This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy
Links to definitions in the glossary may be added in other articles and pages using Template:Dinogloss – {{Dinogloss}} – in the form {{Dinogloss|term}}. This will work for exact terms or phrases defined in the glossary, or those anchored to a definition. If a term you wish to link is not already defined or anchored in the glossary, you can pipe a link to a definition, in the form: {{Dinogloss|actual term|display term}}. See the template's documentation for more information.
Since I'm quite familiar with this anatomical trait, being a frequent spinosaurid editor, I added in an entry for it. Hope it's not too shabby, feel free to make changes if there's anything I missed or got wrong. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
sagittal crest
skull crest
stapes
spongiosa
symphysis
tail club/knob
vertebra
inner ear
…
I wonder if the various intertwining processes of the premaxillae, maxillae, and nasals, should be covered? I'm running into them quote a bit with Xixisaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: – I am sorry, only saw your comment now while checking the list for what need to be done next. Regarding your question: I think, in general, yes. Problem is that these terms (such as "nasal process of the premaxilla" are quite descriptive, so that they are seldom actually defined somewhere. For many terms, usage differs between researchers a lot, and they are often defined ad hoc. So I think we should not define them as actual terms, as this would require too much original research? But I can try to add a general description of each bone (based on the basal ornithischian and saurischian condition). For example: the premaxilla typically shows a triangular main body, with two elongated processes extending backwards, the nasal process above and the maxillary process below. The nasal process is wedged between the nasal bones …; maybe something like that? And by the way, I saw that some of your Dinogloss links in Xixiasaurus are not working as the terms are not defined yet … just leave them, I try to complete the glossary accordingly in the next few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured I should just leave non-working links. Writing the Xixiasaurus article has also been a nice way to find out which links work or do not, so I've added a bunch of alternate names to the the glossary in the meantime. And by the way, I also added the glossary here[1], a page linked to at the sidebar of Wikipedia. As for the processes, it seems fine to describe what they are very vaguely as you suggest, if they can't really be defined any one way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The article is also very close to being finished... So it'll be cool to see the glossary go live in a nomination for the first time, and if anyone notices. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm adding some alternate versions as I write along in Xixiasaurus (the first article where I've added links to the dinogloss from the beginning), and while adding the plural of some terms, I noticed that most of the terms don't have the original Latin and Greek words as alternates. We should add these too, right? Both in singular and plural too... FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I left them out because they are not commonly used in dinosaur research. I felt that this glossary should reflect the terminology that is actually used in the field, and not the terminology of other disciplines; I feared that the ability of the glossary to document dinosaur terminology would diminish if these forms are included. But I also see your point and will give it another thought; also happy to hear more opinions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, you are only referring to the anchors. Yes, it would not hurt (only loading time would increase slightly), but when neither the glossary nor our dinosaur articles use terminology not used in dinosaur research, what would be the benefit? I personally would do this only when the Latin forms are actually used (as is sometimes the case with muscles, for example), but I feel we don't need a "Os frontale" for example. But still, as you said, it can't really hurt, and I am thus not objecting to adding those. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
