Talk:Anchiceratops

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

Firsfron - looks like we were editing at more or less the same time. I merged parts of your article into mine. Also, the external links you provided were very general and should probably go on the ceratopsian or even dinosaur articles:

The second one is actually an entry from the Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs and should probably be attributed as such. I had no idea that was online though, thanks! Sheep81 04:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Sheep, I included those links as the first one mentions the parrot-like beak of Ceratopsians, which I mentioned in this article, and the second one dicusses which plants were around at the time, which worked with the "diet" section. However, since the "diet" and "classification" sections are no longer in this article, it doesn't matter.--Firsfron 13:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still mentioned your beak and general ceratopsian stuff in the intro paragraph and diet in the environment paragraph, just didn't give them their own sections. So I tried to incorporate everything you wrote as best I could! Sheep81 16:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm not complaining, Sheep. The article looks really good now. --Firsfron 00:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's like six-million times better than the stub I put together. Nice work, guys. -Colin Kimbrell 16:21, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks man! Long live Wikiproject:Dinosaurs!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sheep81 (talk • contribs).

headings

Popped in some headings so as it looks like the Triceratops and other ceratopsinae pages as it was all in a similar order anyway. Great work guys Cas Liber

Restoration

It was removed, is it incorrect? FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've now modified the skull and limbs, does it look alright? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The front limbs look good to me, by the hind limbs look hyperextended at the knee... MMartyniuk (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see, what would be the maximum extension? FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maximum knee extension in a ceratopsian would probably be the rear (foreground) leg here: [1] MMartyniuk (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch! Seems like I've got some breaking to do... FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've actually just been playing around with this in Photoshop, give me a few minutes I might be able to get a decent fix in :) MMartyniuk (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, while we're at it, should the body be based on NMC 8547, the ilium (including attached muscle sheet) should be made much longer, the tail a lot thinner and the neck a lot longer.--MWAK (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heheh, nice, and I see you did the skin cover trick, Dinoguy! And isn't NMC 8547 a bit iffy, since it has no skull? And isn't it actually NMC 8538?[2] According to that Darren Naish article, AW's image[3] could need a fix too, if it is to be used here in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Naish had me confused too for a while, but NMC 8538 is the type specimen of Macrophalangia canadensis! NMC 8547 in fact does have quite large frill fragments preserved and these show the typical "veined" surface of Anchiceratops. The problem is that Arrhinoceratops shares this trait. On the other hand Anchiceratops is apparently more common; the only Arrhinoceratops specimen that can reliably be referred to the genus seems to be the holotype. So combining NMC 8547 with an Anchiceratops skull, apart from showing the traditional image of the taxon, has the benefit of presenting a quite plausible interpretation. As regards the Tamura image, there should be three epiparietals on each parietal edge, not two. Remarkably even Paul gets this wrong. Furthermore the image lacks the typical "knobs" at the parietal midline.--MWAK (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Naish is repeating the caption from the Greg Paul image... I'll gie the image some changes soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've shaved a lot of the back off now, among other things. Is it better? FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]