Shortcut:

WP:DINOART

Dinosaur Image Review Archives

Images in review[edit]

Buriolestes[edit]

Hello again. This time I bring another simple drawing of a head and this time is the recent saurischian dinosaur Buriolestes. Any comment? [5] Levi bernardo (talk) 00:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Compared to the fossil[6], seems only some of the teeth are visible in the drawing, when they are really not that different in length? Personally, I'd restore the entire animal, when so little of the skull is known anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The illustration does not show all the teeth because it adds some speculative lips to the way of Gregory S. Paul. But I just killed the idea with that study in Daspletosaurus. Well, I say that if know enough of the skull, but it is also a good idea to enlighten the whole body, when I have time I will do it. Levi bernardo (talk) 20:54, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, but even with the lips, it seems more teeth would be poking out? Most of the other teeth aren't that much shorter than the ones you show, so they would not be completely hidden. In any case, we don't know whether the no-lip hypothesis extends to all dinosaur groups, or whether it will be supported by others... FunkMonk (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Right. Even with lips, the lips would not selectively hide some teeth. It would hide all the teeth equally unless they are different lengths. This way just makes it look like a lot of teeth are missing. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:03, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's true. So, do you suggest that I put full lips? Levi bernardo (talk) 20:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

I think, like me, that he says you hide the teeth unevenly. Now some teeth that would actually poke out are completely hidden, based on where they are compared to the teeth you show. See for example what I mean here:[7] The teeth also seem too straight. FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think I'll expose this kid's teeth a little and correct all this soon. Thank you Levi bernardo (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus[edit]

Reconstruction of Herrerasaurus

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)

Who (other than me) told you to feather it? If the Ornithoscelida hypothesis holds up, you might not have to... FunkMonk (talk) 10:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

It would seem anything goes with the feather placement then, since we have no relatives to go by... FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with your current illustration, but if you want to do a feathered one, I'd pull the feathering down to cover more of the hindlimb, like this: http://orig06.deviantart.net/04c4/f/2017/101/e/3/fred_blueline_herrera_by_tomozaurus-db5emoo.png if not right down onto the tibiotarsus as in Kulindadromeus. Tomopteryx (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I guess if there's no need for it then I'll hold off on this reconstruction for a while later. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:40, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

We can just replace the old one? FunkMonk (talk) 15:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Eoabelisaurus[edit]

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)

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)

Cross-checking from the text-description, will add comments as I see things. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 17:24, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

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)

There's a new(-ish) interpretation of Carnotaurus forelimbs that appears to have largely flown under the radar: Burch and Carrano (2012) suggested that the supposed metacarpal IV spike is actually one of the manual unguals. Albertonykus (talk) 05:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Interesting, that would of course also be relevant for the section below... FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Aucasaurus[edit]

Scale diagram of Aucasaurus garridoi.

I have created a scale diagram and reconstruction of Aucasaurus garridoi based on Scott Hartman's skeletal reconstruction. I want to note that I had drawn manual unguals, but after downscaling they seem to have disappeared into the pixelation. At any rate, they are so small I think it's negligible. Please let me know if any changes are needed. Paleocolour (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself, I approve of it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 06:58, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

As mentioned somewhere above by User:Mike.BRZ, the only thing that should be different in size is the caudal length, as both estimates are based on the same specimen. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ekrixinatosaurus[edit]

Scale diagram of Ekrixinatosaurus novasi.

Skeletal diagram of Ekrixinatosaurus novasi.

Skull diagram of Ekrixinatosaurus novasi.

I have put together some diagrams of Ekrixinatosaurus novasi from two other artists with their express permission. I can provide proof of permission if you need them. The artists are credited in the file descriptions, and I have archived the sources using the Internet Archive site for the future. For more information regarding the skeletal and skull diagram please see the file descriptions, they contain the source material that Joseph Shanks used when creating the diagrams. Please let me know if anything needs to be tweaked. Thanks. Paleocolour (talk) 04:22, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It appears that Joseph has reconstructed Ekrixinatosaurus with the "spike-like" "metacarpal" on digit IV of the manus. This is likely incorrect. IV should be more stubby, and the "spike" is actually one of the other manual unguals somewhere in II-III (which should be reconstructed similarly in my opinion). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Also, the shading on the face should perhaps be modified to better show the cornified integument that was probably present in life (and has been illustrated in the lineart). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:05, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally, other editors may or may not concur with me on this, but I think the title on the skull diagram is redundant. That's what the caption is for. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 07:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

On a copyright note, you have to go through this (OTRS) process when uploading the works of others to prove their consent:[8] But if the images are already on Deviantart, you just have to list a valid license there, and link to the page. FunkMonk (talk) 11:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

It also looks like there's an ungual on every digit of the manus except on the one that there should be? --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The big boy Patagotitan[edit]

Patagotitan

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)

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)

The torso also seems to be way too shallow, even for the paper's skeletal reconstruction (which seems to have forgotten that gastralia exist...) Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:29, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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). IJReid ^discuss 00:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. IJReid ^discuss 15:19, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

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 [9] Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Archaeoceratops Size Comparison and other stuff[edit]

Main point of this segment

Wow, a lot happens when you're gone! I have recently been working on 3 things. First, I have recently been thinking about Archaeoceratops for no reason, so I decided to create a size chart for it. (I'm not sure if I'll ever use this style of chart again, but I wanted to give it a try.) It is based on this [10].

Second, I have recently been updating some of my older unused images. I have made a list of them below:

File:Carcharodontosaurus Species Comparison.svg: Revise and add skull material for C. saharicus.
File:NMC 8547 Chasmosaurine Size.svg: Quills. I'll get to the ones I should actually use someday.
File:"Antarctosaurus" giganteus Size Chart.svg: I fixed the back.
I will get around to fixing the Futalognkosaurus chart sometime soon.

Third, I'm wondering if we should make a shortcut for this page (such as WP:DINO/IR or WP:DINO/ART or something similar). That's all for now. Corrections/comments/opinions? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

(By the way, the button is pretty neat! Sorry for not mentioning it above. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC))

Hehe thanks for the appreciation of the button. I think the Archaeoceratops comparison looks nice, but perhaps modify the scales so that the 1m lines are thicker than the 10cm lines? Also, the reflections should still retain proportional sizes, with the cat head being level with the back (not quills) of Archaeoceratops. IJReid ^discuss 19:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I fixed the cat's reflection, thanks for catching that! I tried darkening certain lines but there weren't enough to create an obvious effect. I also forgot to mention that the size estimate comes from Greg Paul (which means that I'm not 100% sure that the outline is of the correct species...). Any other problems? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Those quills seem rather different from those preserved in Psittacosaurus in terms of length and distribution. Speculative variation? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Heh, the only reason I did this is because everyone else seems to do it, too. I don't think its that big of a problem, but other editors may disagree. --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I'm unsure on the inclusion of the skull for Carcharodontosaurus. None of our other size images do that, and it's a bit jarring without the lower jaw as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Request: size-diagrams for all Good Articles[edit]

Since a lot of size-diagrams are being made these days (many for short articles that have little space for more images), I thought it would be a god idea to list the most high-priority articles in need of size-diagrams, which are our Good Articles. With Opisthocoelicaudia done, all the Featured Articles now have size-diagrams, but since GAs have potential to become FAs, it would be good to prepare them all. These are after all supposed to be Wikipedia's best work, and some of the most viewed articles. FunkMonk (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

So the list goes, with estimates from the Wikipedia articles (note some genera may have multiple species):

Megalosaurus - eight metres long according to David Norman (the old diagram seems to have been removed as inaccurate:[11]) [P: 6 m]

I've almost finished it, I've just got to make some minor adjustments. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

See the Megalosaurus Skeletal section below for more information. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Rajasaurus - eleven metres according to Greg Paul

User:Paleocolour already did this, so I'll strike this out. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus - 6.5 m (21.3 ft) according to Nathan Smith et al. [P: 6 m]

Cryolophosaurus

I'm working on this guy right now, I'll upload it when I'm done. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Finished. Is it okay? (I also added another Antarctic dinosaur!) --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:43, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The blue is too light to be readily visible, I feel. The skull is also too shallow. This is like if the jaw in Hartman's reconstruction was forcefully shoved up into the sinus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Heh, fun, could we have a human as well? The feet of the dinosaur also seem very short. FunkMonk (talk) 23:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I darkened the background, relocated his jaw, and made his right foot more similar in length to his left. I'll add a human as soon as I can, probably in heavy winter gear, heh. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:56, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright, I added the human. (This image actually is now a a user's gallery of images related to Antarctica! I guess it's probably because of the penguin.) Is it ready? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

This one's good to me.

Added it to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Cetiosauriscus - up to 15 metres (49 ft) according to Thomas Holtz [P: 15 m]

I'm going to claim this one, didn't know this was a thing until today. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm reading the description of Cetiosauriscus but it's in German without the figures and I'm stuggling to find limb bone measurments. I see what I think are possible measurments but I'm not sure whether it is refering to cetiosauriscus specifically? Anyone know what the measrements are or know where to get the figures? or a translated copy? Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:54, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to a WIP [12]. I have basically hacked up the photo composite and rearranged it into something like a Mamenchisaur. It's so incomplete the end resault will look quite generic. I'm just digging for measurments to scale it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If this'll help the referred specimen is heavily described in here: https://archive.org/stream/proceedingsofzoo19051zool#page/232/mode/2up It's listed as Cetiosaurus, but that is from before the reassignment. IJReid ^discuss 14:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! Here is a link to the current version of the diagram. [13] In the literature Cetiosauriscus is estimated at 15m long. It's not clear if it is closer to diplodicids or mamenchisaurids. The way I have illustrated here, it's more mamenchisaur and has come out at nearly 18m long. After realising this I scaled various skeletal reconstructions to have a femur length of 1.36m just to give an idea of what I should expect. For mamenchisaurs I was getting something like 17-21m and for diplodocids I was getting something like 16-24m. The exception was short necked nigersaurus which came out at about 13m. What should I do? I can't scale down the limbs, the tail is quite well known, if I were to restore that more diplodocid like the tail would only get longer. Should I just chop a few meters off the neck (which isn't known anyway) to comform to the literature? In which case it will loose it's mamenchisaur apearence. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it'll be fine as long as we note in the file caption that the neck is unknown. IJReid ^discuss 15:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Cetiosauriscus article - is "C. leedsi" not Ornithopsis? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:47, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

British fragments are confusing. Cetiosauriscus stewarti is based on material which was once referred to Cetiosauriscus leedsi. Cetiosauriscus leedsi was once Cetiosaurus and Ornithopsis. Currently Cetiosaurus leedsi is a nomen dubium, based on some caudals. IJReid ^discuss 23:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

D'oh! This would have been helpful... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:47, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Othnielosaurus - 2 meters (6.6 ft) or less according to John R. Forster [P: 2.2 m]

I emailed Galton (asking for the Drinker description) and he replied, and also cautioned me that a redescription of Morrison ornithopods is in prep (Galton & Carpenter), which suggests that Drinker and Othnielosaurus are synonyms. Just warning. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Heh, that's kind of ironic! --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Corythosaurus - 9 metres (30 ft) according to Benson et al. [P: 8 m casuarius, 7.7 m intermedius]

Corythosaurus

Updated from my old Hypacrosaurus image. This is the last one that I'll claim, I'll leave the others for other users. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:17, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The tissue around the neck is a bit weird. I'm not sure the crest should be that embedded in the outline of the neck. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the crests should be more distinct now, and the dewlaps more natural. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

A bit more for the crests? Particularly the Corythosaurus. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:48, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Stupid me, I meant C. casuarius. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:44, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think this will do. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124 contribs) 15:52, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Added it. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:17, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Gryposaurus - 8.2 meters (27 feet) According to Richard Lull, so maybe an outdated estimate [P: 8 m notabilis & monumentensis, 7.5 m latidens]

Gryposaurus

Working on it, see below. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Are the arms okay now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

The dinosaur looks good to me, but I'm still concerned about the human, though, it looks like if he stretched his arms out, they would reach his knees... And the knees also seem placed too low. I think it would be much better to base the human on an image with more realistic proportions, especially since the dinosaurs are realistic. He just looks out of place. FunkMonk (talk) 22:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This was an older image that I created before you said I should change the human's proportions. The new human should be better. Is it ready for the article now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:05, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

For consistency's sake, either write out the length as a numeral (e.g. 10 meters) or as a word (e.g. ten meters) in all of your charts. I prefer the former. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:51, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember saying almost the same about the arms in the past, looks much better to me. He should probably be modified in all your older images, to make them more useful. FunkMonk (talk) 23:18, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the article. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Kritosaurus - no size given in the article, strangely enough, but Paul gives a 9 metre estimate for the type species in his Field Guide
Hypacrosaurus - 9.1 meters (30 feet), another old Lull estimate, so may need updating. Probably best to leave the referred species out, as it appears to belong to a new genus [P: 8 m altispinus & stebingeri]

Hypacrosaurus

I already have a size chart for this guy, I'm almost done updating it. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Revised, new style, and sans-Pualian taxonomy. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been more than 10 days, so I'm assuming it's okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it looks acceptable. The background is interesting, but I don't object to it. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that stebingeri may be moved to its own genus, and it will by then maybe not be appropriate to keep them in the same image. FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, since we're here, I've had the thought - would there be any interest in potentially giving it its own article, similar to the Coelophysis and Edmontosaurus situations? There's likely enough material, its a relatively well studied genus, and it'd make sense given we're not confidant they should be classified together. In the event of a more definitive split, it'd merely be a case or renaming and article and making slight changes. Lusotitan 15:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

My personal opinion is that such species should only be split here when they are actually formally split (which is in line with our general guidelines on species). Until that happens, they still de-facto belong to whatever genus they are currently placed in. Also, you never know if such species will just be moved to another existing genus, rather than to their own new genus (as happened with Dilophosaurus sinensis and some pachycephalosaur species, for example). FunkMonk (talk) 15:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that hadrosaurs are waaaaaaay oversplit (although not quite as bad as ceratopsids), so I will keep these two together until there's reason not to. --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

Saurolophus - Lull again gives 9.8 m (32 ft) for S. osborni, whereas Donald Glut gives 12 m (39 ft) for S. angustirostris [P: 8.5 m osborni, 13 m angustirostris]

Saurolophus

I'm currently working on Saurolophus. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is a link to a work in progress. [14]. Regarding the length of Saurolophus osborni; from what I have read, there are only 3 specimens currently considered S.osborni, the largest is AMNH 5220 which is almost complete. Paul lists S.osborni as 8.5m long. Based on measurments for that specimen that is probably measured along the curve of the vertrabral collum, so its going to look smaller then 8.5m in the chart. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks neat, some restorations give them a frill along the back, not sure if it's based on anything concrete. FunkMonk (talk) 16:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

A quick search says you're correct! Saurolophus angustirostris has those retangular spines above each vertebra. Considering Edmontosaurus and Brachylophosaurus also have them it's safe to say S.osborni has them as well. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Here is an update with 'Midline Feature Scales' [15] Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks much better ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks ready! FunkMonk (talk) 20:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

It seems like there's something around the head S. angustirostris that is rendering as a huge black rectangle... I can't figure out what it is. Could you try to fix this? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

SVG is being a pain. The small preview in a SVG test file looked good. I'm working on it. ;) Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that looks pretty weird, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It was an invisable text box. Wiki commons renders them as black boxes. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Prosaurolophus - a strange Lull estimate of "0.9 metres (3.0 ft) long on a skeleton about 8.5 metres (28 ft) long", not sure if the skull is included in the latter length [P: 8.5 m]

Prosaurolophus

I'll take this one now that the others I've made are almost (if not fully) complete. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Completed, based on Greg Paul. I just did P. maximus, as Paul gave no estimate for P. blackfeetensis. I didn't do .9 meters for obvious reasons. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:05, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe plant its foot more solidly on the ground? FunkMonk (talk) 21:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I think it should be better now, no more levitating hadrosaurs! --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:56, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, I think the torso's a bit shallow. I don't have Paul on hand to check, though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

You are right, Prosaurolophus has a much higher back. Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The Prosaurolophus looks good. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Hypsibema missouriensis - an article which has the distinction of being one of the few about a dinosaur species (because the type species of the genus seems to be scraps), Marc Powers gives 30–35 feet (9.1–10.7 m) for this species

Hypsibema missouriensis

Another hadrosaur. The model in the taxobox looks a lot like Gryposaurus, so I just grew my Gryposaurus silhouette to massive proportions, but I can tweak it if you want. --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

It's been more than 10 days, so I'm assuming it's okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine by me. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Not much known so not realy anything to object to. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Sinoceratops - Holtz gives a an estimate of 7 metres (23 ft); the article also has another estimate, but the source seems dubious [P: 5 m]
Eolambia - a current GA nominee, but seems sure to pass, maybe nominator Lythronaxargestes has something to say here

I think the 6 m estimate is good; the 2008 reconstruction has too short a tail in my personal opinion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm claim this one then unless someone else has started. I'm planning to make a skeletal, and maybe a full restoration too, so a scale diagram can be made from the skeletal. IJReid ^discuss 01:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

On this note, I did a restoration of Eolambia long ago, but when it was re-described as having a drastically different skull, I modified the restoration so it could be passed off as Tanius, where it is now... FunkMonk (talk) 01:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Would it be preferred for me to create a single skeletal diagram of compilation with multiple scale bars, or multiple skeletal restorations of individuals to scale? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely one with both for Paleobiology. Don't know if the adult should go separately in Description as a size diagram. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Added a few estimates from Paul's 2016 Field Guide. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Gryposaurus

I already had a Gryposaurus, with three other ornithopods. I can make a different scale I you want. --Slate Weasel (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, maybe separate out Gryposaurus so it can have it's own scale chart. I'll attempt Saurolophus if no one is doing it? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:35, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Gave Gryposaurus its own chart. I currently am working on a Megalosaurus size comparison. I also can update my older Hypacrosaurus chart sometime. (By the way, is the new Futalongkosaurus chart okay? (see above)) --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The Futalognko looks nice. About the Gryposaurus, I think that the forelimb needs some buffing up, it looks extremely skinny. IJReid ^discuss 22:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I also think it is better to do the ornithopods individually, now they obscure each other, so it is hard to see their lengths. Maybe artists can sign their names under the genera they want to do, so we don't get duplicates? FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm continuing the Gryposaurus discussion above in its designated section. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps we could somehow indicate which size charts have been completed? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I struck out Cryo, could be done that way... FunkMonk (talk) 12:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The Grypo was also finished, so I crossed that out, too. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Looking god, guys! This was long overdue... FunkMonk (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Megalosaurus and Eolambias were crossed out, but where are their scale diagrams? I only see skeletal diagrams, but though they have scale bars, they don't really convey their size immediately. FunkMonk (talk) 02:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not even done with Megalosaurus yet! I am getting close, though. --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the current tiny size comparison of Achelousaurus enough, or do we want a larger one? Just curious. --Slate Weasel (talk) 18:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Probably wouldn't hurt making one, but I assumed it was enough at the time of nomination. But if a new image is made, I'll try to fit it in, and probably that restoration with the tiny size comparison could get its background cleared... FunkMonk (talk) 18:15, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Dreadnoughtus Scale Diagram Redo[edit]

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: [16]

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)

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)

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: [17] Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:45, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Heck, my magical list of macronarian caudal counts is needed!? Symbolism is > for "few more than" >> for "many more than".

65 in Rincon titanosaur
61 in Tangvayosaurus
60 in Giraffatitan (cross scaled)
53 in Gobititan
53 in Camarasaurus
44 in Bellusaurus
35 in Moabosaurus
>43 in Jobaria
>41 in Epachthosaurus
>>35 in Malawisaurus
>35 in Opisthocoelicaudia
>33 in Dreadnoughtus
>30 in Alamosaurus IJReid ^discuss 00:00, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

On the subject of Dreadnoughtus, Wikitionary [18] has a size chart that claims Dreadnoughtus was >39 meters long! It seems like we another inaccurate Dreadnoughtus scale chart floating around! --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

The chart appears to depict Patagotitan, not Dreadnoughtus ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Megalosaurus Skeletal[edit]

Being worked on

I created this skeletal for Megalosaurus. It is based on:

Any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Ths pubis and ischium need to articulate in the middle under the pelvis. IJReid ^discuss 15:08, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The manus is way too small. It looks like an allosauroid overall, not a megalosauroid. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:24, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

The maxilla and premaxilla in the mount are actually from Duriavenator, not Megalosaurus. IJReid ^discuss 14:15, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Duriavenator parts and added some unknown material in gray. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Tail posture is weird and anatomically questionable. Possible to make it horizontal? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Format-wise, the Megalosaurus label in the image is redundant, and the scale bar should be in metric. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:50, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Found a useful paper. I think you've omitted/misplaced some material: [19] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Vectorized Images by User:Dinoguy2[edit]

I vectorized these two images by User:Dinoguy2. Since he updated all of his individual tyrannosaurs, I used them in the diagram. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. FunkMonk (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

You left some text boxes in the svg. Same problem as before with the black boxes on Commons. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

I'll find and remove them as soon as I can. (Something similar happened with my Ornithomimus scale chart, too.) --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Also need to check italics and spaces. Some issues there. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Tyrannotitan Chubutensis[edit]

I apologize for accidentally skipping the review stage of posting pictures. My mistake. In anycase, I'd like to get some opinions on this Tyrannotitan reconstruction I did. I made this because the current reconstruction on the page, while amazingly drawn, has a bit of a dynamic pose. I figured there should be one with a more neutral pose, though still alive looking. The refs I used were http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0063409, along with https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/41633284/A_large_Cretaceous_theropod_from_Patagon20160127-7390-o9smpt.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A&Expires=1506786220&Signature=JJRvDWZfTIdJOgqynCGc4G3xydE%3D&response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DA_large_Cretaceous_theropod_from_Patagon.pdf. I also used the skeletal reconstruction on the main page as a ref.

If I missed anything, I'd love to know.

It looks pretty good. It's based on probably the best Carcharodontosaurid mount, so thats a bonus. I'd recommend that the tail is straightened, and perhaps 3D-ize the head so that the tooth row on the side away from the viewer is visible in the mandible. IJReid ^discuss 15:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The tail does seem to maybe curve too strongly at the base compared to the mount it is based on. Not sure whether the bones allow this. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Also, the lower jaw seems a bit deeper than in the mount. The limbs, neck and torso all look good. --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Theropod Infographic[edit]

I was reading [20], on the page that has almost been forgotten about, so I thought that you might like an infographic. I can make some more for other groups of dinosaurs if you would like. Is anything wrong with this one? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Hehe, if this is to be a guideline, it should be extra accurate! There are some issues here (per Zhenyuanlong), including that the primary feathers are too short and don't seem to attach properly to the second finger, the tail feathers should be longer and progress further along the tail, and there should probably be noticeable feathers right down to the ankles. Other things to add could be noticeable toe pads, and a more s-curved neck with the head held horizontal. Of course it could hold its neck and head differently, but if this is to be a guide, it should be a more "idealised" image. You should maybe even hide the fleshy contour of the neck and the body by adding more feathers. Also, I don't think the pubis bone would be that noticeable under the feathers. It would probably make sense to make this specifically a guide to deinoinychosaurs/dromaeosaurs, since much of the info there applies specifically to them. Only two of the points would apply to Dilophosaurus, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Omeisaurus[edit]

Omeisaurus

I created this image of Omeisaurus. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems very skinny? And is it rearing horizontally somehow? I'm not sure that would have been possible, sauropod rearing has only been suggested as using the tail as a tripod... FunkMonk (talk) 20:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Which bits are too skinny? I was thinking that it was in the process of rearing, so I lowered the tail a bit. Does this look okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

The skinniness is probably caused by a lack of shading, the belly doesn't look rounded. As for the rearing, I'd imagine the front legs not leaving the ground until the tail was planted for counterbalance (or at least not before the weight had shifted backwards)? Now it looks like it would tip forwards. We of course can't observe live animals, but we can imagine what would be natural based on logic. Walking With Dinosaurs did some pretty nice sauropod rearing[21], I think their Diplodocus shots are probably the ones that have aged best of all the animation in that series... FunkMonk (talk) 21:16, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Also - I'm not convinced by the blue background... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that I will trace over the original image and redo the thing almost entirely. That will take awhile, so I'm not sure when I'll get around to it. I think that Paul may have a rearing Omeisaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Funk, I think the stomach needs that large herbivore rounded look. Regarding rearing; it depends on the sauropod. Heinrich Mallison thinks that Diplodocus would require half as much effort to rear than an elephant, its center of mass is almost at the hip joint. Elephants appear rear quite easily without long tails to help but due to their muscle setup they have to bend the knees quite strongly in order to do so. Paul argues that all sauropods are better adapted for rearing then Elephants (Heinrich disagrees about brachiosaurs). Paul thinks that Sauropods that have retroverted pelves, like Camerasaurs, Memenchisaurs and (I think) Omeisaurus, might have been able to walk around bipedially for short peroids, without needing to bend the knees; not dissimilar to what you have drawn. My only criticism is that for it to look realistic, at least one of the legs needs to be far forward enough to be under the center of mass, wherever that is in Omeisaurus? I don't know of a study that's looked into Center of Mass in Omeisaurus but the center of mass is usually just forward of the pelvis in most Sauropods. Neck posture makes a difference to the center of mass; considering yours is posed with its neck out-stretched, I'd move at least one of the legs forward more. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:14, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Wait a second, where exactly are we planning to fit this in on the very short Omeisaurus article which already sports three images, including a perfectly serviceable reconstruction? This seems unnecessary and potentially awkward. Lusotitan 00:23, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a second, slow down now. Slate Weasel which species is this. I know we have an O. tianfuensis, but I've heard rumblings of a splitting of Omeisaurus/Mamenchisaurus, and O. tianfuensis is generally thought to be the most questionable species of Omeisaurus. So having a decent illustration of O. jungishiensis might not be a bad thing, especially if we get around to expanding the article. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This is O. tianfuensis. I made it because it was suggest that there was no tail club. Also, I think that we could really expand the article. I'll work on a update when I have time, but that will be awhile (I caught a cold right after I finished this image). In the meantime, I'll find my text file on this guy. Here is a helpful link: [22] --Slate Weasel (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Albeit NOT a citable one ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Largest Dinosaurs[edit]

Another image to consider

I seems like this chart might to to get updated again. Futalongkosaurus has strange, almost turiasaur-like proportions and is too large. Shouldn't Argentinosaurus lack that dip between its neck and back? Also, it would be nice to have Patagotitan, too. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Probably best in cases like this (and above) to ping the original authors, here Dinoguy2. FunkMonk (talk) 12:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

How old is this? Having Futalognkosaurus over Puertasaurus seems odd. Lusotitan 18:56, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Last edit done by Dinoguy was on April 15, 2015. Also, Supersaurus could have gotten bigger than shown. Also, I think it would be better to show the tails of the Mamenchi and Argentino. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, according to Scott Hartman, the oldest acceptable estimates are from 2012. With that in mind, the 7 longest dinosaurs I can find are:

Barosaurus? (~50 meters according to Taylor)
Argentinosaurus huinculensis (40 meters according to Taylor)
Patagotitan mayorum (37 meters by BBC, but I would rather have something more scientifically affiliated, mainly because of Liopleurodon)
Supersaurus vivianae (35 meters according to Paul)
Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (possibly 35 meters according to Paul)
Xinjiangtitan shanshanensis (32 meters by Wu et. al.)
Diplodocus longus (= hallorum (= Seismosaurus halli)) (32 meters as restored by Hartman)

But I don't have access to many other resources so I would appreciate further input. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I know for certain that Barosaurus was proposed to be significantly longer than before based on the ex-Supersaurus cervical. See SVPOW. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Heh, how the heck did I forget that?! It was ~50 meters or something?! [23] --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:37, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Somethings to consider, Paul has backtracked a little on the giant M.sincanadorum in his latest feild guide (see my mamenchisaurus species scale diagram above) and the idea of the super giant barosaurus unfortunately isn't properly published. Personally I'd avoid them untill more gets published, although it might not hurt to mention them in a few places. Steveoc 86 (talk) 16:16, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on compiling a chart of sauropod length estimates here. Feel free to add to it if you wish. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:34, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I found another image on Commons, but it seems to have more problems. The Puertasaurus is based on the image I removed for having the wrong proportions (also, where the heck does the 35-meter estimate come from?), I'm not sure about Sauroposeidon's presence or proportions, the Argentinosaurus still has the proportions I was concerned about, and Patagotitan looks like a diplodocid. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:36, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

The Puertasaurus was just replaced with mine, so it should be better now. Other issues are still relevent. Steve's Patagotitan size chart was pretty good. It looks like there is an SVG shape laid over a jpeg in the chart? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

If the latter image is used as a starting point, there are a few changes I'd like made. The Patagotitan, Apatosaurus and Sauroposeidon should be replaced, they are either outdated or copyrighted. The text should be cut down to the bare minimum (length and weight aren't needed) and the grid should be made thinner and less obtrusive. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I know that User:Steveoc 86 has size charts of Patagotitan and Sauroposeidon. I just made an SVG Argentinosaurus, but I'm not sure where to get a vectorized Apatosaurus. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:47, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Another idea to consider - we could make a new one, if we really want to. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Hey all, I'll try to tweak and update this if I get a chance over the next few weeks. One thing I should note is that this is meant to depict an assortment of the longest dinosaurs, but not a "Top 7" list - I wanted to get some variety from different clades in there. With that in mind, maybe it would be best to restrict it to the longest known from good remains in each major clade? Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:54, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that it might be good to have both Argentinosaurus and Patagotitan together in the image. Perhaps you could also get Xinjiangtitan into the image? It's also a quite recent discovery that's mostly sneaked away and lurked in the shadows, but it is BIG! I'm not sure about Mamenchisaurus, I'll let other users comment on that. Futalongkosaurus probably should be replaced with something bigger. But those are just ideas. --Slate Weasel (talk) 01:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Scolosaurus Size Comparison[edit]

I made this image beck in July, but I only created it with SVG this moring. Is it okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Head's a bit flat (third from top): [24] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think the head is just too small overall. Neck, torso, and the dorsal portion of the proximal tail are also too thin. Osteoderm arrangement is also off, the back ones are too large and the top osteoderm of the rear half-ring is missing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:21, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Australian Titanosaurs from PLOS One[edit]

These images are from a scientific paper, but the seem to have poblems. Shouldn't Diamaninasaurus have just one row of osteoderms on each side. They both a a thumb claw, but as titanosaurs, they should not. Also, Wintonotitan has hooves on its front feet and an extra claw on each back foot. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Should be possible to fix most of these issues. However, I'm not convinced we should restore every single titanosaur with the exact same osteoderm configuration just because a single researcher has proposed it completely hypothetically... FunkMonk (talk) 13:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Note that there is no evidence for either having osteoderms:

The ‘osteoderms’ attributed to QM F6737 and figured by Molnar (2011, fig. 2A–G) are actually the dorsal neural spines B and C from the holotype of W. wattsi (QM F7292), which were not figured by Hocknull et al. (2009). [...] The ridges identified by Molnar (2011) as keels were reinterpreted as the pre- and postspinal laminae, whereas the camellate internal texture is at odds with that described for any other sauropod osteoderm (D’Emic et al. 2009; Curry Rogers et al. 2011). Consequently, there is currently no evidence for osteoderms in Australian sauropods (D’Emic et al. 2009), despite the recent reinstatement of Diamantinasaurus as a lithostrotian titanosaur (Poropat et al. in press).

Poropat et al. (2015)

Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There is some other weirdness with these restorations too... The feet are very long, and the teeth almost look glued on... Kind of an "impressionistic" style... But that also means it's easy to modify in Photoshop. I can fix the yellow one at least. FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Diamantinasaurus and Wintonotitan would both have a thumb claw, so that is a non-issue (Diamantinasaurus preserves one, and Wintonotitan is basal). I'm not quite sure how the osteoderms would be arranged in Diamantinasaurus, there are no related species that preserve them, so maybe we leave them as is until a paper discusses them? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, how could I forget, the claw is shown on this photo I uploaded myself:[25] It seems to be directed backwards in the restoration, though? FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, it sort of looks like its on Digit V instead of I. Weird. I also thought it would not be used for walking? --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

There's also a weird gap between the torso and the leg in the background, making it look like it's not attached (for Wintonotitan). --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:32, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it's supposed to be Backlighting (lighting design), there's a bit on the front limb too. The tail/leg attachment seems a bit weird, like it has sagging pants... FunkMonk (talk) 15:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I did some fixes to the Wintonotitan (compare the current and older version), it could probably be modified further, but now it at least isn't downright inaccurate. FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I completely removed the hooves. --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

That looked more like random skin-folds to me (the hooves were at the front), but alright. FunkMonk (talk) 12:09, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Diamantinasaurus: This one has serious problems. It should have no osteoderms for starters, but it's caked in them, and I don't think that I have the skill to take all of them off. The tail also is covered in crocodile-like scutes that form distinct joints. The thumb claw seems to be in the wrong spot, and it has some hooves on its hands that shouldn't be there. Anyone feeling up to fixing all of this or should we just make a new one instead? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree the limbs should be fixed, but again, I'm not sure about the osteoderms. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence in this case, sauropods are now often depicted with many outlandish spikes, crests and wattles without any proof, but osteoderms are known from some specimens. But with animals as fragmentary as this, absence isn't really proof of anything. FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Re osteoderms: I agree with Funk that just because they arn't known, that doesn't automatically mean it didn't have them. Osteoderms are quite wide spread aross the titanosaur tree but rare. I don't think anyone can criticise us if we do or don't include osteoderms in taxa for which there is no evidence. I don't think we have to show just the Vidal, 'one-row' interpretation if we do include them. What I will say is there is no evidence for ankylosaur like osteoderms that I have heard of. That doesn't mean that no titanosaur had that type of arrangement, we just don't have evidence for it. Based on the fact most known scaley dinosaurs have 'feature scales' and in some cases that prutude out as bumps, spikes or plate-like things, such as the 'spikey' diplodocid specimen, I wouldn't be suprised if some sauropods 'looked' more armoured then the osteodology suggests. I'd say we can keep the osteoderms; just make it clear in image descriptions that any spikes, wattles, osteoderms are hypothetical/speculative so the viewer isn't mislead. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I've now also fixed the feet and head of the Diamaninasaurus. The skull in this silhouette[26] by the same authors seems to be more Nemegtosaurus-like. Of course, anyone is welcome to do further adjustments, but I think both are now correct "enough" to be in their articles. And by the way, Slate, watch out that you don't lower the resolution of images when you update them. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. I think I saved a smaller copy of the image. I'll be more careful in the future. :) --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Sauropod Size Charts[edit]

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?!

Made some more sauropod size charts, the captions mostly speak for themselves. I will keep adding more. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Barosaurus neck should be more horizontal. Right now it's the textbook "flaccid giraffe" position. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Also, the Nigersaurus' head looks off. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:22, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think Nigersaurus really has room for more images (the skeletal neatly incorporates a human and fossils), but it's always good to have in handy. FunkMonk (talk) 16:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Is the Baro better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Not quite. I meant that the neck should more or less be ramrod straight. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

How 'bout now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Isn't the dead straight horizontal diplodocid neck thing an outdated meme? Lusotitan 20:17, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think that any sauropods could hold their necks ramrod straight, cartilage and even the vertebral shape would prevent it. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

See Taylor & Wedel's preprint. This doesn't apply to all sauropods, just Barosaurus. Its peculiar cervical vertebral morphology indicates highly limited flexibility in the vertical plane. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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 [27] 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. [28] Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

That would account for the angle of the neck at the base... but not the convex kink it has about halfway up. I don't think the latter is biomechanically feasible. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Looking at your (Slate Weasel) various scale diagrams, I would be inclined to agree with this comment. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Quilmesaurus[edit]

I'm ready to start working on this, but I still need a skeletal for reference. Could someone give me a link to one, please? --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Your best bet is Hartman's Aucasaurus, considering its phylogenetic position. Carnotaurus is probably too derived. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:43, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm... which parts of Quilmesaurus are known? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Easiest way to find out quickly is usually just to check the Wikipedia article. It says only a femur and tibia are known. FunkMonk (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Uploaded the lineart. Figured that I would make sure it was okay before coloring. Also, feel free to make a flipped version for cladograms - I seriously don't mind. Is the dino okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Went ahead and colored it... --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure about those snout stripes. They seem too smoothly-defined for a real animal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Are they better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:21, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I added it to the article, as the stripes seem to be the only problem and not very visible at 250px, but I would still appreciate additional input. --Slate Weasel (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to take a little more time and smooth out the colouring and shading, and adding more texture. Using a different brush type in GIMP can add decent texture in regions where it should be added (snout, limbs etc). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

I actually colored it with Inkscape. I made some finishing touches with GIMP as you suggested, with special emphasis on the snout. Is it better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 11:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it looks ok now. I'll let someone else look over it and tag this done. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurus[edit]

Carcharodontosaurus reconstruction

Starting on Carcharo. Talked to Tomopteryx prior and he suggested I use the reconstruction here [29] (fifth down). Fred Wierum (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I've been told that GetAwayTrike's work is unreliable. Lusotitan 01:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Since the skeleton isn't known, as long as the body matches Giganotosaurus, you can't go wrong. The chin should be more prominent, as in Giganotosaurus, since this is diagnostic for carcharodontosaurs (though the lower jaw isn't known in this particular genus). It should have a more vertical front edge, and a short process downwards. Paul gives a good silhouette restoration of the unknown parts in his Field Guide. It is strange, Sereno even mentions the "squared anterior end of the lower jaw" as uniting carcharodontosaurs in his 1996 description, yet the physical skull reconstructions he supposedly oversaw don't show this feature... It also seems the back margin of the head is drawn as concave, whereas it should be more convex due to musculature. You also seem to have increased the size of the hands since your last version, but that's not in line with at least how the non-preserved hands of Giganotosaurus have been interpreted. The small pectoral region indicates small forearms overall. FunkMonk (talk) 08:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Changes added Fred Wierum (talk) 14:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cool, that's all from me. Note I also modified the old DBogdanov restoration just a few days ago to get in line with some of what I said above (and to remove the copyrighted photo used as background)... But the result isn't great, the original was unsharp for some reason, and that doesn't look good without a background, so the new image is welcome. FunkMonk (talk) 14:58, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I cant seem to find the Paul restoration of the skull, I assume the one on Carch's wiki page is just as good? Fred Wierum (talk) 15:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Paul's is more appropriate, since it shows what's known and what's not. It also shows the "chin" with a more vertical profile. Here is a phone picture of it:[30] The maxilla looks slightly less complete than it is drawn in the Sereno description, no idea why... FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, but I think it would be better to the proportions of this one (It's based on Scott Hartman's Giganotosaurus, which seems to be more accurate/reliable despite being older than GetAwayTrike's version): https://imgprx.livejournal.net/bcf5e5801d351dac95122683c36140a9e5a90fb0/guWz124OK3Qwf6d7cI_47d8hJq-kvoB7lTlDiXmXDfzxU9RGRRtTGCRVepKmRKj7Vkb8rGetIwkkzOyjRpGSrQ Also, why the lips don't cover the teeth entirely? Lips that don't cover the teeth completely are pretty much unlikely from what I've read, as the lips loose their function if they don't cover the teeth completely. Other than Masiakasaurus, Ceratosaurus and semi-aquatic dinosaurs (spinosaurids), it's pretty likely that all theropods had lips which covered their teeth completely.

I have altered the body to that of Hartman's Giga over a day ago, and the oral tissue isnt half covering the lips. I didnt show this in detail in the initial sketch but it's meant to resemble alligator oral tissue. Fred Wierum (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

^ This is the sock. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:00, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure I get the expression Fred Wierum (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I.e. the same user who previously edit-warred trying to add your dromaeosaur restorations everywhere. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Seems the stupid "lips for hydration" idea is still flopping around, though it isn't even published. The "theory" is easily falsified by the various extant, terrestrial animals which have exposed teeth covered in enamel. Also, the drawing has already been modified to match Hartman's Giganotosaurus skeletal. FunkMonk (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Rendered. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, but I think the teeth on the far maxilla and premaxilla should be at least partially visible. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

You sure? I based the oral tissue on alligators and gave it the same amount of keratin (which isnt very much). Fred Wierum (talk) 04:45, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the skull isn't deep enough for the teeth on the far side of the head to be completely hidden. There should be some sign of the head having a 3D depth, with some aspect of the far tooth row visible. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

That I can agree on. Forgot about the right side. Fred Wierum (talk) 04:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah ok we were confusing different parts of its anatomy :) IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Definitely more accurate than the old NT restoration, so that could be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 18:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

As always, it's beautiful, just an observation, it doesn't seem like the postorbital is as big as it should be, I hope you don't mind me superimposing Paul's skull on it, but there you can see that it looks as if only the posterior half of the postorbital is there link. Mike.BRZ (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I suppose? I tried merging Paul's and Sereno's together [31] to make a more general and balanced reconstruction since Sereno's had more information on the back of the skull compared to Paul's empty black space. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:12, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Went and fixed it anyway Fred Wierum (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

I would have given it scutes on the tail and metatarsals as per Concavenator and would have given it "lips", but as these points are both subjective I have no problems with the illustration as is. Tomopteryx (talk) 21:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

yeah, I forgot to do the tail scutes. Will remember to add eventually. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Would we call this completed or is there anything else to be altered? Fred Wierum (talk) 17:00, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Certainly accurate enough by now. I'd say the tail scutes are as optionable as those leg feathers we talked about earlier, also being based on phylogenetic bracketing. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Added Concavenator tail scales. Fred Wierum (talk) 23:58, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

"Seems the stupid "lips for hydration" idea is still flopping around, though it isn't even published. The "theory" is easily falsified by the various extant, terrestrial animals which have exposed teeth covered in enamel." Mark Witton begs to differ despite he mentioned some exceptions to the "lip-rule". Also, it's just me, or the skull looks too elongated? It almost looks like the inaccurate "Pinocchio-snouted" Giganotosaurus skull restoration in my opinion: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Giganotosaurus.jpg We have a skull restoration of Carcharodontosaurus here which takes the squared jaw of Giganotosaurus into account: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Carcharodontosaurus_skull_diagram.jpg and here it is with the jaws attached to each other: http://rs1153.pbsrc.com/albums/p504/Spinodontosaurus/Scale%20Chart/Acrocanthosaurus%20Carcharodontosaurus%20skull%20comparison.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip and it looks less elongated to me than in the restoration. Maybe it's just the perspective though...

No, Witton specifically expressed doubts about the "hydration" theory in that blog post (and in the comments), what he does state, though, is that covered teeth seem to be the norm among tetrapods (with some notable non-aquatic exceptions), but we don't know why, and he proposes no reason. As for the skull length, an image with the Sereno reconstruction superimposed on this image posted earlier[32] showed that the skull is at least shorter than that. It also matches the shortened Greg Paul reconstruction perfectly. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I misunderstood the post then, but the lips still seem to be quite likely. Also, would somebody superimpose this one: http://rs1153.pbsrc.com/albums/p504/Spinodontosaurus/Scale%20Chart/Acrocanthosaurus%20Carcharodontosaurus%20skull%20comparison.png?w=480&h=480&fit=clip on the restoration too? It's a bit different from the one made by Sereno (e.g. shortened and square-jawed like that of Greg Paul's, but different overall), and I'm interested how would it look.

Uf. This is the sockpuppeteer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, this gives me the opportunity to point out that, like I mentioned below, Thomas Carr is the main force pushing the "no feathers for Tyrannosaurus" idea, yet he is also against lipped tyrannosaurs. So you'd imagine people cheerleading for lips would also be cheerleading for feathers, though our sock-puppeteering friend here seems to take an unholy middle ground... And no, calling people "feather Nazis" doesn't exactly help your case.[33] FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

As per Funk's suggestion, I've gone ahead and replaced Nobu's old illustration with Fred's; it's more accurate and overall just looks more professionally-done. Raptormimus456 (talk) 02:34, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Saltriosaurus[edit]

Just started this today. I followed the tradition set by the Museo dei Fossili di Besano in basing the body on that of Sinraptor (skeletal reference here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sinraptor_dongi.jpg). Wanted to know if nostril/eye placement, silhouette and proportions were correct before adding colour/scales and/or protofeathers. Don't worry, final product will be done with proper scanner. Having problems illustrating feet. Thanks in advance. Mariomassone (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure this dubious taxon needs a restoration, nor am I confident that any attempt at a restoration would be a rigorous interpretation of the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

In which case, seeing as the illustration has already been started, let's just call it a generic allosauroid for the time being. Is there anything I should know/fix before proceeding? I was thinking of giving it a dark greyish skin with yellow-bellied slider-type banding (not an archosaur, I know). Mariomassone (talk) 18:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

The articulation of the feet look off. I don't know enough about perspective to comment more specifically. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:25, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Teeth dont seem to be the right shape nor does the amount look correct. I do agree with Lythro, the perspective does look off despite having traced from a skeletal mount. The animal's right ankle is thicker than the left despite being further away. As well as the right arm being unusually thin. Not to mention the end of the tail has this abrupt decrease in width where the image you used as reference stops. Fred Wierum (talk) 23:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: @Lythronaxargestes: Uploaded bodily modifications. Still need to do the teeth and figure out perspective. Mariomassone (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: @Lythronaxargestes: Fixed teeth. What part of the body appear to be out of perspective?
I also feel it necessary to provide an explanation as to why I'm trying to reconstruct this admittedly dubious taxon. I'm living in Italy at the moment, and there's been a veritable dinosaur boom in children's books recently since the release of Jurassic World. I've already seen some of them use the Commons images already present here, and think it's pretty much inevitable that they will include sections on Italian dinosaurs. As Saltriosaurus is pretty much the biggest theropod found there, it's only a matter of time that some book will include an illustrated section on it, fragmentary or not. I wanted to provide an image which was at least approved by experts, before some amateur illustrator came and just rendered it as a knock off JP raptor or T. rex style movie monster. Mariomassone (talk) 09:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Then you seem to be misguided by what we do here. Because, as you can see through all the submissions of art and discussions on removing unreviewed works,there isn't really any pop culture bias in any of these reconstructions (at least for the thorough ones). So fearing a highly inaccurate reconstruction on any dinosaur wiki article is pointless. All of us here are taking our spare time to help this online encyclopedia grow and remain as fact based as possible. No need to get worked up over the influence of Jurassic Park, so you should rest easy. Fred Wierum (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

This page at least doesn't have the problem of JP/pop culture influence, but if you look at Wikimedia Commons, where our images are hosted, there are loads of inaccurate paleoart, including photos of JP inspired models all over the world. So in that sense, it is good to counter such images which accurate, reviewed artwork, since a large percentage of the stuff that gets uploaded is never actually reviewed. Also why we need to tag all inaccurate images on Commons as such[34], to warn people who might want to use them. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@Fred Wierum: You misunderstand. I wasn't talking about the reconstructions here. I was talking about book authors, finding no PD Saltriosaurus reconstructions, would just make a random reconstruction without any thought on proper anatomy and/or phylogenetic bracketing.
Back on topic, are the teeth okay? Thanks in advance. Mariomassone (talk) 21:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Mariomassone There are no real issues with the body, except that the fingers seem too short and the hallux sticks out. I'll say its accurate enough for now, but you'll have a pretty hard job of shading it to make it look convincingly like perspective and not bad anatomy. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

IJReid Thanks IJ, I've hidden the hallux and lengthened the fingers somewhat. I've also closed the mouth to avoid the stereotype of perpetually roaring theropods. If the modifications are alright, I'll proceed to the shading and colouring. Mariomassone (talk) 13:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep go ahead. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Done for now. Not entirely satisfied with shading, though can't figure out why... Mariomassone (talk) 10:26, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's too light on the posterior neck and tail. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:57, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Daliansaurus[edit]

I noticed this animal has no images on its page, and as I've already done one I figured I may as well put it up. Tomopteryx (talk) 22:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Daliansaurus life reconstruction by Tom Parker, pencil 2017.

I'm not totally sure whether Daliansaurus would have had leg wings or not. There's Jinfengopteryx, the possible troodontid, that has no leg wings that I can see, Jianianhualong, a general troodontid, that preserves decently large leg wings but no foot wings, and Serikornis, a paravian, with large leg and foot wings. Since Jianianhualong seems to be closest related, perhaps you should add leg wings, but it could be argued that Jinfengopteryx is a better comparison. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Pedal ungual IV looks too short and not robust enough compared to the ungual II. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:50, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

We do not have a pedal ungual II from this animal. Tomopteryx (talk) 02:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes we do. Incomplete, albeit, but enough to infer what I described. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:44, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Tomopteryx, could you address at least address IJReid's comment? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Neovenator[edit]

Artistic reconstruction of Neovenator salerii

Rough sketch, but a guide to what direction I'm going. I assume scales are the preferred integument. Fred Wierum (talk) 20:38, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

May want more specialized integument on the face per Barker et al.... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:27, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what the external implications for that would be, but Darren Naish, one of the authors of that paper, has a restoration supposedly based on it here:[35] FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Would it be fine to give the same facial integument as Darren's? Fred Wierum (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, he only says " Large keratinous sheets on the altirostral snout of a big theropod (‘altirostral’ = narrow and tall-sided) might result in a very different look. I’ll leave this matter alone for now" and "Ultimately, however, our work doesn’t help that much on this issue. The external bone texture and large number of foramina suggests – we think – that a thick external tissue covering was present in Neovenator, and that this covering involved immobile tissue, albeit not rhamphotheca" there. FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

OKay, it was really confusing because crocodiles where referenced yet Darren's Neovenator profile illustration (compared to the skull) has, what look like, thick monitor-like lips. So I'm a bit confused as to what is being pointed out. Perhaps the they had the same crocolidian sensory system but could have been executed either with "lips" or croc-like keratinous snouts? Fred Wierum (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It seems quite vague in the text, but I assume he included that drawing because he though it was accurate... Anyhow, he discusses the issue an hour into this podcast[36], I don't remember exactly what he says, but may be worth a listen... FunkMonk (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Listened to it, and both the Neovenator and Daspletosaurus papers seem to agree that there were highly sensitive systems in these dinosaur snouts but they still disagree on whether or not they had extensive oral tissue like monitor lizards or more cornified keratin like that of crocodiles. So I'll just give mine lips like Darren's illustration since, according to their read, they didnt see any specific evidence for crocodilian scaly faces in Carr's paper, despite that subject boomed to much in popular media. Fred Wierum (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I think anything goes until there is concrete evidence, which we will probably never have... That won't stop the debate, though... FunkMonk (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Updated to the linework. Fred Wierum (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, I'm wondering whether it would be a good idea to have ridged crests like those shown by Naish... Anyhow, it would probably be good to show many small "spots" around the snout, which Naish says corresponds to the sensory apparatus in crocodiles in that blog post. FunkMonk (talk) 19:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Should have scutellate scales on the foot, perhaps. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Ready for another checkup. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It would appear the old restoration doesn't really match the fossils around the lacrimal horns? The head also seems small, and the hip/leg joint seems kind of disconnected, so perhaps it should just be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 22:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus Rex[edit]

Tyrannosaurus Rex

Tyrannosaurus Rex (neutral background)

This is my first contribution here, so hello everyone!
I have modeled and rendered a Tyrannosaurus Rex. I decided to make this model because of some new findings regarding tyrannosaur skin a few month ago.
So please tell me what you think.
Cgruf (talk) 15:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the tail seem extremely long? Compare to for example this skeletal diagram:[37] Also, the head looks very Jurassic Park like, I'm not sure what the current consensus is on what kind of "horns" it would have had, but they would perhaps had been more in front of the eyes than directly above, like in its closest relatives. FunkMonk (talk) 19:15, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

While the sculpt is nicely detailed and the rendering is pretty, I'm afraid there's a lot going wrong here in my eyes. First off is the tail. It's way too bulky in the rear half. I'm pretty sure we're aware that theropod tails kept the silhouette of the skeleton in that area. Most of the mass and muscle was at the first half which seems to be lacking, actually. Arms seem to be a third longer than they should be as well as the upper arm being oddly massive. Both fingers seem to be the same length when the first finger was over half the size of the second. And judging by the boxy shaped head/skull and the skin texture you gave it, it looks like you didn't seem to use any skeletal references but instead made a slightly more accurate JP rex. Skeletal that was used to compare the model [38]. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, there is a distinct Jurassic Park feel to it overall, so I'm wondering whether actual skeletons were used as reference, or more generic JP images... Forgot to add that the jury is still out on the feathers; like with lips, there are two camps with little evidence to present each. The no feathers camp led by Thomas Carr seems to also be against lips, yet this image shows lips, but no feathers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I agree to everything that's been said above, but I think there are a few more things that should be brought to light:

The teeth seem to be arranged in a different pattern from which is known. They also seem to come to a very sharp point, when in reality they should be more like bananas.
The hornlets probably should have a dip in the middle. The alternative would be to make them more boss-like (as in Sue)
The tail is approximately 50% longer than it actually was. Both Stan and Sue are known from nearly complete tails.
Manual ungual I should be strongly curved, while Manual Ungual II should be about half as big as it is.
The femur looks a bit short, it should almost reach the pubic boot.
Sue seems to have a broader chest than illustrated.

Also, it should be noted that scales and feathers are not mutually exclusive. I think that there's been a discussion on this paper before. My observations were based on 7 skeletals of Tyrannosaurus, 3 by Paul, 4 by Hartman. By the way, what is this based on (and which specimen? Here are some more links to skeletals: [39][40] --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks for all your suggestions! And of course for your fast reply.

And @Fred Wierum I am happy that you like my sculpting and rendering.

The model was based on different skeleton photos and drawings, but I haven't chosen a specific specimen. Which maybe was not such a good idea.

But from now on I try to make him based on Sue.

And now I try to implement all your suggestions.

Under [41] you can find the current state of the model. For now, I just work on the Proportions, and therefore I haven't rendered it correctly. But I will, of course, do a proper render later on (like I have already posted it here on Wikipedia).

What I have done so far:

I have fixed the tail.

I have corrected the arm and fingers.

I have started to work on the head and rearranging the teeth.

And some more corrections...

@Slate Weasel: You have mentioned that the femur looks a bit too short. But in the neutral pose, it is as long as you mentioned, it seems shorter in this pose because the leg is moved forward.

Or do you mean that it should be also longer in this current pose?

What should I now do with the horns on his head? should I remove them?

So please tell me if the charges are ok and if I am moving in the right direction.

Cgruf (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

On the head, the horns look like those of Gorgosaurus and Daspletosaurus, but they actually have horns on their skulls, just in front of the eyes, so it seems wrong to make the same kind of horns over the eyes here. It seems Tyrannosaurus itself had more of a "boss" over each eye, like a rounded brow. Maybe Scott Hartman's life restoration would be a good reference:[42] There, you can see the "dip" mentioned above, where the lacrimal "horn" meets the boss of the postorbital bone over the eye. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I have changed the horns like suggested.

Here you can find a quick low res render with all improvements that I have done so far: [43]

Are this changes ok?

Cgruf (talk) 18:30, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think it looks good, but I'll let others comment. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:00, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If we decide to include it, the end of the locomotion or palaeoecology sections are the only places I see as really open space-wise for an additional image. Lusotitan 00:45, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, but the inaccurate Commons images haven't been updated yet! FunkMonk (talk) 12:36, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Now I have updated the Images on Wikimedia Commons.: [44]

Cgruf (talk) 17:31, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm unsure how this model looks still. Improvements have been made, for sure, but I'm not seeing how this is accurate. The head doesnt seem to have the accurate proportions and dimensions to support binocular vision. Over all the skull looks more like the more narrow headed Tarbosaurus than Tyrannosaurus [45] [46]. Doesnt seem robust enough, especially the bottom jaw. It seems like you also still have the Jurassic Park-esque Rex lippage going on. I'm unsure if anyone else will agree with me, but it might be best to pick either full oral tissue (lips) or more crocodilian oral tissue. And if you do go crocodilian, then you might have to fix the odd JPedge of the mouth that doesnt seem to make any sense to me[47]. Distal half of the tail I think still needs thinning [48]. The leg muscles look really odd to me. Almost flabby. And I'm unsure Dinosaurs had fleshy knee pads that stick out so much. On the anterior of the shin area (tibia & fibula)it seems to be lacking muscle there as well[49][50]. And lastly, the toes seem very odd. They look like sausages with claws. Would be best to look at ratites like Emus for reference [51]. Fred Wierum (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I have done the new suggested changes.

Here is the current WIP: [52]

I changed the eyes position and orientation.

The model should now almost fit the skull drawings in the side- and top- view.

I have removed the lips. And I thinned the tail and fixed the knee pads + legs. And I also worked on the toes.

Some of the high frequency detail could be off now because of the big stuff that was moved around. I will fix this before I do the next render with all textures.

Cgruf (talk) 16:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The back of the skull should be convex rather than concave, so that it "encases" the ear opening (see the Hartman restoration again). FunkMonk (talk) 23:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Still think theres a few areas needing corrections, but you're almost there! Dont forget to do these corrections [53] [54] (additional refs [55] [56]). Fred Wierum (talk) 04:34, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the paint-over! I have changed the model according to it, and uploaded the result to Commons: [57]

Cgruf (talk) 19:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me! I'll see if I can replace RJ's illustration since it seems to be conflicting with current evidence. I talked to him about it and he has passed the torch. Fred Wierum (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

As the "lead" restoration, maybe it would be best to have some sort of compromise restoration of the two extremes (feathered, non feathered)? Going full on Thomas Carr/Jurassic Park is probably a bit "POV". Also, would be nice with the subject facing right towards the text in that position of the article... FunkMonk (talk) 23:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. Was gonna go with 'lips' and scales but with light feathering on the head, like that of Mark Witton's [58]. Perhaps might even do two tyrannosaurs walking together like Stan and Sue to show off the different morphs. Fred Wierum (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds interesting, if their differences can be conveyed properly in flesh... Maybe it could be interesting to even have a restoration that shows one feathered and one unfeathered individual... FunkMonk (talk) 20:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, not sure if that may work in a single image with the two interacting. We'll see. Fred Wierum (talk) 01:07, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe something like [59]?

But I think, for a reconstruction which should also be clear "readable" as a small thumbnail it might be better to have only one individual in one picture (like all the other reconstructions here).

Cgruf (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Albertosaurus[edit]

Albertosaurus

I'm working on a series of 20 pencil drawings. Here is the first: a life restoration of Albertosaurus, which seems like it could use another life restoration. It is based on Paul's 2016 skeletal. It is taking a walk (which, strangely enough, theropods are rarely shown doing) through a fog. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Seeing quite a bit wrong [60] [61]. Try also to clean up your pencil work. It's a bit messy. Fred Wierum (talk) 19:23, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Most of these changes should not be too hard to make in GIMP. I will re-upload when finished. --Slate Weasel (talk) 20:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't say Albertosaurus is the most likely candidate for something needing a new restoration, it already has quite a few, but maybe there's room in the palaeoecology section or something like that. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Ganzhousaurus[edit]

I've long wanted draw a dinosaur with dodo-like features for some reason, so I thought an oviraptorid of some sort might fit the bill, and chose Ganzhousaurus, which is image-less. Here's the rough sketch[62] so far, any thoughts? It is based on various "ingeniines", as Ganzhousaurus itself is pretty scrappy. Perhaps the legs are too stumpy, too much dodo-influence... FunkMonk (talk) 23:31, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

It's pretty scrappy... but I'll check the fossil material. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

The description is online here[63], it's just a leg, a mandible, and some vertebrae... FunkMonk (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It's phylogenetically close to Nemegtomaia, check against that taxon's skeletal maybe? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Where did you see that? In the description at least, it seems to be in a polytomy with various other taxa. FunkMonk (talk) 03:54, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's in the Tongtianlong phylogeny. In the meantime, I've made a silhouette based on your Nemegtomaia: [64] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:34, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Heh, cute, that's not entirely "mine", though, I just drew a silhouette around the skeletal diagram in the Plos paper... As for phylogenetic placement, seems to be inconsistent? Maybe other studies place it in yet other positions... I'll have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm, the Beibeilong phylogeny has it as being much more basal.... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:42, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

That's probably how it goes with specimens that fragmentary. It's probably also just a synonym of one of the other oviraptorids from the formation, but we'll probably never know... I'll just keep it generic, though with short "ingeniine" fingers. FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Did some cleanup and changed proportions without "connecting the dots, so it looks a bit broken, any thoughts?[65] FunkMonk (talk) 01:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking good so far... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:41, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Eolambia skeleton[edit]

I've gotten around to finishing the Eolambia to the best I'm willing to do right now, I have too many things going ... The large individual is the holotype, which is an adult, and the small individual is the OMNH v864 specimen, the smallest articulated individual. I'm worried about adding the isolated bones, because of a lack of cross-scaling, and I'm also wary of FMNH PR 3847, because it is a subadult larger than the holotype, and can barely be cross-scaled with the others. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes should be our resident expert on this taxon. What are the lifted hind legs doing? If they are supposed to be lifted, it seems weird they would be posed as if planted on the ground. FunkMonk (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't posing them as lifted, they're placed as planted. I can change that if people want. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 22:50, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Manual ungual I should perhaps be straighter and more conical. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Since I assume you're talking about the pollex (thumb claw) I changed it and made it better. Anything else really? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:23, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Antetonitrus (and Dracovenator)[edit]

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)

Would it be comfortable feeding that close to a predator? FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

Naish, Conway, Kosemen, and Hartman (2012) explore the idea of peaceful encounters between predator and prey (they used Allosaurus and Camptosaurus as examples). Just thought that it would be worth bringing up here. --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Neovenator size[edit]

Neovenator Scale

I decided to make a new scale diagram for the Neovenator page. The size is based on the holotype specimen, and the unknown elements are based off other related Charcharodontosaurs. I did not include the dubious "MIWG 4199" as its position in Neovenator is unfounded. DaCaTaraptor (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Looks good, I think that its far better than the old version. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:01, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Second that. But remember to use more specific categories than "dinosaur" on Commons! FunkMonk (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks for changing that on the file! DaCaTaraptor (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a pretty cool image. I don't see anything wrong. --Slate Weasel (talk) 01:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Images by User:Oktaytanhu[edit]

Sauroposeidon and Brachiosaurus
Allosaurus and Epanterias
Iguanodon
Giganotosaurus
Spinosaurus, Irritator, Suchomimus, and Baryonyx
Mapusaurus
Carcharodontosaurus
Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, Mapusaurus, and Tyrannosaurus
Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Tyrannosaurus
Tyrannosaurus
Tyrannosaurus and Triceratops
Albertosaurus, Gorgosaurus, Daspletosaurus, Alioramis, Tarbosaurus, Nannotyrannus, and Tyrannosaurus

Browsing on Commons again. I know that we already have scale charts for most of these articles, but I thought that you guys might still like to have a look at them anyway. Some of them are also used in English Wikipedia articles. They seem reasonably accurate, but I do see some problems (e.g. dragging tail on Trike), but do you guys have any further input? --Slate Weasel (talk) 01:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

A number of those images were uploaded by the Hungarian sockpuppeteer. We're not going to use those for sure. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:31, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Who made them? FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I believe that we'll find all of these images are copyrighted. For example: I looked through Iguanodon images and found this: [66] which is identical to the iguanodon scale diagram. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 15:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Ouch, all the user's uploads should probably be nominated for deletion then... FunkMonk (talk) 15:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Rugops[edit]

Scale diagram of Rugops primus.

I have a scale diagram for Rugops primus, any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

It has an elbow joint, which I don't think it should have. It is a primitive abelisaur, but I think that its features should be based on other abelisaurids, rather than non-abelisaurid ceratosaurs. The black fingers give the impression of claws, which, once again, other abelisaurids lack. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

I suppose the idea was that it is related to Eoabelisaurus, which is a primitive abelisaur that indeed has the elbow joints. I can try and clean up the fingers to prevent the claw confusion. Paleocolour (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems like Eoabelisaurus is not an abelisaurid according to the latest analysis, while Rugops is. Its arms should probably be based on other abelisaurs, as they seem fairly uniform between Aucasaurus and Majungasaurus. See here. I have not yet found the exact source. --Slate Weasel (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

This is per the Furileusauria analysis: [67] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:08, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I have fixed the arm. Any more changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe clean up the hand a bit more? It still looks like it has claws, and it looks like it has 5 fingers now. --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the fingers, any other edits required? Paleocolour (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... I'm not sure if Rugops would have had digit IV as the remainder of one of the manual unguals or not. I'll let someone who knows more about abelisaurs comment on this, because I don't know, although my best guess would be yes. --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Digit IV in Majungasaurus is composed of metacarpal IV and one terminal phalanx, which represents the plesiomorphic condition within Ceratosauria. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Images by Nobu Tamura (Spinops)[edit]

(modified)

Galeaspida

Acanthodii

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)

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)

Haha, it's about time that Mauriciosaurus got an illustration...! Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Grab them! It does seem the older images still have non commercial (NC) licences, like for example this Ceratosaurus[68]. 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)

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)

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)

I seriously considered bringing this up, but I decided against thinking, "nah, they probably know." Everything from [69] 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)

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:[70] FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

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 [71] may be iffy, of course, given that it is possibly a stegosaur. I just noticed the Deinocheirus [72] lacks a tail-fan, as has been inferred from a pygostyle-like structure, so I'd be hesitant to upload that. The Morganucodon restoration[73] 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)

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)

I added the Deinocheirus after making the legs less stubby and giving it a bit more of a tail tuft. FunkMonk (talk) 21:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I also want to mention that any images uploaded here should also be put into the Illustrations by Nobu Tamura category on Wikimedia. (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Illustrations_by_Nobu_Tamura) (preceding comment added by Paleocolour)

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[74]. The two versions do not have the same licence. FunkMonk (talk) 17:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I received a message on my talk page from User:NobuTamura asking for these credits to be used for all his uploaded images: Nobu Tamura Email:nobu.tamura@yahoo.com http://spinops.blogspot.com/ http://paleoexhibit.blogspot.com/ Please follow his requests if you upload his images. I will be going back and updating all the credits of the images I have uploaded in the coming days. Paleocolour (talk) 05:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Spinosaurs[edit]

Here are two size charts that I created for Ichthyovenator and Oxalaia. Sources are listed in the file description. Are there any errors? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ichthyovenator's skull looks way too thin. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:31, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Better now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 14:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Smooth out the kink in the neck, I think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Did that fix it? Is the Oxalaia okay? --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Silly me, forgot to upload it! :P --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Are they okay now? --Slate Weasel (talk) 13:22, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Spinosaurs themselves are fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Added them. --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Just a note on the man again, why is his leg on the right bent like that? It looks like he would not be able to carry his weight, and he would tip over forwards. His body is shifted towards that leg, so it should be the straight one, and the one behind should be the bent one. Or more naturally, both should be straight. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

The idea was that he is walking and one of his legs is further forward. To see if this was biomechanically possible, I stood in this position, and it seems to work. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I considered that, but it seemed kind of nonsensical, but then again, dinosaurs are usually portrayed mid-stride... FunkMonk (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the easy fix is to rotate the left foot so his/hers not pointing opposite to the right. Also, the Oxalaia should probably have its other foot visible and planted forward, so it doesn't look as front-heavy. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Sinotyrannus[edit]

a scale reconstruction

a scale restoration

I have illustrated a scale reconstruction of Sinotyrannus kazuoensis. I based the proportions off of holotype. please let me know if changes needed to be made. Dibrangosaurus (talk) 21:31, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't see it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:55, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

I'm also not sure about the naso-maxillary crest. It doesn't seem like there's much osteological evidence for it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Could you check the anatomy against Yutyrannus? The skull could be more robust, for example. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:34, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

okay, thanks. is there anything else? Dibrangosaurus (talk) 03:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

i was unhappy with the old one so i have redrawn it. please tell me if changes should be madeDibrangosaurus (talk) 00:46, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Images by Midiaou Diallo[edit]

I have snagged these images with permission from Midiaou Diallo, any changes needed? Paleocolour (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

They look pretty good. Midi does have a wiki account, (he uploaded the tumbling "Troodon"s in snow), and the proper link to his permission is here :https://comments.deviantart.com/1/687982766/4499848947 IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Just the pterosaur ones. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:41, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Also, the drawing was made when Moabosaurus was a titanosauriform... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:34, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

Images by Øyvind M. Padron[edit]

Hello again! In my never-ending quest for images for Wikipedia I have been granted permission by Øyvind Padron to upload images in his 2017 ink portraits folder, found here. I have uploaded this Struthiosaurus image of his as an example, and he was fine with the credits and license used. I plan on uploading these and adding them to relevant articles over time. If you are all in agreement I will go ahead and begin that process over the coming days. Below is the message he sent me as proof he is fine with his images being used. Paleocolour (talk) 21:25, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

ZEGH8578 said the following:

You have my permission to upload my images to Wikipedia, but please make sure of a couple of things

Firstly, attribute Author as: Øyvind M. Padron (zegh8578.deviantart.com/)

Secondly, since you'll be uploading, and not me, I won't be involved in the process, so make sure the CC lisence includes the point about proper attribution. I've seen some images where this part is, for some reason, omitted, perhaps overlooked: "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). share alike – If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one." Since the internet is as unruly as it is, my main priority is to be properly credited, as you surely understand.

Lastly, since - again - you'll be the one uploading, I'd appreciate if image descriptions were fairly minimal, in a way that reflects the minimalistic nature of the images themselves.

Regards, Øyvind M. Padron/ ZEGH8578

Again, this should be done through WP:OTRS. Also, the accuracy of the Struthiosaurus is questionable, since Frotzler (2017)'s publication was unethical and ignored other in-progress work. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Xenoposeidon[edit]

Okay, it's probably pretty foolish of me to even attempt a simple silhouette right after its classification has been switched from Euhelopid to Rebbachisaurid, but here it is anyways. Is it okay? Also, is it worth it to put it in the article? --Slate Weasel (talk) 01:14, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Not bad, but the back and pelvis should be taller, as rebbachisaurs have tall neural spines. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:42, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I used Nigersaurus as a model for the posterior backbone. Does it look better? --Slate Weasel (talk) 22:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah it looks better. Just so you know, this image would also be fairly accurate if Xenoposeidon was "somphospondylan", as it has a long neck and Wintonotitan-like proportions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 23:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Can it be added to the article now? By the way, the dino is pretty much a combo of Huabiesaurus, Nigersaurus, and some other generic sauropods for the head (Diplodocus and Tapuiasaurus mostly). Didn't realize that there was a third possible option. --Slate Weasel (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps add it AFTER Taylor's preprint is peer-reviewed... ;) Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:32, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Cryolophosaurus[edit]

a scale restoration

Here is my restoration of C. ellioti. if there are any changes to be made, please let me know. Also, i've read that some hypothesise it to have been feathered, should i include a feathered version?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 18:38, 24 November 2017 (UTC) also i am aware that the page for cryolophosaurus already has a restoration, i just figured it could use a full body view as well.

This is another case where I ask where you suppose this would fit on the page; it's pretty full on images already, and has both a size chart and life restoration, meaning there's no urgent need. That said, the article could probably use another pass anyway, so perhaps expansion could be made allowing it to fit. Lusotitan 01:25, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

it possibly could fit on the left hand side of paleopathology or diet. or perhaps the image used in the decription could go there, as it is scavenging in the drawing, and this could take its place in description? also what do you mean expansion?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Either of those locations would cause it to indent headers. Lusotitan 03:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

what about underneath the restoration of the head?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 03:47, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of placement in the article, the restoration could use a little work. The skull doesn't follow with that of a crestless Dilophosaurus, which it should. The premaxilla should be smaller, and the top of the snout should be convex or straight, not curvy in both directions. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:09, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Why is the snout concave at the top? I can't think of any theropods that look like this. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

is this any better?Dibrangosaurus (talk) 04:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Certainly. But I just noticed it looks like the dewclaw on the right foot is behind the foot? It should be on the inner side. Also, the tail area and other parts looks pixelated, could be cleaned up. You should upload new version on top of old versions of an image, not as new files. FunkMonk (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

will fix the dewclaw and try to clean up the tail. thanks Dibrangosaurus (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC) anything else that should be fixed? Dibrangosaurus (talk) 04:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

What's this based on? Using Scott Hartman's skeletal, the legs look too long and thick, the tail too short, the body too big, and the skull a bit too deep. --Slate Weasel (talk) 12:51, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure much of that isn't really known, but yeah, aqlways good to state what a restoration is based on. FunkMonk (talk) 13:32, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

i mainly used this reconstruction for the head and legs https://www.google.ca/search?q=cryolophosaurus&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjdxKzZitrXAhUp6oMKHe5EAr0Q_AUICigB&biw=1600&bih=783#imgrc=IGPsqR-vz2gdDM: and i used the size chart recently made by Slate Weasel. i will go make those changes, thanks. Dibrangosaurus (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC) so it's still a little meatier than hartmans but the proportions are much closer i think Dibrangosaurus (talk) 16:28, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Zuolong skeletal[edit]

I have just finished a Zuolong skeletal that was requested by someone I know, and they didn't mind if I uploaded it here, so here it is. The known material is based on the description and figures from Choinere et al 2010, and the unknown material is based mostly on Huaxiagnathus, Sinocalliopteryx and Sciurumimus, all of which are known from good, nearly complete skeletons. The scale bar is 1 meter, and the light colours indicate known material (white is known external bones, light grey is either palate, braincase, or sacrum). Dark colours indicate unknown material (partial bones or unknown braincase). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:04, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems a little confusing that you have two shades of grey, with the darkest shade supposedly showing unknown parts? Anyhow, the meaning of the shades should be stated in the image description. FunkMonk (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Falcarius[edit]

a scale restoration

hello again. i've created this reconstruction of Falcarius utahensis using the skeletal by scott hartman: http://www.skeletaldrawing.com/theropods/falcarius. are there changes that should be made? Dibrangosaurus (talk) 20:12, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

[1] Per following policy discussions:[1][2][3]

[a]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review

Contents

Images in review[edit]

Buriolestes[edit]

Herrerasaurus[edit]

Eoabelisaurus[edit]

Aucasaurus[edit]

Ekrixinatosaurus[edit]

The big boy Patagotitan[edit]

Archaeoceratops Size Comparison and other stuff[edit]

Request: size-diagrams for all Good Articles[edit]

Dreadnoughtus Scale Diagram Redo[edit]

Megalosaurus Skeletal[edit]

Vectorized Images by User:Dinoguy2[edit]

Tyrannotitan Chubutensis[edit]

Theropod Infographic[edit]

Omeisaurus[edit]

Largest Dinosaurs[edit]

Scolosaurus Size Comparison[edit]

Australian Titanosaurs from PLOS One[edit]

Sauropod Size Charts[edit]

Quilmesaurus[edit]

Carcharodontosaurus[edit]

Saltriosaurus[edit]

Daliansaurus[edit]

Neovenator[edit]

Tyrannosaurus Rex[edit]

Albertosaurus[edit]

Ganzhousaurus[edit]

Eolambia skeleton[edit]

Antetonitrus (and Dracovenator)[edit]

Neovenator size[edit]

Images by User:Oktaytanhu[edit]

Rugops[edit]

Images by Nobu Tamura (Spinops)[edit]

Spinosaurs[edit]

Sinotyrannus[edit]

Images by Midiaou Diallo[edit]

Images by Øyvind M. Padron[edit]

Xenoposeidon[edit]

Cryolophosaurus[edit]

Zuolong skeletal[edit]

Falcarius[edit]

Navigation menu

Search