Talk:Tianyuraptor

Writing

Can someone with knowledge of the subject and an ability to write to the non-specialist please rewrite the introduction of this piece so an educated lay person can understand what it means? That includes not just getting rid of the pretentious technical vocabulary but also providing the relevant background. I may try this myself but not right away due to time pressure. And I'm sure most of the similar articles need the same treatment, and need it badly. Zaslav (talk) 19:03, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to address some of those concerns, what do you think? Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Transforming technical jargon into "normal" language is very tricky. It isn't enough to reach out to a more common level of knowledge and understanding — you also have to elevate it, so that the reader afterwards is more knowledgeable and understanding. Fail to do this and you will get stuck in misleading and confusing concepts (such as "primitive" ;o).

Also you have to remember technical vocabulary exists for a very good reason. It wasn't invented to be "pretentious" but to be correct and precise. As it happens, that too is the primary task of an encyclopedia: to present the facts in unambiguous terms. He who desires to be misinformed by an incoherent narrative may always consult a popular-science article about the subject. Of course, in an ideal world Wikipedia could offer what journalism consistently fails to provide: a truly informative popularisation of science. But, as the real world is not perfect, an encyclopedia should stick to its proper duties. Would we fare any better than the poor journalists?

One of the imperfections of reality is that there always seems to be a lack of time — you mentioned it yourself. The contributors who create these articles also suffer from it. There are many hundreds of thousands of species still to be treated. That limited time is then best spent in writing more, correct and precise, articles. Obviously a minimum of background knowledge should always be given — but an article about a single species cannot fully expose the whole of methods and data relevant to it — or even begin to approach this. For this the reader has to consult the links.--MWAK (talk) 06:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

MWAK: I'm aware of those aspects. I am only asking for an introduction, not a whole article, that carries understandable information for the non-technical reader. I am not asking for technical vocabulary to be removed from the article. That would not be a good idea.

I do not agree that "limited time is then best spent in writing more, correct and precise, articles." Some of it is best spent in making the field more accessible to more readers. I feel an article given front-page notice should be more accessible than most. But my time is now going to be spent giving it a try! I will try to show one way to educate without misinforming or dumbing down. (P.S. Sorry for "pretentious". I was misspoken.)

I'm sorry, Dinoguy2, I don't see any change in the introduction. Let me give it a try. Both of you: Please be kind and help to improve the writing. Thanks. Remember, according to the New York Times WP is now a major source of information to the general public! Zaslav (talk) 01:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done some revision on the intro. See what you think. Zaslav (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good, though I have two concerns: First, listing the time span of the Early Cretaceous is a bit misleading as it may imply that this species existed over the whole epoch. I've changed this to it's specific point in time. Second, the phrase "considered to be closely related to birds" is somewhat ambiguous and at least needs a cite, as a minority of researchers and under some definitions of the word "bird" would say that it is a bird. I'd also question wy descriptions of dromaeosaurs and their etymology are relevant to this article, when it's explained in depth through the link. Dinoguy2 (talk) 02:25, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and thanks for your thoughtful comments. (1) Cretaceous: Your idea is good. I didn't have the date available to me. (2) I think the connection with birds is very important for this article, as it's one of the main reasons Tianyuraptor is interesting. Maybe you can improve the wording. (3) The etymology of "dromaeosaur" tells the lay reader something about what kind of dinosaur it was, and helps lead into the explanation about the bird relationship. There may be a better way to tell the reader about dromeaosaurs briefly, but I do think it's essential to provide good context for this genus. Anyone who is intrigued by dromaeosaurs will follow the link, but the reader who wants to know about Tianyusaur, especially as a recent discovery, more likely wants (if anything) one or two background sentences. That, at least, is my thinking. Zaslav (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed most readers will not investigate further and therefore need to be provided with a short indication of what kind of animal we are dealing with. However, I fear that the term "running lizard" will conjure up an image that would not at all fit the facts. The relevant facts here being: "warm-blooded", "feathered" and "bipedal". Of course, "closely related to birds" is much better in this respect — though, as Dinoguy2 pointed out, suggesting a possible falsehood. Perhaps the sentence should run: "a group of small warm-blooded, feathered, bipedal dinosaurs involved in the question of the origin of birds".--MWAK (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I think "closely related to birds" is good, enough, personally. Abyssal (talk) 15:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Well whatever they were, it wasn't "running lizards." Is it too late to replace dromaeosaurid with ornithodesmid, the (technically) senior synonym? Means "bird link..." Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:37, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

See ICZN-Code: Article 64: Choice of type genus. An author who wishes to establish a new nominal family-group taxon may choose as type genus any included nominal genus the name of which he or she regards as valid, not necessarily that having the oldest name. The choice of type genus determines the stem of the name of the nominal family-group taxon. So it being senior is irrelevant; on the other hand, you're free to name an Ornithodesmidae. Only, Dromaeosaurus is never part of it :o).--MWAK (talk) 11:36, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would name an Ornithodesmidae, but Hooley 1913 beat me to it ;) He also beat Matthew and Brown to it by nine years, so if Ornithodesmus if a dromaeosaur, Dromaeosaurus may as well be an ornithodesmid... Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:31, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

All my childrens' books said that Ornithodesmus meant "bird ribbon," was it really "Bird-link?" Then again, they all had it listed as a pterodactyl, too. :P Abyssal (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

"Connecting object" is the general concept expressed by desmos; but I don't know what etymology, if any, Seeley himself provided. That Ornithodesmidae has seniority means a Dromaeosauridae would be paraphyletic within the Linnaean system. All the more reason to apply strict clade concepts only :o).--MWAK (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How would dromaeosauridae be paraphyletic? It would simply be a junior synonym if Ornithodesmus is placed in the same "family" as Dromaeosaurus. Alternately, if Ornithodesmus falls within the traditional dromaeosaurs, you could treat Ornithodesmidae as monotypic, make Dromaeosauridae = Dromaeosaurinae, and elevate Velociraptorinae etc. to family level as Velociraptoridae. Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:21, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, if Ornithodesmus were to be placed within Dromaeosauridae. Therefore, to transcend being a junior synonym, a Dromaeosauridae may not contain Ornithodesmus — and that would make it paraphyletic. Unless, of course, you fundamentally change the definition — but the problem was to keep both name and content. By altering the content we can always assure both a monophyletic Dromaeosauridae and Ornithodesmidae. For a Dromaeosauridae sensu Sereno, Ornithodesmus might oblige us by being the most basal species (and nothing much would change) but otherwise we would risk having to create a great many new families.--MWAK (talk) 18:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

size

Is there an overall length available for this creature? It seems the only way to learn this from the article would be to do a series of calculations based on the tail. MDonfield (talk) 10:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I made a quick browse through the original paper, and there doesn't seem to be any length given to this creature. However, Thomas Holtz of the Dinosaur Mailing List stated that it "Looks to be about 1.75 m long." There is a 5cm scale bar in the image of the holotype, and I guess you can extrapolate from that, but I don't have good eyes for that sort of thing. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 13:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't see an image to take that measurement from

In this image. The 5cm scale bar is between the bent knee and the forearm. --Spotty ¹¹²²² 14:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to anti-vandal patrol!

I'd like to thank all those editors who have been vigilantly (and politely!) cleaning up the silly vandalisms that this page has been getting recently. It's guys like you who keep Wikipedia functioning. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Life restoration

The life restoration was just removed, but with no explanation in the edit summary, was it due to anatomical inaccuracies? FunkMonk (talk) 06:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be due to it being purple, now I think of it... FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Assuming it has the same feather types as its relatives, the body feathers couldn't have been purple as far as I know. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

definition of a dromaeosaurid

The article says that dromaeosaurids were a family of "small" meat-eating dinosaurs. But taking into account the existence of larger dromaeosaurids such as Utahraptor and Achillobator this definition might not be entirely accurate