Talk:Caudipteryx: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 21: | Line 21: | ||
==Minor typo== |
==Minor typo== |
||
The clause beginning with "as they are dromaeosaurids, ..." doesn't make sense as written. Perhaps it should be "as they are ''in'' dromaeosaurids, ..."? [[User:NoJoy|NoJoy]] ([[User talk:NoJoy|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
The clause beginning with "as they are dromaeosaurids, ..." doesn't make sense as written. Perhaps it should be "as they are ''in'' dromaeosaurids, ..."? [[User:NoJoy|NoJoy]] ([[User talk:NoJoy|talk]]) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
==Redirect== |
|||
Someone should redirect "caudipterix" to this page. [[Special:Contributions/24.252.195.3|24.252.195.3]] ([[User talk:24.252.195.3|talk]]) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:55, 10 May 2008
Dinosaurs Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
The linked site is very nice but states that the bodyfeathers are "downy". This is simply incorrect - or at best ambiguous.
MWAK
Caudipteridae
Caudipteridae is the correct spelling for this family. Yes, it SHOULD be Caudipterygidae, but the authors (Zhou & Wang, 2000) did not form the name properly. I know that in some similar situations (like Ceratopia being used in place of Ceratopsia) people have gone ahead and ignored the original spelling or revised it themselves, but as Caudipteridae is a family-level taxon, it is goverened by ICZN priority rules and cannot be changed.Dinoguy2 14:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- Correction- this would not apply to a situation like Ceratopsidae/Ceratopidae, since Article 29.4 only applies to family names formed after 1999.Dinoguy2 14:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Stub tag
Is a stub tag really necessary for this article? The history log shows it's nearly 7kb long, considerably longer than most dinosaur articles... Firsfron of Ronchester 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
- I added that after re-formatting and looking over some of the published material. There's a ton of material out there on Caudipteryx, and in my opinion this article right now doesn't do an adequate job of even summerizing it. It's a stub relative to available info, not overall length. Or is there a better term for that? (Ironically, I'd bet a majority of the file size is created by the references, each of which point to barely a sentence of text!). Dinoguy2 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
Dec 2007 edits
Dinoguy2, why did you take out all the stuff about Osmolska et al? Were my ref tags not working or what? The refs are good, from The Dinosauria and Vertebrate Paleontology by Benton! That's trustworthy stuff, and shows the diversity of opinion in this debate. And, again, tahnks for trying to fix up my crappy syntax. i fixed some myself and I tried to get the italics and punctuation right so as not to drive you crazy.Jbrougham (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
- Hi J! Sorry, might be confusing as I was having a hell of a time getting the ref tags to work. It's only necessary to use a full ref once. Subsequent times, simply use the (ref name="whatever"/) tag. That way, the same ref doesn't show up multiple times in the footnotes, instead it shows up once with multiple links back to its use in the text (^abc etc). This also helps keep the file size of the article down, as refs take up a lot of room! I didn't intentionally remove any refs completely--if I did by accident, of course feel free to replace them, provided they're not already in there somewhere. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Minor typo
The clause beginning with "as they are dromaeosaurids, ..." doesn't make sense as written. Perhaps it should be "as they are in dromaeosaurids, ..."? NoJoy (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Redirect
Someone should redirect "caudipterix" to this page. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)