User talk:Kazvorpal/paleo-template

Paleo-template

I have no problem with the idea of a paleo template for quick reference. However, the #1 desire should be to present accurate information, not to think of something to fit in every line. For many if not most dinosaur species, not all of the information in this template is known. Therefore we should resist the temptation to fill in every line and only fill in ones that are known from published information. Any attempt by Wikipedia editors to extrapolate data for a template, for instance determining weight from length, would constitute original research and is not permissible on Wikipedia.

I also have a few problems with the template itself, mainly in the names of the different categories.

In my opinion, it would be more professional if they were all the same part of speech, probably nouns. So I think "Means" should be changed to "Translation", and "Lived" should be changed to "Age", especially since "lived" doesn't specify whether you mean location or age.

I think "Type" is unnecessary and is covered by the taxobox that is already present on each dinosaur article, or will be soon.

Your dimension categories are okay, except that it is not clear what is meant by "Height". Do you mean to the hips? To the top of the head?

I think your intentions for the "Era" category are unclear. On Adasaurus, you list the Era as "Cretaceous". However, the Cretaceous is properly termed a "Period" within the Mesozoic Era. It may be better to change the title of this category to "Period" as an Era is just too large of an amount of time to be meaningful in a quick reference factbox. The Mesozoic Era spans nearly 200 million years... not specific at all.

Also, the generic and specific names of an animal are always italicized, so perhaps the top line, giving the generic name of the animal, should have built-in italics.

Finally, and while this doesn't relate to your factbox specifically, the ancient Greek sauros (now savra in modern Greek), literally translates as "lizard", not "reptile".

Thanks for your time and effort. Feel free to stop by Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs if you want to discuss your template, since we are attempting to come up with standards for all dino articles. Sheep81 04:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

All right, I decided to be bold and just change the template myself. Please let me know if there are any problems. Sheep81 07:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK on the name changes, though I think they're less reader-friendly. But I put back the type -- the typical reader barely understands the whole concept covered by the taxobox. He just wants to know what the creature is in basic, human-language terms. Not job security-protecting neoclassical tech jargon. I understand a taxobox...actually, I'm sure all of us here understand it well enough that we rarely need to even see anything above family, sometimes above genus, because we know most of them already. But a lot of people find the whole thing meaningless, unless they accidentally are able to suss an English animal name from its greek root. THEY aren't helped by "dromaeosauridae", but will instantly understand "raptor", in context of dinosaurs. --Kaz 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

They may not be helped by "Dromaeosauridae", but they will be helped by "Dromaeosauridae" which is what is actually in the taxobox. That is why there is a link... because if you take the time to click on it, there is a whole other page which explains exactly what a dromaeosaurid is. Also, if they actually read the text, which is not just there as window dressing after all, it will also become clear to them as many of the articles specifically mention a relationship with well-known "raptors" like Velociraptor. Using a term like "raptor" is totally unprofessional and you will not see any other encyclopedia using it. We should strive to be understood but maintain a scholarly atmosphere. And "reptile" is clearly unnecessary. Anyone who knows what a dinosaur is will be aware that they are reptiles. Might as well just put "animal" Sheep81 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, as for height, when you edited it you hopefully noticed that there are height-shoulder and height-head. But, sadly enough, references don't always specify, so I also included a generic height category. Ideally, it would only be used when the others are not.--Kaz 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Fine, as long as you get your height data from a published resource (figures with scale bars are quite useful in this particular regard), not another website or your own extrapolation. Sheep81 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And isn't the generic name already italicized in the box? It was, at one point...--Kaz 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It is now, since I edited it. Sheep81 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm just looking over the initial entries in the paleobox project. Aside from being a bit intrusive aesthetically, each one i've seen so far contains patently false or badly-worded information (Compsoganthus is in no way similar to Archaeopteryx, "T-rex" is not a real animal, should be T. rex, etc. I hate to think this whole thing will be more trouble than it's worth. Why isn't the information already provided in the text sufficiant? Do we really need to condense every article down into a "box"?Dinoguy2 05:58, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we do. This isn't about being kewl paleo-techies, it's about conveying the information to the user in the way he finds most effective. There's a good reason why even some paleontology texts use little summary boxes like that, as well as a large chunk of educational texts and infotainment books.

Why not expect the reader to actually read the article? Do we expect that little of them? If so, why do we even spend the time to write the text? This is not an infotainment book, it is an encyclopedia. If a reader just wants to see a bunch of stats, there are plenty of websites for that already. Sheep81 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

And compsognathus is most definitely similar to archeopteryx...there have actually been a few cases where a partial skeleton of one was mistaken for the other. The idea that there's something "wrong" with using T-Rex, common jargon for Tyrannosaurus Rex, is pseudointellectual drivel. Nobody's being harmed by communicating with them in language they understand. --Kaz 03:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Compsognathus is only superficially similar to Archaeopteryx, and no more so than any other small theropod. The only reason a few of them have been confused is because they come from the same formation and the specimens in question hadn't been looked at that closely since there were nicer specimens of both species available. Once a scientist actually sat down and studied the fossil, it became immediately apparent. It would be better to write "has been confused with Archaeopteryx" or something to that effect, since they are actually not very closely related at all, other than both being coelurosaurs. You are right to want to provide interesting notes like that, but you need to word it in a way that is not factually incorrect. That is not really a problem with the paleobox itself though, just its execution in a particular case.

There IS a problem with using "T-rex", which is that, quite simply, it is incorrect information. Once again, this is an encyclopedia. You may not care if our articles look professional, but may other people do. No respectable encyclopedia would be caught dead using "T-rex". And anyway, it does not hurt the reader to use T. rex instead, as any halfway intelligent person will see that it is quite obviously referring to the same animal, AND it is correct, AND the reader is learning a little about scientific terminology along the way. Intentional anti-intellectualism is even worse than pseudointellectualism, in my opinion. Sheep81 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would, though, like to be aesthetically unobtrusive. Any suggestions as to how? I made the box along the same lines as the taxobox (though I'm not a huge fan of its aesthetics in the first place), so that it would function cosmetically as an extention of that. --Kaz 04:04, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

One of my problems with the extra box is that when you add it together with the taxobox, they are going to be longer than some of the actual articles. I also think that having the paleobox will encourage editors to try to fill it with information, even if that information is not accurate. I personally will not be adding paleoboxes to any articles that I write unless it becomes the consensus policy to do so, although I will also not delete them from articles (I will correct incorrect info though). I want to invite you again to discuss this with the group currently working on the dinosaur articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs. Sheep81 10:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Aside from the length issue (which, admittedly, is also a problem with some stubs where the taxobox is twice as long as the article), I think the fact that it's right under the taxobox is the main issue, especially since it looks similar yet is narrower and there is a break between the two. It kinda makes it look like the taxobox is broken on first glance. If I were to re-design the paleobox, I might put it, centerd, in the main text right after the introductory paragraph (or on the bottom as a kind of quick summary, with a heading/entry in the TOC), and have it expanded to be one or two lines lengthwise across the page (similar to the Regions of the World boxes at the bottom of continent entries. Or, barring that, find some way to make it continuous with the taxobox.Dinoguy2 14:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the problem of it stacking with the taxobox. Personally, I think we could move one of them to the left side, so they'd be parallel columns with the start of the article between them, but I have no idea if that would be generally accepted. Are you suggesting making it wide and short, instead of narrow and tall, with multiple entries per line? One problem with this would be that we can't anticipate all browser widths and determine how many cells wide to make it. I've written javascript/middleware applications which check the user's screen width, but I get the impression we're not supposed to depend on scripted code for wikipedia articles.

I've been slow to participate in the discussion of the dino project mainly because there doesn't seem to BE any discussion, it seems not terribly active, and I didn't see anything that needed a comment by me. It wasn't entirely clear to me that this fell under the onus of it, either, since it's just a template. I didn't want to act as if it were a serious revamping effort. I just want to implement the tool that is so useful in categorical reference texts in print media. In many publications of page-long summaries of many things in a given field, where the items all bear certain similar traits, you often see such summaries. Dinosaurs are one example...you see these stat tables on pages in even respectable references...Jane's Fighting Ships (or aircraft) is another, which is why my first little venture was in setting up a similar template for star trek craft. Those trekkies work out ALL the stats, almost more than actual vehicles.--Kaz 19:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to implement the tool that is so useful in categorical reference texts in print media. I think that, at it's core, this is a good idea. I'm flipping therough some of the kids dinosaur books I have around, and they defiantely do all hav some sort of stat box, usually listing size, time period, short classification, etc. The classification bit gave me an idea, namely, to simply add a field for size, etymology, and distribution to the existing taxoboxs. They already have spaces for "fossil range", though it's not widely used, and then maybe things like diet and locomotion could b left in the text (these things are often controversial and bear further discussion anyway). The taxoboxes also (I think) have functionality for range maps, maybe there's already a textual range slot in the code.Dinoguy2 20:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and also, the name in th paleobox heading just adds to a redundancy already present in the taxoboxes. Looking for the name of the animal? Look no further. Title: Spnosaurus. bolded first line: Spinosaurus. Taxobox heading: Spinosaurus. Genus: Spinosaurus. Species: S. aegyptiacus. Bnomial: Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Palebox: Spinosaurus. I think they get the idea. My philosophy: Taxobox heading, use the genus name. If there's onl one species, use either the Genus/Species fields with no binomial field, or just the binomial. If there's multiple species, list down to the Genus, list species under divisions, and no binomial (except in cases where a binomial has been re-formed by subsequent author, obviously). And in any case, stating the name again in the paleobox is just way too much.Dinoguy2 20:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, the name is redundant if the taxobox is present. I was concerned that it might sometime be on a page without a taxobox, so I included it...but the only time that would happen is if someone is making a page and knows paleobox stats, but not enough taxonomy to feel comfortable adding the taxobox. I'll make the name field optional (like the rest are), and add a comment to the syntax advising not to use it if taxobox is present. --Kaz 17:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I erased the name from the box on Carcharodontosaurus, which just left a messy ((name)) slot. Will this go away automatically when you make the name field optional, or should I switch it back?Dinoguy2 19:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I know people are doing other stuff but shouldn't there be more animals in the Paleo Template Project?

Sorry guys, the more I read about dinosaurs the more holes there are in information to the point where, if we were really hones, there'd be huge holes in Paleoboxes to the point that I think their presence detracts more than adds from the text. Many assumptions about size and habitat are just that, assumptions, and are often better presented with text explaining why a certain position on data may be valid and the strength of the data. Also, alot of the genera pages will be small, because the information is either meagre or quite technical. I think that discussing and trialling paleoboxes was great but I think that overall, their problems override their benefits. Sorry Cas Liber 23:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Type

I think we need to agree on a policy of what to make of this field, if it's to be included. I assume it's not for scientific names (Sauropsid, Avian), since the taxobox covers that. If it's for common names (reptile, bird) we need to agree on just what those mean. Giganotosaurus can safely be stuck with the common name "reptile", but what about Microraptor? Reptile or bird? I assume synapsids should be "mammal-like reptile"? How abouy Eryops? Amphibian is technically incorrect but maybe applies as a common name, Temnospondyl is too technical. Crocamander, maybe? ;) Dinoguy2 19:46, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

This is part of why I included a wider type name, like "reptile", as well as the narrower one, like "raptor". Some dinos may have been "birds"...and anyway, the paleobox could reasonably be used for other ancient animals, like therapsids and primitive mammals. I'd figure that, for the understanding of the common reader (the more elite of us can simply read the taxobox, anyway), the ancestors and cousins of amphibians can be called, in effect, amphibians, since they have all the traits which will matter to a schoolkid doing a report. I do think that, for specific name, we should try for some kind of completely recognizable category, like "raptor" for dromaeosaurs and velociraptors, for example, but of course with a link to the proper category hidden in it.

By the way, I saw that you added the box to T. Rex and Stegosaurus, and think that's pretty cool. It'll make it necessary to be more careful with any heavy modifications to the box, though. I'd been sticking it on mostly secondarily-popular dinos up to now. --Kaz 21:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think this is an appropriate field. It adds virtually no information and reenforces the dodgy notion that animals come in "types". Explaining where an animal fits in to the grand scheme of things should be done in the text, not in a box. John.Conway 16:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Non-functional Slots?

A few fields, like "height to shoulder or other" and "specdiet", don't seem to be working. The first would be particularly useful for dinosaurs like Spinosaurus, which currently notes the height to the head and to the sail. The specific diet category would be very useful for species where there is direct fossil evidnc of some particular food items (ingested bone in T. rex, specific species of mammal in Sinosauropteryx, immature iganodonts, fish, and pterosaurs in certain spinosaurids, etc.). I'm clueless when it comes to coding templates, so if somebody could address this I'd appreciate it.Dinoguy2 18:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The slots should automatically appear if you add values to them, I even thought I tested them, but may have broken something since. --Kaz 21:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Crosslinking

I would strongly suggest NOT crosslinking between mainspace and userspace the way it's done here Fornadan (t) 20:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hi Kaz (we seem to have similar names  :-) Your template reminds me of templates I made years ago. Here is my template for Ceratosaurus (original page)

---

Superorder: Dinosauria

Order: Theropoda

Suborder: Megalosauria

Superfamily: "Ceratosauroidea"

Family: Ceratosauridae

Subfamily: Ceratosaurinae

Ceratosauridae - info panel

Guild/Ecological niche: Medium to Giant terrestrial carnivore

Modern equivalent: none

Time: early to late Jurassic period, possibly

Distribution: Pangaea

Evolved from: Coelophysoidea?

Replaced: Dilophosaurs

Replaced by: Allosaurs, Abelisaurs, Tyrannosaurs

Extinction because of: Terminal Jurassic extinction event?

Descendents: ?none, ?Megalosauridae, ?Abelisauroidea

Linnean status: Family

Cladistic status: uncertain

Parent clade: Ceratosauria

Adult length: less than 3 to 11.5 meters

Adult weight: 70kg to about 5 tonnes

Habitat: floodplain, uplands (but not mountain)

Diet / Preferred food: other dinosaurs, any tetrapods smaller than themselves. Some Ceratosaurs probably only preferred small animals, others went for big game.

Hunting/Food gathering/Foraging/Feeding habitat/Feeding behaviour: ambush, attacks large animals by quick slashing of the teeth, the victim dies from shock and loss of blood, small animals captured and swallowed whole

Movement: bipedal, active on land, adequate swimmers

Predators: for large species none (top of food chain)

Ceratosaurus nasicornis Marsh, 1884b

Horizon: Morrison formation of Colorado and Utah

Age: Kimmeridgian

Place: north-central Pangea

Remains: remains of five individuals, including one nearly complete skeleton

Length: 5.7 to 7 meters

Weight: 500 kg to 1 tonne

Comments: Interesting because it is structurally so much more primitive than its allosaur contemporaries, this medium-sized theropod is characterised by its tall nose horn and smaller preorbital horns in front of the eyes. It also possesses a row of bony nodules down the spine, similiar to those of pseudosuchian thecodonts and the earliest dinosaurs. The skull lightly-constructed skull is armed with quite proportionally large teeth. It is unlikely this animal could bring down large game (in contrast to the Allosaurs); it probably preyed on smaller animals like ornithopods

---

The reason I have the species template much shorter than the family template is that a lot of info for the species automatically is included under the family anyway.

While i think a template for each species ios an interesting idea, I am concerned about it not being professional enough. Everything field entered in the template should either be scientifically accurate or else a plausible estimate. It may be a good idea to include referneces as well, so we know where the information is coming from. I would suggest in your template you use the metric system, as this is international (the imperial system of feet and inches is only used in America it seems). Also you have to be careful with things like height; e.g. if Diadectes was 3 meters long, it wasn't 1 meter tall, as any measurement of a drawing of the skeleton will reveal (70 cm is more likely). For taxa with a short stratigraphic range (such as Ceratosaurus) I would suggest using geological ages - e.g. Kimmeridgian, rather than periods, e.g. Jurassic. Also to use millions of years is misleading because the dating is always cahnging, and that would require changing every single entry! It is much better to have a link to Kimmeridgian (or whatever), which would (ideally) have the most recent data (currently it is just a stub). I myself would prefer to use a paleo-geographic locality - e.g. West Laurasia, rather than "USA"; because in the Jurassic there was no "USA". Finally there is some overlap with the taxobox, wihich implies an unnecessary redundancy. Perhaps the two formats could be combined into one? Or of they are separate there shouldn't be redundant information. M Alan Kazlev 01:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Please...

• ... don't put this on articles with a taxobox (or if you do, remove the taxobox first). One big box on an article is plenty. The information in this box can easily be given in the text.
• ... take out the link to the project (links like that belong on the talk page, not in the article). See Wikipedia:Avoid self-references.

Gdr 18:37, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It really would be better if some of the info in the paleobox, that which isn't already redundant with info in the taxobox (name, time period, etc.), simply be added as optional fields to th taxobox. Having two boxes is very clunky. I'm not a big fan.Dinoguy2 18:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Combining the two Boxes

I agree that as it is now two boxes one on top of the other look pretty clunky. And in stubby pages like Cacops the two boxes together are much longer than the entry itself (that's why I was thinking if my suggestion was used it could be one broad box along the bottom, with a different format to the taxobox, but that was only if we were to have an additional box of this sort; if the rest of you don't want it i'm totally happy with that). In addition the Cacops box contains unsourced information; e.g. where are the references that Cacops lived in "swamps and forests"? Some info in the current poaleobox is also totally unnecessary. e.g. there is an ichthyosaur page (i can't recall the exact page) and under movement it says "swimmer". Well, duh, do we have to state the obvious?

Like Dinoguy I would rather see the option of additional information in the taxobox. That is why if we do have additional info (and I have no problem with some additional fields) it should be in the taxobox.

Here are some possible additional fields which might (but only if the rest of you guys are agreeable) be optionally added to the taxobox

Horizon: stratigraphic formation and locality (i think for paleontology entries this is a must) - this replaces the current "distribution" on the paleobox

Age: (this can be distinct from period - so at the top of the box would be Jurassic, but under horizin and biostratigraphic zone would be Kimmeridgian)

Original paper (the paper where the species is first described; this is actually very important, and usually ignored on most paleo websites, except for Trevor Dykes Eucynodont Directory)

The following are interesting, and some can be included, but there is also the danger of imagination/"original research", so if they are used they should be referenced with scientific citations. Often this information can better be incorporated in the body of the article. However some people may find it easier if there is a neat box with all the info in it, and it does givce the whole thing a nice look if done well

Fossil Remains: (where info on this is avaialable; usually only in the original scientific paper)

Length: (this is on the current paleobox and perhaps can be kept, but I would suggest that length should only be included if the reference is reliable; a lot of sizes given in books seem to be exaggerated; Greg Paul might be someone who gives reliable measurements. Also the scientific paper that describes the species may have a drawing with a scale bar.)

Weight: (this seems to be even more unreliable; although i am sure that some of the big theropods are under-estimated as far as weight goes; e.g. none of them apart from T rex seme to ever be listed as more than 4 tonnes)

Diet: (speculative; you can never really know exactly, but some clues from dentition, shape of mouth, etc. But leaving it as "insectivore", "low browser" etc would be fine)

Predators: (this is usually very much speculation, although sometimes one can make good guesses, e.g. sauropods were preyed upon by large theropods. Also it would let one link to other applicable pages)

Habitat (this replaces "environment" on the current paleobox, some clues may be found from sediments etc in which the fossils are preserved - e.g. rivers, floodplains, ponds; but the animals may also live in other environments where they were not fossilised)

M Alan Kazlev 02:01, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, apart from Fossil Remains (which vary so much they can be talked about over paragraphs rather than listed in a box), all the others are extemely conjectural. I just think this is better done in the article, under subheadings in a Paleobiology heading. Cas Liber 10:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

The citation for the original paper would never fit in a sidebar... plus, we already have the Authority fields in the taxobox which act as in-line citations. Of course the full citation should also be listed under the References section for each dinosaur. I think, of all the suggestions above, something on locality or geographical fossil range is most useful.Dinoguy2 14:23, 2 July 2006 (UTC)