| Welcome to Carnivora. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 7 2013, 02:59 AM (4,362 Views) | |
| JD-man | Feb 7 2013, 02:59 AM Post #1 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I originally posted the following in my DA journal ( http://jd-man.deviantart.com/journal/SD-Good-semi-good-and-bad-dino-sources-351589315 ). I encourage you to make your own list of good, semi-good, & bad dino sources. It doesn't have to be the same format or include the same sources.
Edited by JD-man, Mar 31 2013, 12:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Replies: | |
|---|---|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 8 2013, 05:38 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
But sometimes these guys can be quite rigorous, I've edited the Giganotosaurus article and they have controlled it and a lot was removed, for example the Paratypes the theropod database listed, some stuff was kept after we have discussed it. And usually there aren't that many mis-quotations from what I see. |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 8 2013, 05:50 AM Post #17 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
well, they usually care aout the wrong edits instead of reverting and improving where they are needed. I'm not saying there are no good articles, but what is actually written there is often pure BS, despite the effords to control what is written. |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 8 2013, 05:51 AM Post #18 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What do you mean with wrong edits? |
![]() |
|
| JD-man | Feb 8 2013, 03:19 PM Post #19 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I'm sorry that you were offended by what I said. I was only referring to what you said in the 1 debate/discussion we had (hence why I said "assuming you're referring to what I think you're referring to" in my previous post). However, I can't apologize for what I said b/c, as I've already shown ( http://carnivoraforum.com/topic/9808221/1/#new ), all you've done is make unsupported claims about Thulborn 2013 that are obviously false to anyone who's actually read said paper (E.g. Myself). I may have been wrong about you only reading the abstract & assuming the worst (Certain DML members did that), but it looks like you may have only read Thulborn 2011 & based what you said about Thulborn 2013 on that (which is wrong b/c, as I've already shown, they're 2 very different papers). That's all I'm gonna say about that in this thread. BTW, it's worth mentioning that, as I've already shown, other relevant experts (E.g. Poropat) have criticized the Romilio & Salisbury papers for similar reasons as Thulborn. Edited by JD-man, Feb 8 2013, 03:31 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 9 2013, 02:37 AM Post #20 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
They like to revert edits that are actually OK while they do not care about the ones they should really revert |
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 9 2013, 02:42 AM Post #21 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Like the Liopleurodon article you've set into the QS? |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 9 2013, 05:11 AM Post #22 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Nobody cared about it, even tough it was a piece of crap (that's nicely expressed), however several people had more than enough time to "correct" articles. I should probably note that one of these people was involved in writing the liopleurodon article... The hierarchical conditions there are not making it a better enzyclopedia, despite what they claim. But I must say that seems to be worse in german wikipedia than in english one. Edited by theropod, Feb 9 2013, 05:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 9 2013, 05:13 AM Post #23 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
And I was actually rather reffering to the english one, because I suggest 95% of the posters here don't know the german one (what is not in any way bad, because the english one is in almost any aspect better). I'm probably going to make an account there, to save it. Let's see... Would the english one earn to be in semi-good (Or at least the excellent articles)? Edited by Jinfengopteryx, Feb 9 2013, 05:14 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Jinfengopteryx | Feb 9 2013, 08:51 PM Post #24 |
![]()
Aspiring paleontologist, science enthusiast and armchair speculative fiction/evolution writer
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
For the very bad section: http://www.dinochecker.com/ Just look at that: http://www.dinochecker.com/roar-factor.php |
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 9 2013, 09:05 PM Post #25 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The excellent articles certainly deserve to be in the semi-good category, no matter which wikipedia it is, still, there are severe problems with the scientific accuracy of most pages there. |
![]() |
|
| Ausar | Feb 10 2013, 09:23 AM Post #26 |
|
Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can! Xi-miqa-can!
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Bad: dinosaurs.about.com. Carcharodontosaurus 3 tons? Really? Edited by Ausar, Feb 10 2013, 09:24 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| theropod | Feb 10 2013, 08:33 PM Post #27 |
|
palaeontology, open source and survival enthusiast
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
To be fair, Mortimer also states that in an old DML post (11,1m, 2,9t for the neotype), stating the Neotype wasn't much larger than the holotype. That these size estimates are pretty laughable is now clear, but back then it might not have been that obvious, and then other people read the post in question (and the longest theropod is...) and presumed it still ahd credential. illiteratedino too has used that estimate in his videos. I presume many people rush to use the lowest possible estimates for this animal no matter how unlikely. Funny enough, the same blog post too has a really low figure for sue (11,6m if I remember right), but no-one seems to use that one. Actually it seems like even the 12m estimate has little that it bases on, even tough it is widespread. |
![]() |
|
| 7Alx | Feb 10 2013, 09:16 PM Post #28 |
![]()
Herbivore
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
This site is POS Their predator or scavenger debate is really retarted. http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/dinosaurcontroversies/a/trexhunter.htm |
![]() |
|
| JD-man | Feb 12 2013, 01:47 PM Post #29 |
|
Autotrophic Organism
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
1stly, what's POS stand for? Just curious. 2ndly, I recommend "T. rex: The killer question" ( http://www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/life/dinosaurs-other-extinct-creatures/trex-quiz/ ). It's the best way of dealing w/the "obligate scavenging" hypothesis for T.rex b/c it lets the evidence speak for itself. |
![]() |
|
| Carcharadon | Feb 13 2013, 11:48 AM Post #30 |
![]()
Shark Toothed Reptile
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Good: theropod database Semigood: paleocritti Bad: dinosaurs.about.com |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Debate & discussion of dinosaur related topics. · Next Topic » |
| Theme: Dinosauria light | Track Topic · E-mail Topic |
9:36 AM Jul 11
|
Powered by ZetaBoards Premium · Privacy Policy


)


![]](http://z4.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)







9:36 AM Jul 11