| Revision as of 13:40, 20 March 2007 editBrian0918 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users41,856 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 11:26, 26 December 2024 edit undoJurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers9,895 editsm Reverted edit by 58.10.248.83 (talk) to last version by Qwerfjkl (bot)Tag: Rollback |
| (414 intermediate revisions by more than 100 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{ArticleHistory |
|
|
|
{{Notice|'''''Triceratops/Torosaurus''''' - While a recent study suggests that these two dinosaurs are the same animal, these articles cannot be merged until a clear consensus exists in the scientific community. Please see ] and ].}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Article history |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1=PR |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Triceratops |
|
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Triceratops/archive1 |
|
|action1date=21:30, 18 January 2007 |
|
|action1date=21:30, 18 January 2007 |
|
|action1result=reviewed |
|
|action1result=reviewed |
| Line 13: |
Line 16: |
|
|maindate=March 21, 2007 |
|
|maindate=March 21, 2007 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{WikiProject Dinosaurs}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=FA|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Dinosaurs|importance=high}} |
|
{{WPCD}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Palaeontology|importance=high}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Spoken Misplaced Pages}} |
|
== OK, what else to smarten up this page? == |
|
|
|
}} |
|
Votes on getting the portrait of OC Marsh? |
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|
|
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
PS: Some of the drawings from the original 1907 monographs would be cool and they'd be way out of copyright.] 06:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|counter = 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
== Relation? == |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
Is the ] a descendant of ]?--] 00:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|algo = old(180d) |
|
::No, ''Triceratops'' had no descendants. It was the last of the Ceratopsians, a group of dinosaurs. Dinosaurs were reptiles. The rhinoceros is related to ]-like animals, and is a mammal, jut like you and me. :) --<font color="#999fff">]</font> 02:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|archive = Talk:Triceratops/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
|
|
|
}} |
|
N-O! ] 09:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I laughed... priceless. ] 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== To Do List == |
|
|
|
|
|
Probaly better listed here than on collaboration page as the other is time limited. ] 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Need bit on posture in paleobiology much discussion on this historically. ] 03:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Should we be removing bulleting from 'Depiction in popular media'? |
|
|
|
|
|
== Genders == |
|
|
|
|
|
The female Triceratops has a smaller neck frill than the male Triceratops. ] |
|
|
:Cite? ;) ] 00:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Teeth== |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a mention of Triceratops teeth being among the most abundant fossils in the Late Cretaceous Period of Western North America, I have seen references on Ebay selling triceratops teeth a having been "shed". Has anyone who has studied this dinosaur at a more academic level then ebay (snicker) come across a reference to it shedding teeth once they were wore and growing them back? I have read that many dinosaurs had the ability like many of todays animals to grow back lost teeth, to shedding of worn teeth, has anyone heard of that?] 20:54, 2 October 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Posture== |
|
|
|
|
|
I started a small section on posture, and added a ref in the links section... does anyone have historical references or pictures to clarify? ] 9:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: By the way, does any research give a hint if Triceratops dragged its tail behind, or kept it clear of the ground (and how high)? Many modern reconstructions of other dinosaur species show the latter, but perhaps T. was different? --] 22:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Triceratops is the next collaboration == |
|
|
|
|
|
('']''). . |
|
|
*'''Status''': Article status unknown. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Support: |
|
|
#] 05:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#] 03:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#] 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#] 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
#] 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Comments: |
|
|
*One of the most famous dinosaurs. ] 05:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Lots of materials. General cleanup and references needed but hey, this is one of the public's favorite! ] 03:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*Everyone likes Triceratops. Plus, there's lots of stuff out there on the animal. ] 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*A really close decision but I think this is the most able to be brought up to FA standard currently. ] 14:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
*I don't have any papers on it, but there are dozens, and it's one of ''the'' most well known dinosaurs, to science and to the public. I'll help out where I cam :) ] 22:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===To-do list=== |
|
|
Above are the comments for the second-time round nomination to hopefully get it up to FA candidacy..Now for a to-do list........] 04:27, 20 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I dunno, but comparing it to '']'', I think the Paleobiology and Popular Culture sections are robust. The Discovery and History could use beefing up (someone who has Dodson's book could expand on the species and lineage hypotheses of the pre-1980s, and how that got translated to discussions of age, sexual dimorphism, and individual variation). Also, it would be nice to have a sentence or two on the various nomina dubia (what they're based on, formation and location, and that's about it). ] 17:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The other thing is synthesising a description subheading straight after the intro; this was something I never did when initially expanding dino entries but other FACs have all had them and the reviewers seem to think them necessary.] 06:07, 23 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:There are a ton of lists in this article. Since the reviewers hate lists, those have got to be turned into paragraphs of lovely prose. Also, the pop culture section needs some serious pruning. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 06:53, 23 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I moved the culture section into a new article. No point mixing fiction trivia with actual information on the dinosaur (c.f. astronomical articles like ] or ]).--] <sup style="font-size:x-small">]</sup> 22:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:OK, a '''Description''' seems to have been beneficial, if not essential, to get dino articles to FAs. I have rejigged and made one. Needs some work though ] 23:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I've begun a '''Classification''' bit (like on the ] page) which shoudl get an origins bit undeneath. Will do more later ] 07:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== references == |
|
|
|
|
|
the book "The Dinosaur Heresies" has some interesting facts and figures about Triceratop's running speed. this can be a good source. however, i do not have this book. i don't know how i can use this as a reference. ISBN is 0140100555 Author: Robert T. Bakker. --] 16:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:Thanks for that. I'm sure one of us has it ] 19:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Final to-do list pre FAC == |
|
|
|
|
|
OK guys, what now? It is looking alot better. ] 08:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*Peer Review (?) |
|
|
*rearrange images (?) |
|
|
|
|
|
:(images): how about a left-right-left-right (so-on and so forth) formating? i'm not a fan of right-only or left-only images format. --] 17:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
*the automated review says no links in headings (nomina dubia subheading) but I feel this is only a subheading and helps explain as the link is nowhere else in the text. What say others? ] 21:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:If we explained it like that, we might be able to get away with it. |
|
|
:In general, the article seems a little short, but darned if I can find anything specifically wrong with it. It hits all the important topics. Maybe this is just the length it's supposed to be. ] 21:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think we should try to avoid technical terms like ''nomina dubia'' in headings. Maybe we could remove it from the heading, and include text immediately afterword to the effect of "the following species are considered ''nomina dubia'' ("dubious names"), and are based on remains that are too poor or incomplete to be distinguished from pre-existing ''Triceratops'' species." Especially in a featured article, a little blurb like that would help to readers understand some of the reasons these species are not valid. ] 22:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Brilliant ] 22:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In terms of lengthening, maybe adding something about some of the fragmentary teeth that were probably Triceratops found before 1889? ] 22:44, 18 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Length of dino FAS as of Jan 18 2007: |
|
|
*Triceratops = 27.8 kB (3964 words) - comparison |
|
|
--------------------------------- |
|
|
*Stegosaurus = 36.5 kB (5328 words) |
|
|
*Diplodocus = 30.5 kB (4474 words) |
|
|
*Tyrannosaurus = 57.0 kB (8268 words) |
|
|
*Velociraptor = 28.4 kB (4016 words) |
|
|
*Dinosaur = 67.3 kB (9682 words) |
|
|
*Albertosaurus = 21.2 kB (2996 words) |
|
|
*Psittacosaurus = 22.8 kB (3159 words) |
|
|
---------------------------------- |
|
|
Note the last 3 were granted FA status some time ago now. Would folks have wanted them longer now? ] 05:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I don't thnk we should pad it to get to a specified length. The one thing I'd like to see added is a bit on "what" it's thought to have been eating. ] 05:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::subheadings are also headings. i agree with rewording Nomina dubia with a less technical term. also, the caption in one of images says: '''Juvenile and adult skulls — the juvenile is about the size of an adult human head''' i only see a single skull in that particular image, does that mean the adult and the young's skull is the same (in size or everything) also, there is a dangling modifier in the statement that followed. Does that mean that the specie (the young ones) is only as small (or big) as a human head? i'll try to reword it if no one objects. --] 16:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I think you may be missing something there--the juvenile skull is directly in front of the frill of the adult skull. It's a bit more brownish in color and has those stubby little horns. ] 16:52, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::seen it. thanks. --] 18:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK - have added a bit on diet - the last bit of the function of frills and horns subheading bugs me but I can't visualise how to write it currently.] 19:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Comment on references: Some of the references seem to be formatted slightly differently than others. For example, on the years: |
|
|
:^ Marsh, O.C. (1889b). Notice of gigantic horned Dinosauria from the Cretaceous. American Journal of Science 38:173-175. |
|
|
:^ Ostrom, J. H., and P. Wellnhofer. 1986. The Munich specimen of Triceratops with a revision of the genus. Zitteliana 14: 111 - 158. |
|
|
|
|
|
:I know some of these are books, some journals, but shows both books and journals with the year following the author's name in parenthesis. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 23:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::OK, all years parenthesized and all vols bolded. Never know hwat to do with the page 'pp' thingies....] 00:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Thanks. I would have done it myself, but wasn't exactly sure it really was right. I didn't want to mess anything up, ya know! :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 00:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::So whaddya reckon- have a tilt now or can you see other things to fix......] 00:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I've just finished fixing some italics/puntuation issues, but the article looks fine to me. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 00:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::On a second glance, the lead is still a little short. Does our current lead really summarize the entire rest of the article? It doesn't really look like it. <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 00:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Quils == |
|
:::::::Yeah, I was starting to think that on a final look. Do you wanna have a play with it or shall I...(gotta make some lunch now)] 00:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I'll work on it. Happy lunching! :) <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 01:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Right. It's a bit longer now, with stuff that wasn't summarized now included. ] helped me refine it a bit. What do you think? <font color="#0000FF">]</font> 02:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It has been shown by the fossil known as lane that triceratops had quils or something ajacent and the restoration doesent show that ] (]) 05:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
::::::::::OK - I just tweaked the last bit of the horn/frill function subsection. There is one isolated sentence hanging about sound amplification which I can't figure where to put - its just sort of hanging there. Otherwise I'm happy with the intro and the rest. Its comprehensive, easy to read, well laid out and (obviously) neutral....] 05:08, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:That was one interpretation, and I'm not sure if it was ever even published. It was some sort of structure that was interpreted as "basis" for quills, the supposed quills themselves were not preserved. One paper this article cites about the specimen says "In all of these taxa (Psittacosaurus, Carnotaurus, Triceratops), it is unlikely that the feature scale bore a spine or a “bristle”-like structure—similar to those seen on the tail of Psittacosaurus—although bristle-like projections are present on some scales in the early-branching neornithischian Kulindadromeus48,49." We should certainly go in more detail about this, though. I will add a photo of the skin impression. ] (]) 06:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Triceratops died out 66mya not 65mya == |
|
:Right - had another look and was able to combine the sentence on noise with thermoregulation as a preamble to talking about display. I'm happy now - let's nominate ] 05:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
65mya is in the Paleocene. Triceratops lived from 68-66mya like all the other Hell Creek dinos. ] (]) 09:37, 13 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
==In popular media== |
|
|
This whole section is inadequate, covering only the last couple decades. In its current form, it's just better to remove the entire section, rather than claim that the section is representative of "the depiction of triceratops in popular media". — <small>]] • 2007-03-20 13:40Z</small> |
|
It has been shown by the fossil known as lane that triceratops had quils or something ajacent and the restoration doesent show that 24.57.248.41 (talk) 05:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
