commitment to improving it, and I hope that with a little more rigor it can find its way onto the Aegyptosaurus page. May I recommend that you check out other paleoartists? My personal favorites are Gabriel Ugueto (Kana-Hebi on deviantart) and Emily Willoughby. Mark Witton and John Conway are also very good and have a lot of sauropod illustrations. And as always, Scott Hartman has fantastic skeletals. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah the main problem I have is we are supposed to be a filter for accuracy. I don't know if there are technically any rules that allow us to reject art for not being artistically skilled enough. I also don't want to discourage young people from trying to do dinosaur reconstructions... just maybe from submitting them to Wikipedia. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good, besides the extravagane nasal crest, and the underbite. I think you can fix these by shrinking the crest and extending the upper jaw farther forwards. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:16, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thought it odd we don't have a restoration of this guy, so here is a sketch[6], which I will somehow flesh out later. I followed the Jaime Headden idea that the weird long teeth have just slipped out of their sockets in the fossil. It is oddly foreshortened to focus in the head, as the body isn't known. Any thoughts before I continue? FunkMonk (talk) 01:43, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, adding some more detail now:[7] Haven't drawn strictly digitally for years (I usually start with pencil), but it's actually pretty fun, and easier than I remembered... FunkMonk (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Current scale diagram for spinosauridaeRevised scale diagram
Since I'm currently on the topic of size charts, there's an issue about one of wikipedia's current ones that I'd like to bring up, and that is the spinosauridae scale diagram. I took a look at it for a little while and noticed there's many things wrong with it: Only one of the animals has its nasal crest, Baryonyx's skull shape is wrong (an apparent copy/paste of Suchomimus), Spinosaurus's legs are a tad too short, and Irritator's neural spines and tail look really off-putting. After taking note of all these things I decided to remake the image in svg format. I, of course, used Scott Hartman's various skeletals of the taxa in question, and kept the original length measurements: (Spinosaurus = 14.5m, Suchomimus = 11m, Baryonyx = 10m, and Irritator 8m.) I worked them over many times but naturally there might be mistakes/inaccuracies, so please point them out so I can fix them and consider my proposition. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)03:05, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to give the Baryonyx a taller spine. A complete Baryonyx dorsal from the Wessex formation shows they were as tall as Suchomimus (HUTT, S. and NEWBERY, 2004.) Scott Hartman also gave his Baryonyx a proportionately larger torso than the real animal. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Using Scott Hartman's skeletals, I see quite a bit wrong. First of all, while you have added nasal crests, they do not match the shape of those of any of them especially Suchomimus and Baryonyx, which should have triangular crests. Although it's not known for Irritator, both Paul and Hartman restore it with a ridge-type crest. Also, the long spines on the crests seem to make them a bit more "awesome" looking. Also, It seems like the top of the skulls of all of these animals are smooth, or almost smooth in Suchomimus, but the skulls in this image do not. Spinosaurus has a deep concavity which does not appear to exist, Suchomimus did have a bit of a bump but it was much smaller, Baryonyx has its head adorned with spikes, which give a more "awesome" than "realistic" look, and Irritator has a skull that should have more of a taper. Also, the premaxilla slopes too slowly in Spinosaurus, a bit to slowly in Suchomimus, and way too fast in Irritator (using "Angaturama"). Also, the teeth should all be slightly curved, except for Suchomimus, which had teeth that curved pretty strongly. Also, the teeth in the "kink" in the jaw of Spinosaurus should be at least 3 times as short. Also, Suchomimus seems to have two angulars based on its jaw shape. Baryonyx and Suchomimus would have had more gracile necks. Also, The scapula and coracoid (the shoulder) would be much more prominent than you have restored it. The big claw is actually falling off Spinosaurus and Irritator, and it's attached weirdly in Suchomimus and Baryonyx, and Spinosaurus looks like his was forcefully bent at a weird angle. The sail of Suchomimus has massive concavities which are way too deep. Also, Spinosaurus, Baryonyx, and, most noticeably, Irritator, have sails that sharply cut off at an angle rather than a more smooth transition. Also, all of them have the same lumpy thighs and ankles. The tail of Spinosaurus ends at a small point, which does not match the tails of the other three. Also, the spines feel too inconsistent to be realistic. I'd recommend either adding more or removing them completely. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did an overhaul of the image based on all of your advice. And I want to clarify although I am quite fascinated with paleontology, I am certainly no expert on dinosaur anatomy. I'm finding out new things everyday and making failures is simply the best way of getting to learn more, and since this image is going up on a relatively major dinosaur-related article I want to ensure it's as accurate as reasonably possible.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)07:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd, how come every other reconstruction of Irritator's skull has it then? Is it some sort of error that's been spread by mistake? I'm assuming you mean the one located on the top of the premaxilla. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)17:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I noted below, Baryonyx should not have raised neural spines, that vertebra that was assigned in an abstract some years ago seems to belong to a new taxon instead, I think this is proposed in the latest SVP abstract book. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I must also say that I'd take the current image, with a very generic human, that is not meant to gain much attention, over the flashy Victorian lady. It kind of conflicts with the point of such diagrams, to convey information as simply and clearly as possible. At thumb size, it is even hard to see that it's supposed to be a human, looks like some kind of alien snail. Also, if the new image is to be any kind of improvement over the old one, the dinosaurs should be placed in a way so they don't overlap and partially obscure each other. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The SVP abstract which I think FunkMonk is referring to does not mention at all that they're erecting a new genus for the Wessex formation spinosaurid. It is simply referred to "Baryonyx like spinosaurid" but that's about as far as they go: the purpose of the paper is to test the hypothesis that they should be referred to Baryonyx, and the abstract has no mention of them coming to the conclusion it wasn't Baryonyx. For now, it is still referred to Baryonyx in countless papers (HUTT, S. and NEWBERY, P. 2004, Naish 2011) so I think it should still be included until the abstracts' paper is published. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Which "countless papers"? The original abstract doesn't even assign it to Baryonyx, it simply says they "conclude that the new find is closely related to Baryonyx".[8] What is the Naish publication? FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's great news, it should help prevent future mistakes, as most of us do follow his and Jaime Headden's work primarily. But doing some research on one's own to confirm is a good idea as well. Is my diagram good to go then? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)19:22, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit puzzled as to why the throat pouch thingies need a different colour? Because they are speculative? In that case, much of the rest of the silhouettes should have a different colour, so I don't think it is very helpful, just confusing. FunkMonk (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, wouldn't the sails and the lower midline of the bodies have to he darker too then? It is unclear what is intended by just looking at it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Life restoration of Soriatitan golmayensis.Size of Soriatitan golmayensis compared to human.
I have created a restoration and size chart of Soriatitan golmayensis to go along with my revisions to the article. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to see here, but are the nasal openings placed on the lower edge of the bony nares rather than the tip of the snout? That would seem to contradict the findings of Witmer 2001. FunkMonk (talk) 14:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, how long did you intend to make the Soriatitan? I think it is about 15ish meters long measuring along the vertebral column. I think that that might be a bit too long, but I know very little about this guy. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated both images. The life restoration had its nostril moved lower, and the size diagram has been shrunk slightly to be approximately 13-14m in length now. Are there any other changes needed? Otherwise, I will go ahead and add this to the article, as it's sorely needing some images! Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, Witmer seems to imply that the nostrils would be more on top of the snout tip, but who really knows... FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It fits the skeletal in the article. The horns and eppocipitals are elongated, but I think that that was the correct move, as the keratinous covering seems pretty short in the skeletal. There seems to be a depression where the nares would be, I'm not sure if that's correct. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the nostril location and removed the shading in that area. Any other changes needed? Otherwise I will add both these images to the Wiki article. Thanks! Paleocolour (talk) 20:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps consider making the hallux touch the ground, as was proposed for this[10] Irritator image? Also, do we have explicit permission from the person who drew the image? FunkMonk (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can make those edits if it's agreed upon, absolutely. The user who drew the image is Teratophoneus from Deviant Art, and has given permission for his work to be used. In fact, he has an Acrocanthosaurus reconstruction in the works he would like to be coloured and uploaded to Wikipedia that should be finished soon. I could talk to him about updating his original images to have the corresponding licenses, though. I also want to apologize for not signing my last posts here and below, it's been a while. Paleocolour (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can always add the signature later. As for the licence issue, yeah, it is best of the Deviantart images have corresponding licences, otherwise some Commons admins might get suspicious. An alternative could be to get individual Commons:OTRS permissions, but that would be more time consuming. FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed the feet as per your suggestion. Looking ok? Should this image be added to the article, perhaps replacing the life restoration of the Baryonyx eating a fish? Paleocolour (talk) 03:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looking good! And though there are several lines of evidence that suggest toes like that, it has rarely if ever been depicted for this genus, so this image is pretty unique now. I think it would be nice for the new image to replace the old restoration in its current position, and then add the one with the fish in the section about aquatic behaviour. I can do it today, because I also have some more info to add, and I have to synchronise the article with the one at Wikiversity[11] which is supposed to be peer reviewed by palaeontologists soon... FunkMonk (talk) 10:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This also probably should replace the images on the cladograms, since the fish is kinda hard to make out at that small of a resolution, so it looks a bit weird. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a good idea to show an animal in crouch position in an image that is supposed to show its full size. Kind of defeats the purpose. FunkMonk (talk) 08:12, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I took your advice on the skeletal reference, and did a couple other tweaks to it. Double checked and the proportions should be correct this time. I'm not quite sure it's as crouched as FunkMonk suggests, the distance between its hips and the ground plane isn't that different from the skeletal, the only difference being its tail is lifted up and its head is lower to the ground. I've seen size charts with this kind of attacking pose before. >>: PaleoGeekSquared (Talk) (Contribs) 17:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice, but the tail seems a bit weird and I'm not sure if those osteoderms would really be present. The human comparison (a victorian woman, from the looks of things) may be a bit flashy, but that's a minor complaint. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:07, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the tail and osteoderms, and if its not too much to ask I'd like to keep the original human comparison, I don't really think it interferes with the purpose of the chart. >>: PaleoGeekSquared (Talk) (Contribs) 00:32, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The crouched pose is causing a problem. I played around with your image in Inkscape and the dinosaur is over 8.5 meters long, almost 9. You should either shrink it a bit or move it to a more neutral position and scale it directly there. Length is measured along the vertebral column. I learned this from comments by User:Lythronaxargestes on my Ornithomimus size comparison, you see 2017 archive for this discussion. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the discussion, that's certainly a good tip to save for later, will keep that in mind for future size charts & restorations. For now I've shrunk the Afrovenator, I hope it's better now. >>: PaleoGeekSquared (Talk) (Contribs) 01:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The neck looks really lumpy, in addition to the part and part of the tail. It may help to try and build the dinosaur out of an angular shape, then round the corners and move the points instead of making a bunch of shapes. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 01:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Complete change of silhouette based more closely on the Jaime Headden skeletal, the old one had weird proportions as well as incorrect length, height, and weirdly shaped teeth. Good enough for the article? I'm also working on a more accurate restoration which should be done in a few days. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)04:36, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some issues with the skull that I see from comparison with the skeletal reference, the dentary seems too "chiseled" compared to Scott's depiction where the mandible is more rounded at the tip. You also seem to have added a sort of bump in front of the horn, and the transition from the nasal to the premaxilla is sloping a bit too gradually. Generally looking at the skull out of context it looks more like that of Giganotosaurus or Carcharodontosaurus rather than a Tyrannosaurid. But besides the skull, it looks good! Proportions seem to be in order, at least to me, I don't know as much about dinosaur anatomy as the rest of the usual people on here like IJreid but I gave it a try anyways.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)02:17, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow I'm a usual person here? Honoured :P I kind of dislike how the arm feathers and tail feathers are noticable, normally they are left out if they aren't significant. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:44, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, even feathered dinosaurs are usually shown naked in size comparisons because it is their body mass that is supposed to be shown. In this case, it is extremely speculative wing and tail fan feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good. The rear leg might be overextended but I can't really tell so I'll let others comment. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There isn't much feeling of contact with the ground on the weight bearing foot. Looks like it is floating, and the toe pads would be visible judging on the level of detail on the rest of the silhouette. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Does this look better? It is no longer levitating (I guess my Prosaurolophus evolved the ability of levitation to avoid predators like Lythronax which could also levitate, ;D) and yes, the back leg was very hyperextended, so I fixed that, too. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better, though what I also meant was that the sole of the weight bearing foot would be firmly flatted towards the ground, whereas it is now somehow curled upwards, with a convex sole. FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found this restoration on the Caihong article and I realized it never went up for review, seems accurate to me, but thought the rest of you should have a look. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 04:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
~:It seems to be lacking the "crest", but hey, I didn't believe in that anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two more unreviewed images, and Tom Parker's, which got removed for some reason. Any idea why? (And yes, this is now every image in Category:Caihong life restorations...)
The two in the middle seem to have weird wing morphology. I think Tomopteryx' image should be re-added, then we have images that both show the crest and not. It seems to have been removed with this[13] edit, which was of course not sound. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I put back Tomopteryx's image. Still not sure about the authenticity of a crest, this could easily be another Ornitholestes type deal where the nasal bones are broken or bent as a result of plastic deformation or something like that. For now I do think its probably best we keep both reconstructions, just until this whole debate is settled.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)15:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the skeletal diagram and size chart for Bagaraatan. The original skeletal diagram had pronated hands and was very low resolution. The silhouette for the skeletal diagram and size diagram were modified from the Eotyrannus silhouette found here. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not happy with my old Herrera and was told I should feather it so I'm gonna work on that. Not sure where the feather placement should be so I made a guess. Fred Wierum (talk) 09:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not that I'd say you have to feather it, but even if Ornithoscelida holds up, there are still pterosaur fossils with apparently branched, hollow-based, filamentous integument, which is the definition of what "feather" means, so... Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:44, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm currently in part of a contest, and one of the subjects is Dracovenator, so I thought I might as well include Antetonitrus to give us a non-terrible restoration of that taxon. The current WIP can be found here. The main base for the Antetonitrus was Melanorosaurus, with the neck and forelimbs elongated and the limbs made more robust. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure. There are times naturally when predators and prey will tolerate each others presence (times of drought are a good example), I can add another Antetonitrus if you want, because a group of herbivores tends to be less cautious about predators because of numbers. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:49, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe one looking in the direction of the predator, it seems unlikely they would be oblivious to it at that range. Now it looks like they're buddies, casually hanging out... FunkMonk (talk) 22:51, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that this is it. Remember that you should always add the file type (.jpg, .png, .svg, etc.) when adding a thumbnail. I personally would add some feathers to the face, but I think that that would be optional, and other editors may not agree. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's a good idea to use more descriptive categories than just "Dinosauria" on Commons, just so it's easier for editors to find your image. Just thought that this would be good to bring up. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I see it now. Personally, I find Conty's skeletal to be more schematic than realistic, which means it's not a great reference for proportions. The head is, for example, way too small. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
so i have removed the crest on the main and added it in a possible depiction as well as enlarging the head. Are there any more notable errors that should be changed? Dibrangosaurus (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems they were all marked for deletion? I must say that it probably isn't the best idea to have a head-only restoration of an animal whose skull isn't known/hardly known (Moabosaurus)... FunkMonk (talk) 07:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that would leave Velociraptor and Aucasaurus, both of which have pages which are already full and overcrowded on images, respectively. You could probably replace one of the several fossil/mount images on the former's page, but I don't see the latter working at all, until the page is expanded. Since I'm here, does anyone else find it weird the palaeoecology section is within the provenance second-level instead of the other way around on the Velociraptor page? Lusotitan 20:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Using the term "provenance" is possibly wrong anyway, since it refers to objects (which could include fossils), but not taxa (which the section if kind of about)... I think it could just be renamed and the subsection removed. Midiaou Diallo seems to be fond of drawing "slit"-like nostrils, but I'm not sure what that's based on or how likely it is, maybe he can explain... Do any living reptiles/birds even have it? FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moabosaurus looks pretty strange, that nasal projection on the top of the head and the bristles on the back of the neck seem like odd choices for a turiasaur. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:16, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That crest thing seems a bit too speculative for Wikipedia, though, of course, we don't know what weird fleshy structures dinosaurs could have. But we need to be more conservative here than, say, the "All Yesterdays" trend. I am myself guilty of drawing dewlaps on sauropods and other dinosaurs where this isn't directly known, but at least we know such structures are widespread in modern animals as well as in some dinosaurs... FunkMonk (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a bit of miscommunication when I uploaded the images. The artist, Midiaou, uploaded both the pterosaur images and the rest of the art under CC-3.0 on Deviant Art, so I went ahead and uploaded them. However, later he mentioned that he would like them to remain only on the website he drew them for, http://www.pteros.com/ and it was a mistake that they were uploaded with that license. I had flagged them for deletion a little while ago to respect this request. Paleocolour (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seems all the images by the Deviantart user ABelov2014 are free. Note not all of it is accurate, there are some pronated hands and sunken fenestrae in there, for example, as well as inacurate feathering and placing animals form different formations together. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Labelled as Aucasaurus but "substituted" with Quilmesaurus
Above are a few of ABelov2014's images that seemed fine to me. Feel free to add more. And note that soem images exist there in more than one version, so try to find the "newest" one, but preferably those that have not been "blurred", since the originals are physical paintings, and he sotmeims blurs the details digitally for some reason... FunkMonk (talk) 10:36, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded another, it has Daspletosaurus hunting Brachylophosaurus and Scolosaurus. All have been found in the Oldman or equivalent formations, so it shouldn't be a problem. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}16:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, yeah, sometimes he only mentions which genera are depicted under the comments... I added an image that shows Olorotitan and Charonosaurus, which are from the same formation, but also Anserimimus, which is not, but I just removed mention of the last name, because it looks like a generic ornithomimisaur anyway... Some other images can maybe be salvaged this way too. Others can be salvaged by cropping... I see there's also an image of Goronyosaurus[14], whose article you've been working on... Don't know if it is accurate, with those tiny plesiosaurs and all, but at least it has a tail fluke... FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From whats known it seems accurate, and plesiosaurs are known to have existed with mosasaurs elsewhere. It wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the plesiosaurs are juveniles, as Nigeria would have been a shallow marine bay in the Maastrichtian. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:57, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking that since plesiosaurs are known to have given live-birth to proportionally large young, these juveniles are maybe too small, but well, we don't know for sure. Another interesting image I'm holding back on is one of Tarbosaurus attacking Deinocheirus. It exists in a version with a feathered[15] and a non-feathered[16] Tarbosaurus. The first obvious problem here is that Protoceratops is included, though it did not live in the Nemegt Formation. Also, the Deinocheirus doesn't have a tail fan, and there are some sunken fenestrae there... If we really want to be ambitious, we could correct various errors, and change the Protoceratops into some of the other ceratopsians known from the Barun Goyot Formation, which is coeval with the Nemegt, and does have some of the same animals. And then there's also whether to use the one with feathered or non-feathered Tarbosaurus... FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC) FunkMonk (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think we can probably edit these, as long as we can keep the style right. There are plenty of good images of taxa, but the older you go the more inaccurate they are unfortunately. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What should the Protocerartops be modified into? I've modified a few of the images, mainly adding more wing feathers and shrinking eyes, but I was thinking of doing something more drastic to this image:[17] It nicely shows many animals from the Wessex Formation (icluding Eotyrannus, which we have no good images of), but for some reason a few Spanish dinosaurs have crept in there. I think the Concavenator can be modified into Neovenator simply by painting out the dorsal sail (the heads look the same), but the two Pelecanimimus will probably have to be painted out entirely... FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, but not if you go with the most recently published idea that Thecocoelurus or Valdoraptor was an ornithomimosaur. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also realized we don't need to cut off the "Concavenator" sail, as Altispinax (a proposed allosauroid) is from the Wessex, and had a back sail of some sort. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but for the images w/ the Wessex dinos and the Deinocheirus vs. Tarbosaurus, we did not accept that argument. I think that Deinocheirus would be much more likely to meet Protoceratops than the probability of Coelophysis meeting Peteinosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk|contribs) 19:17, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's two very different arguments. If two formations are not coeval (were formed at the same time), and there are none of the same genera found in both, then these animals would never meet. But if two genera are coeval, but just found in different areas, then they could have met (especially if one was volant). But then again, it seems Coelophysis and Peteinosaurus weren't coeval either, so there is a problem after all, unless the dating in their articles is inaccurate... .FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi IJReid, as you've seen, I added the image of Wuerhosaurus, but I noticed the plates on the back seem to be arranged in pairs. It seems you may have read up on this dinosaur, is that plausible, or should it be modified? FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've read up on the DML that Wuerhosaurus probably had ofset plates, at least most likely not paired, so that is probably a modification that should be made. There is also the issue of whether the plates are tall enough, as Maidment thinks they are broken, and we only have 3 plates from the two species to know (and one of those wasn't collected). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:10, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, but I can't tell if it has paired or staggered plates, it looks paired in number but I can't tell otherwise. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:28, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Goronyosaurus Something about this image has been bugging me for awhile, and I recently realized that it has keratinous horns! I have never seen any (well, any serious) illustrations of mosasaurs depicted with them, and they seem to give the animal a more "awesome" look. I'm wondering if they should be removed. What do you guys think? Also, we probably want to move this sub-discussion over to WP:PALEOART, but I wanted to post it here first because of how we have previously been discussing these images by just adding a bullet here. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:04, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I thought of it too, as for moving the section, I think it's ok to have such mass uploads in the same spot so they will be easier to find and comment on. FunkMonk (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good anatomically, the area could need some grain, though, to blend with the rest of the image, but that's more of an artistic issue... FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The old restoration is now outdated missing 1st and 5th epiparietals, and wasn't very precise in the first place (lacks curving of the now second ep, and frill looks off). Not sure if it should stay or not. Would be nice to have an updated restoration too.
It could be modified, of course. Anyone wants to take a stab? Also, I wonder if the skeleton shown in the article is restored correctly? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The skeleton looks more correct - rounder holes and frill of the right general shape, right shape for the big eps... the paper says the first procurved ep is variable in size so I guess that fits (it's not very visible there). More or less the right amount of spikes total - one ep is missing before the squamosal (which looks ok) but the lower part of the frill is reconstructed in way that makes it look like it wasn't preserved maybe? Looks about right in general - I think they reconstructed it based on Albertaceratops, before Ryan et al moved it to Chasmosaurinae (which was wrong in retrospect).
Don't know how to modify, but should be something like this:
Alright, yeah, as you can see, that skeleton is labelled as Albertaceratops on the museum plaque... And I'm not sure, but it may be a composite of several skeletons. As for modifying images, should be possible in Photoshop, and then the new version is just uploaded over the old one. FunkMonk (talk) 22:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Life reconstruction of Almas, Tom Parker, 2017.Life reconstruction of Caihong, Tom Parker, 2018.
I have these two reconstructions of recently described paravians Almas ukhaa and Caihong juji ready to go. The Almas article looks like it could do with a bit of expansion in general. Tomopteryx (talk) 01:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work! However, your interpretation of the lacrimal horn of Caihong differs from that of the authors. You seem to assume that the position of the left nasal as preserved in the fossil is authentic, so that it forms a triangular structure with the dorsal lacrimal process. The article assumes that the left nasal has been displaced and that the dorsal process forms a separate strap-like vertical horn, at its base curving away from the skull roof. BTW, are the images in the article free? Or am I misinterpreting the licences?--MWAK (talk) 10:06, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think they're free. Also, there has been doubts of whether there was a "crest" or not. Just looks like an exploded skull to me, with displaced bones that make it look like a crest. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep creating more room for them ;o). The triangular crest is probably an illusion but the lacrimal has a bent part jutting out.--MWAK (talk) 13:09, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The images in the article are free, I'll add some of them to the wikipedia page. The illustration looks nice, although I haven't chosen a side on the whole lacrimal horn interpretation situation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 03:57, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did interpret the lacrimal horn the same way as the authors, I just corrected for crushing in a different way. After seeing the internet discussions I'm getting pretty sceptical that it is a horn at all, much like others here. Tomopteryx (talk) 00:06, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Found these 3D models on Commons. There are more images here. I intentionally left out the inaccurate Carnufex and Spinosaurus. This video by the author may also have more stuff that we want. (Sorry these aren't all dinos... ) --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:29, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them seem oddly proportioned in places, with weird eye placements as well. He also has a Deinocheirus image[19], but it incorrectly has a hallux. FunkMonk (talk) 13:39, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The dinosaurs and Quetzalcoatlus look inaccurate. Like some older models we have, they are lanky and not organically shaped, and the Quetz has laterally facing hands when walking. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:07, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Used in the taxobox image for Tyrannosauridae but has a pronated hand.
Used for the taxobox image for Tarbosaurus but has a tail that is almost dragging
Used later on for Tarbosaurus but has pronated hands.
These images are currently in use for Tarbosaurus, but they all seem to have problems. I could edit the first one to be better, though. Here are some other options:
Would be excellent if the picture was taken at a different angle.
This one might work
Some bad photoediting around the legs, but it may work
Hehe, I've seen Wikipedia diagrams and restorations popping out in several museums... As for which image that is best, there was a long discussion here:[20] Short answer, all our pohotos have problems, but the one currently in the taxobox seems to be the best one. There is nothing that would preclude the tails of a theropod touching the ground (some trackways show that the tip sometimes touch the ground). As long as it isn't shown in a tripod stance, with the tail used for weight-bearing... FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, but what should we do about this image? We need a new Tarbosaurus for it. Should we try to cut a new one out or fix the one that is already in the image? And we need to either get our other cleaned Daspletosaurus or change the label on the current one and get another Tyrannosaurus, too. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 16:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that isn't D. torosus. So yeah, either someone can edit the image, or replace it entirely. I'll ping Mariomassone, who compiled it. I don't think the hands are very conspicuous on the Tarbosaurus there, though. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it looks kind of weird when there are empty spots. And yeah, if you want to make a new compilation image that is perfectly fine. FunkMonk (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know this is entirely my subjective opinion, and doesn't have much bearing on anything, but I've always found that compilation of tyrannosaur skeletons incredibly off-putting visually - any of our images that are just skeletons on a white background have always looked horrendous to me, though I'm not quite sure why. If we need to re-do it, I think something more like the standard compilation images (like on Dinosauria or Ornithischia would be better. Or, as all tyrannosaurs are pretty similar, we could abandon using a compilation at all, and just put an individual mount image in its place. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of taste, yeah. I think a problem is that it is hard to appreciate their size and comprehend the angle they are seen from without any spatial context. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the image contributed by AntoninJury and blanked out the background, since this dinosaur did not live in a desert environment. This art is quite beautiful and it would be a shame to not use it in the article. I tried to keep it clean and match the Wikipedia aesthetic. What do you think? Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks cool, I wonder if the neck is somewhat too long, the drawing doesn't seem to account for foreshortening (the base of the neck would be hidden by the body in that view, it seems)... FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have any of you noticed the little ornithopods dozing between the plates? I'm all for All Yesterdays-style paleoart, but it seems extremely speculative nonetheless. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, even then, I can't think of any large animals that sleep on other large animals today... So though it's a nice image, I'm not sure if it is even within the plausible when it comes to speculation. FunkMonk (talk) 10:53, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the Othnielia on its back is too speculative, I can certainly try my hand at removing them, but only as a last resort as that would take a bit of time to do. Are we in agreement that it's too far-fetched? Paleocolour (talk) 20:42, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Made an Afrovenator recon to go with my size chart, based on the Jaime Headden skeletal. Any changes needed?▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 04:54, April 14 2018 (UTC)
Some of those images have "inaccurate paleoart" tags on Commons. The images by AntoninJury (second row) look nice, but have some issues. The Suchomimus lacks teeth in the front of its jaws, Hesperosaurus supposedly didn't live in a desert environment, and the Protoceratops needs longer neural spines on the tail. Will take some work for those images to be useful. The Aardonyx image should be fine, as it was uploaded by one of the describers of that genus. And I added an unreviewed image of Nemegtosaurus, by the way, it was removed due to the osteoderms. FunkMonk (talk) 17:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By your request, I repeat what I said in an earlier conversation: of Betasuchus only part of a right femur has been found, so the drawing can in no way be called accurate. It is, therefore, highly speculative and, in my opinion, should not be kept on Wikimedia Commons. JanCK Fietser (talk) 09:30, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See the continued discussion below:[23] Again, taxa just as fragmentary (or more) are often restored in journals, press releases, and books, so there is plenty of precedence. FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This Noasaurus image seems to have been reviewed back in 2006[24] (before I was on Wikipedia), but I noticed some inaccuracies in it just now. Even though the genus is not well known, the image shows features that are inaccurate for theropods in general; the hallux is somehow on the outer side of the foot instead of the inner side, and there is a strange spur on the inner side of the wrist, which is supposedly a vestigial finger, but in that case it should have been on the outer side of the hand (as the first finger is not lost in theropods, except for maybe alvarezsaurs). The eye is also gigantic, and there is no ear-opening. It also seems to be pot-bellied, for some reason. Pinging Debivort who drew it, but I'm not sure if he is active anymore, so maybe someone else wants to fix it? FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They should definitely have the "inaccurate paleoart" tags on them until they cna be fixed. The Lufengosaurus has too many handclaws and some weirdness in its face. Does it have a toe too many? FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this isn't anything new, I've been in a giant titanosaur mood since Patagotitan. I feel the current silhouette for Dreadnoughtus is a bit too generic for such a complete titanosaur. Here is a WIP: [25]
I based the outline with some modification on this reconstruction by 'yty2000' on DeviantArt (he granted permission for me to do this). There is still room for uncertainty with Dreadnoughtus such as the length or the torso, how the shoulder blades fit on the ribs and most obviously the neck length. I have based the neck length on Futalognkosaurus which is comparable to what Greg Paul has restored. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, nice to see this guy reconstructed with a more titanosaur-type back! It seems like Paul restored it with a longer tail, but I don't know if there's any way to determine how long this guy's tail was. --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The tail is known from 32 bones, other titanosaurs are being restored with about ~50-60 in total (I'm not sure if there is a complete titanosaur tail known??) but these bones towards the end of the tail get fairly short; based on that I have lengthened the tail very slightly but it's impossible to say exactly how long it should be. A newer version of this diagram can be seen here: [26]Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heck, my magical list of macronarian caudal counts is needed!? Symbolism is > for "few more than" >> for "many more than".
I was thinking of creating an updated size chart kinda like this one with the Allosaurus/Epanterias/Saurophaganax trio, but there are t-, no thr-, well, a lot of species of Allosaurus. I was wondering which allosaurids you guys would like. For A. fragilis, would the big AMNH specimen or Big Al be better? Should I include Epanterias or just ditch it on account of it being dubious and almost certainly just a huge A. fragilis? How big should Saurophaganax be? What species of Allosaurus should I use? I already have a good A. fragilis silhouette. How different are the others? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We have this one, in the Allosaurus article. I've actually been working on an update to this one, I'm updating the silhouettes and rechecking the scale, some cosmetic changes. etc.Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I am aware of that one, but my main motive in creating this one was to create a size chart for Saurophaganax, and not as much for Allosaurus. I could just do Saurophaganax by itself, but I thought it might be nice to create a size chart for it with some smaller allosaurids to show how big it was. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's MOR 693 (Big Al) which is already in the diagram. I haven't mentioned in the diagram that it might be a separate species though. Is that idea mentioned much in the literature? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paul lists a seperate species of Morrison Allo in both editions of his field guide. I'm not sure if it's the same one, because Allosaurus taxonomy is a mess. I didn't realize that "Big Al" was potentially not a fragilis. Was "Big Al" ever assigned to A. atrox? If he was, then Hartman and Paul are probably referring to the same potential species. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I know, Big Al is a potential specimen of "A. jimmadseni". But before that it was an "atrox morph" specimen, probably called A. sp. because of the atrox holotype being a pretty bad specimen. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:46, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my update to the Allosaurus diagram: [28]. Big Al is scaled to the scale bar in Hartman's skeletal and AMNH 680 is scaled to a femur measurement on Mickey Mortimer's theropod database, I'm going to check the literature on the measurement. The 8.5m average is measured along the vertrbal colum, for what it's worth, it's almost exactly the same as Hartmans restoration of UUVP 6000 in scale. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks nice, have you given any thought about maybe including A. europaeus? It would be nice to give the average size an actual number, feels kinda weird otherwise. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a look into A.europaeus, the issue for me is it's not very well known and I'm not aware of any published size estimates. I scaled the skull illustration in Photoshop and it seems to be fairly average in size, the chart would look cluttered having lots of similar sized Allosaurus without a redesign of the chart. The other issue is that some are skeptical it's valid and might just be A.fragilis. If it is, then effectively the chart would just have two similar sized Allosaurus fragilis next to each other.
When the first version of this image was produced back in the day it was designed to compliment the article text which states the average size is 8.5m, hence why it's there. In doing the update I realised that DINO 2560 (UUVP 6000) which Hartman has illustrated seems to be almost exactly that size. Should I leave it as 'an average' specimen or should I just call it DINO 2560? Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two restorations I made, one is a head profile for the Alectrosaurus article. The other is Alioramus altai with a hypothetical keratin structure on top of its ridges. I know there's no more reasonable room on the Alioramus page for another image, but I thought it'd be good to have a pic of the second species in handy, might be used on another article related to Alioramini. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)20:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not huge on the complex patterning on the upper jaw of the Alectrosaurus; my eyes focus on it making what I'm looking at hard to make out at a glance. Removing the one right in front of the eye would help a lot with clarity. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The head on the Alioramus looks too large for the body, and the tail is too bent and curvy. There may also be proportional issues with the head, I haven't looked at it too much. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}21:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've covered up the artificial-looking patterns on Alectrosaurus. And as for A. altai, I fixed all issues with the head, and straightened the tail using editing software. Took me some time to get the tail not to look distorted but I think it turned out well. What do you think? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)22:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Alioramus seems to have really small thigh muscles, in comparison to Fred's restoration. All good tyrannosaur images I've seen show them with much bigger thigh muscles, but I don't know much about this taxon, so I may be wrong. I'm having trouble figuring out where the eye is on the Alectrosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I enlarged them a decent amount, how's that look? I'm pretty sure these smaller tyrannosaurid taxa were quite slender anyways, but the legs did look a bit like chopsticks before. As for the Alectrosaurus, I'm not quite sure what you mean, it seems perfectly visible even at thumbnail size. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)03:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eh, I think I'll just scrap the Alectrosaurus, looking at it again it's just way too cluttered especially from thumbnail view. Gonna have to make a new one, as well as maybe a skeletal diagram to go with it. Any thoughts on the Alioramus?▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 20:39, April 14 2018 (UTC)
I'm just gonna go ahead and archive this section then, these two illustrations just turned out quite odd, and it's better just to make new ones from scratch.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 20:09, April 15 2018 (UTC)
The pose is weird with the legs placed so far apart and the eye just looks like a tiny white pinprick. Probably the biggest issues with the drawing relate to its textures and coloration. The dewlap looks like yellow slime and the reverse countershading is jarring. Also, shouldn't there be a bunch of smaller crests rather than one weird jagged one? I personally think that we don't really need another Alioramus drawing considering that Fred Wierum has a great depiction. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that pretty much sums it up. This illustration was supposed to be for cladograms concerning A. altai though, not to replace Fred Wierum's A. remotus. Although I have no idea why I made it in such a weird pose if cladogram recons should be ideally facing completely sideways. Eh, we all make mistakes though, especially in paleoart; so there's always room for improvement.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 20:31, April 15 2018 (UTC)
Eoabelisaurus mefi Skeletal Reconstruction.Comparison between Carnotaurus, Dilophosaurus, and Eoabelisaurus forelimbs.
I have created a skeletal diagram of Eoabelisaurus mefi using the information from this paper. From the same paper, I have also recreated the diagrams used to display the gradual changes from a basal theropod (Dilophosaurus) to Carnotaurus, and how Eoabelisaurus is the intermediate step between those two animals. I think it would be worthwhile also fleshing out the article of Eoabelisaurus to include a passage about this, as it is a big defining trait of this dinosaur. Please let me know what you think, and if any changes are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 03:50, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From a copyright standpoint, the further away the pose is from the one in the paper, the better, so that seems to be ok. Accuracy-wise, the paper doesn't seem to show a sclerotic ring preserved, so shouldn't that be grey? Also, it seems it does not have sufficient toe-pads under its feet. The soft-tissue contours on the hand diagram also seem very thin on the Dilophosaurus fingers? FunkMonk (talk) 09:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What's the white stuff around the scapula-coracoid? It's not shown as being preserved on the skeletal diagram in the paper, and I'm pretty sure the gastralia don't go forward that far.
You're missing two cervicals. Though, their positions are not illustrated in the paper anyway.
The parietal looks like it's overlapping the postorbital. This should not be the case, since the frontal and parietal are fused.
I'm not sure the manual digits should be that strongly curved in neutral posture.
Metacarpal I is too large. It is described as being half the length of McII and considerably thinner. So the restoration in the paper's skeletal is not erroneous.
The tip of the pubis should be straighter, it is mentioned as lacking any sort of anteroposterior expansion.
Astragalus and calcaneum are fused to each other and the tibia. They seem separate from the tibia on the right leg.
Should modify hand of Carnotaurus to match the configuration of Ruiz et al. (2011).
Humeral musculature feels way too robust on Dilophosaurus.
I haven't got time to check everything but the one thing that stands out to me is the femur on the near side is probably rotated back too far. From what I understand the femur can't rotate much beyond vertical (perpendicular to the hip bones and vertebra). The tibia and fibula are also too straight; In most dinosaurs the shin bones can't straighten beyond about 120 degrees in relation to the femur.Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:58, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did an illustration of the newly appointed friend Patagotitan, but the article needs an illutration, but I think there is still room for someone else to do something better. At the moment this illustration and the size are temporary, then I will improve it. Any suggestions or corrections? --Levi bernardo (talk) 00:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The neck seems really fat compared to the body? Almost like the animal would tip over? Compare with the reconstructed skeletal mount, the neck looks pretty gracile... FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that it would be best to base the skull off Tapuiasaurus, instead of a nemegtosaur-malawisaur morph. Tapuiasaurus was found sister to Dreadnoughtus in a few analyses, and Dreadnoughtus is just outside Lognkosauria. Malawisaurus at this point is the odd taxon, with "nemegtosaur" skulls being found in basal lithostrotians, outside saltasauridae, and inside saltasauridae (if Nemegtosaurus=Opisthocoelicaudia). IJReiddiscuss00:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it thickens the shape of the neck based on diagrams like those of Scott Hartman. But it seems that the part near the head of the neck if it is very thick. I'll fix the torso, thanks for the observations. Emmm I do not think, Patagotitan is was basal and a Lognkosauria, and Tupuisaurus is far in kinship, also the most possible is that he really had a short skull. But I am not sure, it is possible that if you are right, I would have to investigate more, but for the moment I give a form similar to Malawisaurus, maybe I will combine both forms of the skull and get a hypothetical. Levi bernardo (talk) 01:06, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misunderstood or misread IJReid's comment. The point of this comment is that Tapuiasaurus is a basal titanosaur, as recovered by many recent phylogenies, a better analogue than the more derived Malawisaurus (a lithostrotian).......... see Wilson et al. (2016) on Tapuiasaurus........ Lythronaxargestes (talk) 03:31, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lythronax is correct, but I also forgot about Sarmientosaurus, which is also a basal titanosaur. You can choose which skull you want it to look like, but either Tapuia or Sarmiento would be the closest analogues IMO. IJReiddiscuss15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Count this as just my opinion but looking at the neck vertebra shape, I'm skeptical the neck could raise that vertically so close to the base. For what it's worth I've also begun working on a scale chart. Untill a better skeletal comes along, I was going to use this as reference for the silhouette [30]Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the images we have here on Wikipedia were contributed by Nobu Tamura (aka Spinops). I've taken a recent look at their website found here, and they have created many other images for species we have no images for, such as this Mauriciosaurus restoration they have done seen here. I don't think we would have any issues using these images for Wiki articles, seeing as they are published under Creative Commons Attribution- ShareAlike (CC BY-SA). Are there any objections towards me looking through this gallery for accurate restorations and posting them here for review? Paleocolour (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, they used to have a non-commercial CC licence, which isn't allowed here, but seems it has been changed? Or maybe it is only some images that are completely free? So yeah, they should of course be uploaded, but remember to check if each image is completely free, and not non-commercial... FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Grab them! It does seem the older images still have non commercial (NC) licences, like for example this Ceratosaurus[31]. But note he also uploaded some of those images himself on Commons under different licences, but often in lower res. Also, he was known here as ArthurWeasley in the past, which has confused more than a few Commons admins. FunkMonk (talk) 18:47, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a gallery here and was sure to make sure they were slotted into the correct categories. I am a little iffy on some of the images on the website, such as the ones with extremely bright colours or don't look especially realistic, but the ones in the gallery I thought looked excellent. Perhaps we should work together and add more in over time? Paleocolour (talk) 19:57, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Look good to me, though I know little about most of these animals (and none of them are dinosaurs). That Dory (Paracanthurus)-looking fish you didn't upload could maybe have its colours desaturated, we're allowed to modify the images. FunkMonk (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously considered bringing this up, but I decided against thinking, "nah, they probably know." Everything from [32] on up is under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license. That gives us quite a few dinosaurs, all of which are free until after Teratophoneus. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ouch, so it has been since 2013... So a good backlog there if anyone is bored one evening... Personally I thought all his uploads there were NC, and that he only posed freer versions on Commons:[33]FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through the images (and I can mainly speak of the tetrapods) they look mainly good, though some of the dinosaurs have somewhat wonky limbs. Also, many of the plesiosaurs lack tail-flukes, but I don't think there is any suggestion that they would necessarily all have had them, or even what their shapes would have been. The Isaberrysaura[34] may be iffy, of course, given that it is possibly a stegosaur. I just noticed the Deinocheirus[35] lacks a tail-fan, as has been inferred from a pygostyle-like structure, so I'd be hesitant to upload that. The Morganucodon restoration[36] that was just added to the article may be inaccurate in having pinnae, so we should probably discuss each image before adding them to be safe. FunkMonk (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some more to the gallery that I recently uploaded. Some images on the website don't have associated articles so I'll write them as they come along. I have started the Merriamoceros article and added that picture. Perhaps this will be easier in terms of image review if we assume it's accurate until someone brings up a feature that makes the image inaccurate, as that would save time. "Innocent until proven guilty", if that makes sense. Paleocolour (talk) 05:17, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As some have also noted, it seems that even the pictures that NT did upload to Commons itself are in higher resolution on the blog, so it would be nice if those were all updated with the high res versions as well, though that is of course a huge task. But note that if an image on Commons also exists on his blog in higher res but a non commercial licence, we cannot replace the low res Commons version with the high res version, as was for example attempted with his Ceratoaurus[37]. The two versions do not have the same licence. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded an image of Boreopelta, but it seems to me the upper spikes on the neck are divided by too much space between them and the lower spikes of the neck? They also seem to be pointing too much upwards. FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the image looks good otherwise, but it would be very hard to modify... So maybe it can be a placeholder until something else turns up... FunkMonk (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Afrovenator, Dubreuillosaurus, and Magnosaurus compared to a human
Eustreptospondylus size chart
Lourinhanosaurus size chart (Skull unknown)
Bonitasaura size chart
Diagram with 3 species of Camarasaurus
I decided I'd use my Afrovenator silhouette for a new chart with 3 members of the Afrovenatorinae subfamily. Piveteausaurus is known only from a braincase so I excluded it, Leshansaurus seems to have a reasonably complete skeleton from the fossil description but I couldn't find any references for it so these are the ones that made it through. Any changes needed?▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)17:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And here's one for Megalosaurus while we're at it. -18:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Eustreptospondylus thought he might join in. -20:41, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
No such thing as too many size comparisons. -21:16, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Another one, it's a sauropod this time. -22:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for all the nice-looking diagrams. Just a quick comment: The "average human height" is, according to the Wikipedia article human, closer to 170 cm for males than to 180 cm (although the latter might be true for western societies). Average female height is closer to 160 cm. I think this is a problem to think about, as neutrality is an extremely important principle in Wikipedia: The English Wikipedia is supposed to be a worldwide one, and not only an American edition. I acknowledge that 180 cm appears to be most frequently used in such size comparisons outside of Wikipedia in western sources. But at the very least, I would remove the text "average human height", which seems simply wrong. I would also think about removing the "1.8 m" text, which should be obvious enough and which are way to small to read at thumb size anyway, and because I see no reason for having this text but no text stating the length of the dinosaur itself (which is, of course, much more important here). Even indicating that the black silhouette is a human should go without saying. --Jens Lallensack (talk)
Is there any kind of standard we should be following regarding size diagrams? I used to use a much more detailed diagram style such as this, but noticed that there seemed to already be a commonly used format (with blue human, green dinosaur, and simple 1m scale squares). If so many of these diagrams are being made, perhaps this is the time to decide upon the clearest and most visually pleasing design and to stick to it. I do quite like the simplicity of the green and blue diagrams against a white background, personally. Paleocolour (talk) 08:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bonitasaura is too long. Length is measured along the vertebral column, so the elevation of the neck gives the dino more than an extra meter.
Since the head of Lourinhanosaurus is so big, the tail seems strangely small. Should it be like that?
C. grandis' skull is a bit too short.
The downcurve in the tail also gives Megalosaurus a bit of extra length.
The tail for C. lentus shouldn't have that large bump after the pelvis, it should begin to curve downwards.
I know you based the Bonitasaura on the skeletal diagram from its redescription, but I am questioning how accurate that diagram is, because of the massive odd hump on the back.
Eustreptospondylus just looks wrong, I can't place why
Lourinhasasurus has a tail that's too short, so if you're scaling based on total length it should be smaller as well. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}13:58, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Working on all those right now, just dropped in to see if anyone sees any issues with the Afrovenatorinae chart? Also, that Eustreptospondylus was nagging at me for quite a while, glad someone else realized it. I think the problem is mainly with the skull, neck and spine regions.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)16:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All size charts now have a simpler style overall and I added some scale bars as well.
Fixed the skulls on all Camarasaurus species and the dip behind C. lentus's pelvis.
Lourinhanosaurus has a better tail now.
Fixed the length of Megalosaurus
I realized Afrovenator was 7 meters long instead of 8 meters so I fixed that as well.
Bonitasaura had a number of issues messing with its length, such as the position of the neck, tail was way too short, coracoid was obscured, etc. All fixed.
Just a minor aesthetic comment, personally I'd Standardize the muscle/skin outline on the Camarasaurus species chart. Two have a Hartman-like muscle outline and C. supremus has the more shrink wrapped Paulian outline. The biggest difference being the depth of muscles/ligaments at the base of the neck. It might mislead the viewer into thinking it represents actual morphological differences. It might be worth checking the length of the tails which look quite short to my eyes.
Regarding Diagrams generally; I personally don't think we have to standardize diagram colours, we should just aim to make them as readable as possible. Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:24, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed the neck, as for the tails I re-checked all the skeletal references and the lengths should be correct. As for your other comment, I think as long as size charts don't have neon bright colors that clash into each other or make your eyes bleed we should be fine. it's nice to have some variety across Wikipedia anyways so I personally always like to opt for different colors and palettes. - 22:10, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
If nobody objects, the Megalosaurus and Lourinhanosaurus scale charts have been added to their articles. - 02:57, April 13 2018 (UTC) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)
While those good article charts are getting done, is there anything I should fix with these? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 17:50, April 15 2018 (UTC)
I think the comments on the Camarasaurus and Eustreptospondylus should be dealth with. The others look good though. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}17:01, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Megalosaurus is not the largest specimen. You may want to look at the largest specimen, BMNH R1101, which has an ilium length of 832 mm (as per Benson 2010) and would have been over 8.9 metres long based on the holotype (and Scott Hartman's skeletal). DaCaTaraptor (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I already adjusted the Camarasaurus chart for those issues if you look in the previous comments. Still need to fix the Eustreptospondylus though. As for the Megalosaurus, I'll look it up and fix it later.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 19:24, April 15 2018 (UTC)
For Camarasaurus I meant how the base of the necks are different. Very concave in the 2 smaller oned but gently concave in the largest. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}20:25, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good now. Just Eustreptospondylus left. I think if you repose the Headden skeletal it might fix the issues of looking just too odd. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:35, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've also created this diagram which uses selected parts of different holotype specimens of Spinosaurus, Suchomimus, and Ichthyovenator to compare their extended neural spines. There's not much room in the article for this one at the moment, but I'm currently working on expanding the page so this can perhaps be added in the future... Until then, I'd like to know if it's accurate or if any changes are needed. References are linked in the image description on commons.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)18:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The map is nice, although I'm not too familiar with some of the localities seen on it. The neural spine picture is a bit more problematic, it just seems a bit weird seeing this chunk of torso floating in mid air. Plus, we already have the Qilong skeletal for Suchomimus and Spinosaurus, so I don't see why we need another picture which is basically the same except sail-only. I'm not too sure how accurate the Ichthyovenator part of the diagram is. Did you account for post-mortem compression or other taphonomic factors when you made it? The soft-tissue black area seems a bit irregular. I'd love to see a skeletal for the species if you want to use this as an opportunity to go down that path if you please. If you can't access the original paper, novataxa (http://novataxa.blogspot.com/2012/04/2012-ichthyovenator-laosensis.html) has some nice images from it. As you can see, some of the neural spines are definitely bent, so tread carefully when dealing with this specimen. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:17, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, since the neural spines are such a defining feature of spinosaurids, I thought I'd be good to have a diagram comparing them alone for the pertaining section in the description of the article. There's no room for Jaime's Spinosaurus skeletal, a new Ichthyovenator skeletal, and the already present Suchomimus + Baryonyx diagram. So it's just more convenient to have one image to compare their vertebra with, and if the reader wants more specific details they can just visit the pages for the individual genera where those diagrams are present. There are many skeletal comparisons like this one on dinosaur articles, such as ones comparing the skulls, front limbs, teeth, etc. So it's not really that unusual. Also, yeah... I Wasn't too sure about having the outline or just the bones by themselves so I tried with first, just for confirmation on whether that it looks as weird as I thought. And finally, I did notice from the original publication how bent the neural spines on Ichthyovenator were, but it seems to look more of a lateral deformation than anything. If they made a partially reconstructed cast to display at a museum I'd assume (in my opinion) they would've accounted for plastic deformation, as they're not laterally bent there. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)22:39, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the diagram is worth including, but less area should be devoted to text, maybe just shrink the text and remove the line "Using material from". IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Idk enough about the map, but now the text is shrunk could you shrink or cut down the width of the image too? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the map, I checked up on the american referral. The paper mentions an isolated ungual from the quarry, but doesn't assign it to Spinosauridae. So its the PaleoDB nagivator that is the source for that. Idk if it should be included. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:55, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem a bit fishy, (no pun intended) as It's the first I hear of an american spinosaurid, and I can't find any other references for it so it might've been put there by accident. So it's probably best to remove it if no other verification can be found.
According to this It's supposed to have been identified by Allain et al in 2012, but the reference shows nothing about this "Indet. spinosaurid".
Actually, I checked Allain et al and it does mention the possibly spinosaurid nature of the phalanx. So it might need to be added again. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you do then it should probably include Ostafrikasaurus as well. I don't know of any other possible spinosaurid remains. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}01:34, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't Sigilmassasaurus be better? As it's more controversial as a spinosaurid than Ostafrikasaurus is, given that the former is known only from what we can only know for certain are vertebrae from some sort of theropod whilst the latter possesses dental morphology quite similar to baryonychinae. At least that's what I've read. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)01:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been any debate on the identity of Sigilmassasaurus after the revision, whereas Ostafrikasaurus was questionably referred. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:57, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Ok. Never said I was an expert so it's good to learn these things. Sigilmassasaurus back to "indeterminate" and Ostafrikasaurus as "Possible Spinosaurid". We can archive this section then? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)06:02, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Two more size charts I made, one of them is a redo of my previousNeuquenraptor diagram which I was not happy with, had weird proportions and wrong eye placement. The other is for Unenlagia, illustrating the upper and lower size estimates. These are probably the last images I'll be putting up for review for a while. Skeletal images/sources for Neuquenraptor and Unenlagia (Head shapes derived from Buitreraptor) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)02:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone got any thoughts on these? They've kinda been sitting here a while, I just updated them to fit the cleaner format of my more recent size comparisons but how are they accuracy-wise? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)05:43, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on dromaeosaurs, but it seems like Unenlagia's tail fan should look more like Neuquenraptor's, as it looks like it just got violently attacked by some sort of bigger theropod. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 13:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Im unsure of the upper and lower estimate relevance. If theres only one specimen you can't have both with the same proportions, and if there's multiple specimens then label them as such. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:32, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since these seem to have been forgotten about I went ahead and fixed the italics, darkened the Carcharo since you had to strain your eyes to see its outline before, and I also (hopefully) fixed the black boxes, I read on a forum post that if you select the text boxes and go to "convert to text" that should remove them, not sure if it works yet since the thumbnails take a while to change, so we'll have to see.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 00:07, April 14 2018 (UTC)
The thumbnails finally showed up for me and darn it, you're right... This problem seems to be really prevalent with wikimedia commons. Happened to me after I made the Arabic version of my Spinosauridae scale chart, is there no way to fix it?▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 20:42, April 14 2018 (UTC)
The way I solved it for Ornithomimus was copy-pasting EVERY SINGLE OBJECT INDIVIDUALLY into a new chart. That's the only way I know, pinging Steveoc 86 considering this problem occurred with his Saurolophus. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:02, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, What I found was those Black Boxes are empty text boxes which for some reason Wikimedia renders as a black box. It's been a while since last encountered them. I think there is a way of searching the Vector file for them and deleting them. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:58, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great news! The black boxes are fixed. Whilst in Inkscape, go to Edit > XML Editor and look through all the different file IDs until you see something that says "flowRoot" in it, then just select it and delete it. I'm adding the vectorized images to their articles as well.▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)03:18, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recently a Betasuchus restoration was removed and re-added to its page. The justification for removal was that it's too speculative to restore an animal known from such scant remains. The justification for re-adding it was the precedent of other hyper-speculative restorations, e.g. Dromaeosauroides. I think it would be worth having a discussion about this. On the one hand, I can see the benefit for an illustration. We know what general type of dinosaur we're dealing with, and a picture can easily convey this to the lay reader. On the other hand, it risks being misinformation - implying that we know far more about the animal than we actually do. My current thinking on this is that it should be ok to depict say, a Betasuchus if it's in an ecological context (attacking a better-known contemporary or lurking in the background of a well-researched illustration of its paleoenvironment). But a singled-out profile picture can seem a bit much, because that's not a drawing of Betasuchus - it's a drawing of a generic abelisaur that has just had a Betasuchus label slapped on it. I propose doing what the old Dinosauricon did - have a set of silhouettes handy for each major dinosaur subgroup. A silhouette conveys the general morphotype, which is the purpose of having an illustration in these cases, but also conveys the highly speculative nature via its lack of detail. Looked at another way: What can we learn by looking at the Betasuchus illustration? We learn it was an abelisaur, and may be mislead into thinking that's what it actually looked like. What can we learn by adding a generic abelisaur silhouette to the page? That it's an abelisaur, and may have generally had this shape, but we don't have a clue what it was like beyond that. Which of these is more honest and a better representation of the evidence? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally okay with speculative restorations as long as they're faithful to the literature. I don't think silhouettes offer a viable alternative since future discoveries might contradict the silhouette's anatomy just as surely as a more fully fleshed out restoration. I think image captions like "Speculative restoration of Betasuchus as a generalized abelisaurid" communicate the speculative nature of the restoration without losing any aesthetic or educational value. Abyssal (talk) 18:36, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for the Dromaeosauroides reconstruction, I corresponded with the original describers when I made it, so it at least has some scientific approval. There is also a life-size sculpture[38] of the animal in the museum that holds the teeth, so there is at least precedence in reconstructing it, though the sculpture hasn't dated well. Furthermore, there isn't any publishd doubt that the teeth belong to a dromaeosaur. I don't think any of these things apply to the Betasuchus restoration, though I think it is just as fine to use as a silhouette, as long as it doesn't show any speculative features. FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am in agreement with those above. I'd like to point out that most of our dinosaurs (Gojirasaurus for example) are known from very few remains, and even some known from decent remains (eg. pre-2014 Deinocheirus) changed group every dozen years. Even taxa like Tyrannosaurus, known from multiple nearly complete skeletons, would be difficult to illustrate with a life restoration because of the debate over its integument. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While reconstrutions of fragmentary taxa are not something I would recommend, I see no issue with keeping speculative images on pages as long as they are accurate and not in conflict with pubished phylogenetic positions. If a fragmentary taxon's appearance or lifestyle can be reasonably estimated as a result of having a secure phylogenetic position, it's unlikely that a reconstruction would be too innacurate. With that being said, whoever's in charge here may want to put a disclaimer on the header communicating the potential issues which may occur with these kinds of reconstructions in which that is not the case. Is Xuanhanosaurus a megalosauroid or a carnosaur? Is Pisanosaurus a silesaurid or an ornithischian? The answers are unclear and in constant flux, and reconstructing either of these taxa (or countless others) would be a bad idea due to how uncertain their accuracy would be. Nevertheless, there's no real problem with keeping reconstructions we already have as long as their speculative nature is clear. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should generally avoid doing reconstructions of anything known from just teeth (or almost no material) that keeps jumping around the cladogram or some of the really poorly founded nomen dubia (like Deinodon, Trachodon, or stinking Paleoscincus). --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tooth taxa very rarely jump wildly around in a cladogram, as they are mostly diagnosable to at least family level (whatever that is), and are rarely even featured in such analyses. Apart from those few groups which have convergently evolved similar teeth (troodonts/pachycephalosaurs and tyrannosaurs with some crocodilians), but confusing those seems to be less of an issue today. It is of course different with animals only known from limb bones, vertebrae or such. Also note that a restoration[39] of the tooth taxon Nuthetes by Mark Witton was just published in a journal article, so it isn't unheard of even there. But yeah, I would question whether nomina dubia warrant modern restorations, but that's a whole nother issue.FunkMonk (talk) 12:37, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a taxon is stable phylogenetically then we can probably restore it regardless of completeness of remains. Its on't those that are very unstable and also incomplete that should be cautious with. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}00:00, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah sure I think its an acceptable idea, I'd like to modify it a little bit but overall its good. Are you going to create the template on commons or should I? IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all the above discussed, many points are correct and certain, all is true, the taxa that are not well defined in the classifications are those that we should be more careful, or those that have now been published new studies its classification and new specimens (example: Labocania). And even then there are many uncertainties and the community could qualify the Wikipedia to be too speculative. The best thing is never to contradict the scientific consensus, the aforementioned and cited in the article and be nuetrales in the illustration. The template is interesting, what Funk Monk says is true, maybe with those changes could be used. Levi bernardo (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I'd maybe say "highly" or "very" instead of "extremely" speculative, seems too hyperbolic. Also, it looks like you don't have that huge space under the tag as in the inaccurate palaeoart template[40], do you think you could remove the space from that too? FunkMonk (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can smooth it out a bit. I'm concerned the image is too extravagant, maybe just use a yield traffic sign instead? I think those are near universal... IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}22:40, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Changed the color, how's this one? Also, may I ask what exactly counts as 'extravagant'? It's just I noticed that word seems to come up a lot here, and I'm still not quite sure where the boundary on that is supposed to be? Just as an example that classical Charles R. Knight restoration on the Inaccurate paleoart template seems pretty 'extravagant' as well (in my opinion). ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)23:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I've used that word, but I assume it means something is too flashy. As for the Knight image, it is one of the most widely known inaccurate palaeoart images ever (submerged brontosaur with boxy skull), so I think it is pretty fitting. FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do know what the word means, and I certainly don't think the knight image should be removed. I just meant to ask where the line should be for that type of thing? If a gradient on a stop sign or two dinosaur silhouettes count, what doesn't? But then again perhaps that should just be a consensus thing, if in a discussion most people agree it should go then it probably should. Such as the victorian lady in my older size chart format, which was a bit much for wikipedia, for example. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)23:32, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Flashiness/extravagance is of course subjective, but what should be most important here is whether a diagram reads well or not, even at thumb size, and that is a more objective matter. That is what these graphics are for, after all. So if a diagram is harder to read because of an artistic choice, that choice defeats the purpose of the diagram. This would apply to the Victorian lady, who is not recognisable as a person at thumb-size, but I don't think it applies to the template image. FunkMonk (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On a different note, we need to make clear that this warning sign does not mean a tagged image shouldn't be used. Now it seems like a warning not to use them... FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was misunderstood. I was talking specifically about the colourful purple-orange-bordered-pentagon being too extravagant. I think a stop sign is better than that, but a yield sing might be even better because of the implications (yield vs stop). Additionally, the shaded radial gradient background is overdoing it in my opinion as well. The Oxalaia and Sauroposeidon can stay as they are though. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all, Ceratosaurus is currently featured article candidate (see here, and the first thing that was criticized was the scale diagram. The current one "Morrison theropods" has the following shortcomings:
For use in the Ceratosaurus article, it should include Ceratosaurus only, and at a much larger scale that is recognizable in thumb view, as done in other scale diagrams (maybe with both silhouettes overlapping).
The source for the length estimates is not given in the image description. We should always do that, otherwise we get problems later (like in this case: If no source can be found, it needs to go, as requested at FAC).
I didn't find a single reliable length estimate for MWC 1, it should therefore not be included until one is found.
UMNH 5278 is too small compared to all length estimates for this specimen I was able to include in the article. It shows the specimen at 6 m, it should be 7 m.
The most important and most complete skeleton, the holotype of C. nasicornis, is not included.
The second diagram shows Ceratosaurus (no specimen indicated) at 8 m, again without source, and no idea on what this is based on. Greg Paul gives 7 m for the largest specimen.
So it looks like we might need a new updated scale diagram here? Since some of you did a great job in this regard recently, does anybody like to help out (otherwise I try myself when time allows)? Optimal would be a diagram showing two individuals, the smaller holotype (USNM 4735) and the largest described specimen (UMNH VP 5278). We could stick with Paul (2016) for length estimates, who gives 5.69 m for the holotype and 7 m for UMNH VP 5278. Any further suggestions? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be delighted to create a new diagram for this, one of the sections on this review page actually happens pertain to size comparisons for good articles, perhaps this could be moved there? Anyways, I'll get started on the new chart later today if I can, especially since the page just recently achieved good article status, it's best to have it ready quite soon. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)08:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, at this point I think the GA image request section needs to soon be archived rather than being expanded, and this request is for a FAC anyhow... FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that was quick, looks really good! Only a couple of minor points:
The osteoderms look sometimes to pointy, especially in the tail. Basically all we know about this row is presented in Gilmores old reconstruction, see here, and that is not much. But it might be better to be a bit more prudent here.
You label both specimens as C. nasicornis, but some do still refer the larger specimen to C. dentisulcatus, and we should not prefer one hypothesis over the other here. Maybe just remove the "nasicornis"?
Thanks, I put it together as soon as I could since the page is an FAC now.
The osteoderms were a bit of a pain to fix, but I did it.
I decided to label it as "dentisculatus" in quotation marks such as how Scott Hartman did in his skeletal, will that work? I never really paid much attention to Ceratosaurus in particular, but I'm very curious to learn more now that I'm working on this size chart, it seems like a fascinating theropod.
Thanks, looks better! Hm, labeling it Ceratosaurus "dentisulcatus" (you introduced a typo in that name btw) is not really better, as it implies that you consider it an invalid name. And if you do it this way, it would make more sense to add "type specimen", just as Scott Hartman did. But that appears to be too much text anyway. Maybe reduce it to specimen numbers only? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a diagram with the known fossil elements of Ichthyovenator, it should probably replace the 2nd image of the type vertebrae under Discovery and naming, since we already have a photo for that in the taxobox. Silhouette is a modified version of Scott Hartman's Baryonyx, the additional dewlap is intended to help obscure its mysterious cranial anatomy. Any changes needed? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)04:45, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks nice, although you included many bones which were not mentioned in the original paper, Allain (2012). These bones include all of the cervical vertebrae, all but one of the dorsal ribs, all but the first two caudal vertebrae, and the dorsal centrum in front of the 12th dorsal vertebra (the really tall one in front of the hip). Some, but not all, of these bones are undescribed material which supposedly will be described in a paper by Allain. Allain submitted an SVP abstract in 2014 where he mentioned new material for the genus, namely teeth, vertebrae, and a pubis. So while at least some of the additional bones do exist (apart from maybe some of the ribs), I'm not entirely sure whether they should be included within the skeletal. Maybe you could make them a different color to clarify the fact that they are undescribed? In addition, the abstract found that Ichthyovenator was closer to Spinosaurus than to Baryonyx, which may mean that it had different proportions. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What are the shapes of the unpublished bones based on? If related genera, they should be removed until the actual bones are published, otherwise it's just misleading. We have no idea whether they will look identical to any related species. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, only bones described in Allain (2012) should be included. Maybe the caption can note that undescribed bones were not included in the diagram. The neural spine image submitted for review a few days ago should also be edited, as it has the same issue. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:25, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the 2012 elements, as for what they were based on it was mixture between related genera as well as the additional material seen in the museum fossil cast, I'll be updating the neural spine chart as well. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)20:52, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job, and by 2012 elements, you mean those discovered in 2012, not described in 2012, right? The only bone left to remove is the dorsal centrum right in front of the 12th dorsal vertebra, as I do not believe that was in the original description. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Skeletal diagram of known remains of Siats meekerorum
I have created a skeletal diagram and size chart of Siats meekerorum. The silhouette from both of these were adapted from this Neovenator diagram. I opted to include the estimated adult size for the size chart because it is the size that is mentioned in the article. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 02:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good so far. One thing I would change is the skull size in my old diagram is too small, which I'm going to change very soon. I can post an update of the completed chart very soon. Also, by using the vertebral measurements of Siats plus the length of the ilia blade and the limited limb material, you get a size of around 10.4 metres by using Neovenator. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I uploaded a new version of the scale chart, you can use that as base. In terms of the projected adult size, I think that it should be left out, but still mentioned in the article. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 08:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the attribution on the scale diagram should be changed, because the silhouette is his. But thats it. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}03:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need to be careful to not equate limited vertical flexibilty with 'horrizontal' or straight. Even with limited vertical flexibilty Barosaurus has somthing like 16 vertebra, let's arbitrarily say we limit each vertebra to 3 degrees extention, 3 x 16 = 48 degrees. That's by no means 'giraffe', it would be more a 'U' shape, but it does make a difference. Paul has restored Barosaurus in a similar pose [41] notice how little each vertebra is extending. Hartman's skeletal of AMNH 6341 is restored in what he believes is the neutral posture and it is already more elevated then what is illustrated here. [42]Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, perhaps my suggestion will be worthwhile. I'd suggest that the downward curve of the neck be removed, and instead the neck curves slightly more upwards. I'd think that a more upright neck is currently the consensus among sauropods, and that wouldn't require much additional vertical motion. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}04:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just one quick thought on the design. The graphical effects you use look nice, but they also distract, especially when looking at the small previews as they appear in the articles. The key for modern design lies in simplicity. I would think about removing the reflection, any text except for the scale bar (we have the image description for this), and keep the background white. It does not necessarily need to have a legend stating which of the silhouettes is the dinosaur, as everybody should be able to distinguish the dinosaur from the human at first sight. Text inside the silhouettes (as in the Nigersaurus) looks especially distracting to me. Oftentimes, less is more. For these reasons, I like your previous Scolosaurus diagram, which is also much more in line with many we already have (consistency is something we always should try to get closer to whenever possible). This is only my personal subjective take on this, of course, but I thought you certainly want to hear peoples opinions on style. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I especially agree on the text; it is not visible at thumb size, and it is already made redundant by the image caption. Also, it breaks up the visibility/recognisability of the animals when they have text within their silhouettes. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking this for awhile, but figured it fell under being subjective so I didn't say anything. Lusotitan 20:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I used Hanson's skeletal to update the Nigersaurus, but it came out at ~14 meters, while the article says it was only 9. Should I shrink it before uploading? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:25, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe. That good. A quick solution would have been to use as a silhouette the Niger diagram that is already in Commons, [43] but the new version of this is good. Levi bernardo (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I've updated the skeletal diagram and size chart of Noasaurus. The original skeletal diagram had some very strange proportions in the silhouette, such as the head and legs. I have updated it using the Masiakasaurus skeletal diagram silhouette with a small amount of soft tissue added. The size of the bones have not been changed in any way. I have also created a new size diagram for Noasaurus as the original one used a silhouette of an older restoration that has been marked as inaccurate. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think that this improvement is awesome, as I had always been confused by the old skeletal's silhouette, as Headden's Masiakasaurus, Hartman's Masaikasaurus, and even FunkMonk's Velocisaurus didn't resemble it closely at all. Since Noasaurus is known from that poor of remains, I think that Masiakasaurus is definitely the best dino to base it on, unless I'm missing info on a better nasaurid model. I think that some other people will also want to see this, as it was not that long ago that we declared the illustration inaccurate. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 10:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, it is one of those older uploads with a non-commercial licence (Creative Commons 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0), so it cant be used... FunkMonk (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, you're quite right- totally slipped my mind. I didn't notice the change in license after a certain date. I've flagged it for speedy deletion. Luckily, I see Teratophoneus on Deviant Art has created a Noasaurus reconstruction that may be an interesting candidate for colouring. I will ask him for his permission. Do you see any inherent problems with it? Paleocolour (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the tail base is a little too lacking in musculature, and the hypothetical osteoderms and feathers go overboard IMO. Also the eye looks slightly too large. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any reason to believe it would have had a vestigial fourth finger? As for the osteoderm (or scutes)/feather combination, I think Kulindadromeus shows that anything goes, theoretically... FunkMonk (talk) 15:09, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Paleocolour recently uploaded and added this diagram to the Leshansaurus page without posting here, and I have a few criticisms I think should be double-checked. While Leshansaurus is said to be 6-7m in the article, the size diagram is more than 7m long, as the vertebral column is not straight, and when straightened the total length if more like 7.5m. I'm also unsure if Leshansaurus is restored as a more megalosaur or allosaur, because the size estimates are also correlated to what clade it is referred to. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the diagram to be scaled to the hip height of 1.5m as opposed to the length, which brought it down to just over 6m in length. The silhouette was made from a modified version of the Afrovenator skeletal diagram here, as it's (assumedly) closely related. PaleoGeekSquared also said he wanted to create a restoration based on this silhouette, so it would be good to get a confirmation that this is acceptable before he puts pencil to paper. Paleocolour (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Old skeletal diagram of Veterupristisaurus milneri
New skeletal diagram of Veterupristisaurus milneri
Size diagram of Veterupristisaurus milneri
Life restoration of Veterupristisaurus milneri
I have put together an updated skeletal diagram and size diagram of Veterupristisaurus milneri. The silhouette was based on an Acrocanthosaurus, and size was based on the lower estimate of 8.5m. Any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 23:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think its alright. But I think the form of attribution isn't good enough. You also need to try and work on the sections above (Titanoceratops and Siats) so we can archive the sections. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}23:37, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the attribution, how's that? I have also been working on the updates to the sections you mentioned. Sometimes inspiration strikes and I go ahead and work on something even when it's not desperately needed! Paleocolour (talk) 00:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be grass in the background, and theres a white rim around the feet or regions in contact with the ground. Also, the tail isn't tall enough if you follow the skeletal diagram. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}03:11, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've fixed the sail and removed the grass as best I could. I don't quite understand what you mean about the white rim around the foot, but I've softened the transition from foot to moss so hopefully that fixes it. Let me know if any more changes are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 07:53, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks good but I'm not an expert on the Tendaguru flora. It was marshy IIRC so moss would probably be good. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}13:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly it's difficult to find photos to use for backgrounds that would perfectly capture a prehistoric landscape, but with the removal of the grass this image now indeed contains conifers, moss, and ferns, wouldn't you say? Is this acceptable? If needed, I could just remove any background and leave it as white like my other restorations, but I think having the animal in its environment goes a long way towards illustrating it as a living creature. Paleocolour (talk) 22:24, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have to agree with Paleocolour here, I think going that far and specific as to establishing a landscape for a restoration shouldn't be a requirement, even though it's nice if someone goes for that bit of extra effort. As long as there aren't any blatant inaccuracies like grass or flowering plants in time periods where they shouldn't be I personally think it should be fine. The background is a bit blurry anyways, so most of the focus is on the dinosaur itself. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)22:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think MWAK's comment was meant more as a sort of check-list or guideline for the artist to compare the image against, rather than a critique. If stuff in the image can pass as the plants listed, it should be fine. FunkMonk (talk) 23:03, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Gallimimus is currently a GAN, I thought I'd help out by making a new size comparison in svg format instead of the png one we currently have. Based on Scott Hartman's skeletal of course, any changes needed? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)21:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The bill looks kind of strange. There's a nice close up of its skull in the article, perhaps you could use that to fix it? It should not slope so much, and I think that the indentation between the eye and the bill is way to deep. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 23:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, I also think the old image showed it slightly too large. SInce it will be sent to FAC later, could you add a source for the size to the image description? As for discrepancies in beak shape in the sources, Gregory Paul seemed to have a different interpretation of than the original describers, but he didn't really go into detail about it. FunkMonk (talk) 13:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a bit thin, especially with that weird notch at the base of the neck. Keep in mind the fact that Scott Hartman usually only adds the bare minimum soft tissue to his skeletals. Compare his Anchiornis to some life restorations of that genus if you want further confirmation. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would rather depend on how thick the plumage is. If you see a photo of any bird without feathers, they look extremely skinny.[45] It is mainly the feathers that create the body contours. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the plumage would be as thick as in modern bird down, which means that the silhouette would look less shrink-wrapped than it currently does. At the very least that notch on the front would be filled in by feathering. It would make sense for it to look skinny if the silhouette was unfeathered, but that is not the case here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By notch, do you mean where the neck meets the chest? Modern ostriches have the same "notch".[46] Looks like you can even see the trachea bulge under the skin, we shouldn't go too far with "anti-shrink wrapping" either (it has become too much of a catch all phrase now), soft tissue can be very bone and organ hugging in modern animals. FunkMonk (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
One thing I've wondered about, and this also goes for Steveoc 86's life restoration, is whether there should maybe be some sort of downy tail fan? This has after all been proposed for Deinocheirus, though that is of course due to the presence of a pygostyle-like structure at the end of the tail. I could expect maybe slightly longer feathers towards the tip of the tail in other tax, but who knows... FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can add those if needed. It might take a while due to time constraints. Is there any evidence of pygostyle like structures in other ornithomimosaurs? Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:32, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there is such evidence in other taxa, but on the other hand, there is no evidence of quill knobs in other ornithomimids than Ornithomimus, yet it has been taken as evidence that all members of the group had wings... So it should at least be a possibility. FunkMonk (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the new chart once the copy-edit is done. As for the anti-shrink-wrapping deal, I agree we have to remember that it can go both ways, since the point is to recreate a realistic animal. If the skull openings protrude or the ribs are showing through, that's unacceptable, of course. But the animal doesn't necessarily have to be reconstructed like a hippopotamus either, with loads and loads of skin flaps, muscles, and fat obscuring the bones and joints. Very recently I had all my dinosaur restorations and size charts (those not on wikimedia) without their coracoids/shoulders showing even a little bit, until Slate Weasel pointed it out in my revised Spinosauridae scale comparison. The best thing we can do is keep it balanced, or use existing yet closely related animals as reference points, (such as FunkMonk did with the Ostrich) ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)20:43, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So I opened up the PSD file and remembered that I had an update in progress, which can be seen here: [47] This update was to reduce the feathering around the thigh area as seen an Ornithomimus specimen [48]. I'll also add a smaill-ish downy tail fan as per Funk's suggestion. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An Altispinax dunkeri restoration, based on Darren Naish's blog post, where he discusses the possibility that the discovery of Concavenator's hump-like structure may mean that the short Altispinax neural spine is complete or near-complete. As such I based my restoration on Concavenator, as it does seem more plausible now than the old-style Acrocanthosaurus-like reconstructions. Can it be put on the article? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)13:55, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this would be a fine time to repost my old paiting I did of a "concavenatorine" Ichthyovenator now modified to be "Becklespinax" (= Altispinax). The tail in PaleoGeek's looks to be angled downwards too sharply and I'm not sure if the straight line of the underside of the neck and stomach is good, maybe pectoral muscles are needed. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}15:39, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overall I like PaleoGeekSquared's reconstruction better, but I do agree that the tail needs to be straight. We basically have a 50/50 chance with whether it was a full sail like in Acrocanthosaurus or a little triangular one as in Concavenator. We may as well use the latter as a template, so no problem there. However, it's now pretty doubtful that the bumps on Concavenator's arms are quill knobs. Therefore, reconstructing little patches of quills on the arm is not necessarily accurate. I also meant to bring up this point in the Veterupristisaurus image, but time got away from me. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Working on fixing the chest and tail, I hope it doesn't look too distorted when I'm finished. On another note: can I see another source on the quill knobs? Darren Naish did mention it in his post, and mentioned things such as irregular spacing of the bumps, the fact that they don't extend as far down the ulna as they probably should, etc. But it still seems way too coincidental that these structures are there and that they're that homologous to quill knobs. Is there another post/paper/publication on why they likely aren't? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)16:17, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Phylogenetic bracketing from being between Coelurosauria and Ornithischia could certainly leave the possibility that they it had some fuzz there anyways, though there is a juvenile Allosaurus with scales from the arms known. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:26, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that it would be inaccurate to place fuzz or feathers on Altispinax. I'm just saying that specifically placing long, quill-like protofeathers on the forearm (and only the forearm) in carcharodontosaurs is based on the ulnar bumps of Concavenator. Speaking of those bumps, there is a pretty comprehensive overview on that genus's page, with reasonable evidence from multiple sources (Andrea Cau, Mickey Mortimer, and Christian Foth) against their identification as quill knobs. The biggest piece of evidence in my opinion is that the bumps are actually on the front edge of the ulna rather than the rear edge. If you want to put fuzz on the reconstruction, then go ahead, but I would advise against placing long quills or feathers on the arm as people usually reconstruct in Concavenator. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:47, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the quills and adjusted the shoulder/neck region. The tail was supposed to look as if it was curving towards the viewer laterally but now that I realize it, it does look more as if it's angled downward. Unfortunately I can't seem to be able to fix it, it's far too curved for the body shape tool on my editing software and I'm not as good as I'd like to be at manipulating images, perhaps someone else could give it a shot? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs)18:05, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would help with the tail, but I am also pretty bad at editing and I'm afraid it would look pretty awful if I do anything to it. You may have to redraw the tail completely. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The leg looks rather shapeless, compared to say a modern bird. Not much of a drumstick there. The arm also looks undermuscled. FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it needs to be expanded even more so, until the front edge of the thigh is angled forwards slightly. This also brings up that the hump on the back had to extend farther forward, as all 3 vertebrae are in front of the pelvis (probably one vertebra overlap between the thigh muscle and the hump). IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}14:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The leg and hump look better now, but I noticed that the forelimb seems to have a sharply defined front edge, it would be smooth into the torso. IJReid{{T - C - D - R}}03:52, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Our current chart for this guy looks pretty weird (I can't think of any ceratopsid whose postcranium looks anything like that), so I decided to upload this one that I made from my previously uploaded silhouette. What do you guys think? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hip region is definitely improved but the nasal horn is vastly over-sized. It was reconstructed too long in the museum mount. Its total length, including the keratin shaft, should be about half a metre. Also, the metatarsus seems impossibly flexed in relation to the shin.--MWAK (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I used three different sources for this: Mike Taylor for BYU 9024, Henrique Paes for AMNH 6341 and Prehistoric Wildlife for ROM 3670 (couldn't find any better source for this one). Yes, the biggest one in this image is almost as big as Ken Carpenter's Amphicoelias "fragillimus". Gamma 124 (talk) 18:08, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is the hypothesis that BYU 9024 is Barosaurus isn't formally published. It's only been mentioned in blog posts and a conference presentation. It's probably best not to present the idea graphically on Wikipedia until formal publication and the idea is more widley talked about. What I usually do in these situations is illustrate a published a size estimate then mention in the image caption of rumoured larger specimens and link to relevant blogs and publications. Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I removed it from the image, but it seems useless now because both specimens left are practically equal in length. I think I'll revert my edit and wait for more data to update the comparison. Gamma 124 (talk) 21:04, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done
Hypsilophodon
Leaellynasaura
Australian "Hypsilophodonts"
In article
New
New
Removed
Original skeletal diagram
Size diagram
Labelled as Aucasaurus but "substituted" with Quilmesaurus
Gorgosaurus
Quetzalcoatlus
Therizinosaurus
Carcharodontosaurus
Acrocanthosaurus
Xiphactinus
Styxosaurus
Western Interior Seaway
Dolichorhynchops
Tylosaurus
Used in the taxobox image for Tyrannosauridae but has a pronated hand.
Used for the taxobox image for Tarbosaurus but has a tail that is almost dragging
Used later on for Tarbosaurus but has pronated hands.
Would be excellent if the picture was taken at a different angle.
This one might work
Some bad photoediting around the legs, but it may work
Pronated hand
Albertosaurus sarcophagus
Gorgosaurus libratus
Daspletosaurus torosus
Tyrannosaurus rex
_reconstruction.jpg)
By User:Eloy Manzanero (FunkMonk has noted that it lacks an ear, but that should be easy to add)
By Johnson Mortimer
By User:Durbed
Also by User:Durbed
By User:TKWTH
(modified)
Galeaspida
Acanthodii
Afrovenator, Dubreuillosaurus, and Magnosaurus compared to a human
Eustreptospondylus size chart
Lourinhanosaurus size chart (Skull unknown)
Bonitasaura size chart
Diagram with 3 species of Camarasaurus
Size comparison of Siats meekerorum to human.
Skeletal diagram of known remains of Siats meekerorum
Nigersaurus, the skeletal already has a man for reference, but I thought that it might be nice to have a fully extanded sauropod on a grid.
Barosaurus - How has no one done this yet?!
Original skeletal diagram
Updated skeletal diagram
Original size chart
Updated size chart
Old skeletal diagram of Veterupristisaurus milneri
New skeletal diagram of Veterupristisaurus milneri
Size diagram of Veterupristisaurus milneri
Life restoration of Veterupristisaurus milneri
PaleoGeek
IJReid
Old version
Updated version
Silhouette
