User talk:SirBlameson

Welcome!

Hello! I wanted to welcome you to Wikipedia, and express my appreciation on behalf of WikiProject: Dinosaurs for uploading your proceratosaurid illustrations. We appreciate your contributions!

I also wanted to make you aware of the Dinosaur Image Review system. Wikipedia policies require that all user-made paleoart must be "reviewed" first before being added to pages to ensure accuracy and reliability.

Finally, make sure that if you make any changes to pages, they are accompanied by adding reliable sources. I know it can be tempting to update size estimates based on size charts, but (once more, unfortunately) Wikipedia policies require that length estimates on pages follow those published in the literature or other reliable sources.

If you have any questions feel free to reach out! -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Sorry for responding later, but thank you!

I am extremely new and still learning how Wikipedia works, but I do have a question. I recently saw that Wikipedia has a "No Personal Research" policy(apologies if that's not the correct policy name). However, would personal calculations be under that same category? For example, GDI (Graphic Double Integration [Which im suprised doesnt seem to have a Wikipedia page?]) has proper formulas and calculations for weight estimates which are backed by current search on densities and weight. Essentially, would putting a new reconstruction through the GDI software be counted as personal research? Similar situation with an example like speed calculations, such as Larramendi's Formula of dinosaur speeds having all the variables, and a person plugging in the variables for that specific dinosaur?

Furthermore, I do plan on uploading more content for Proceratosaurs, would I post the images in review before publishing, or should I do vice versa?

Thank you for reaching out! SirBlameson (talk) 07:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. The general process for review is just to upload your image(s) to Commons, then add them to the review page. If there aren't any glaring issues pointed out in a couple of days, you can generally go ahead and add it to the taxon page. It's a fairly informal process, and most of the "reviewers" aren't professional paleontologists. As you've probably noticed, if your artwork is good, most of the critiques might just relate to the somewhat strict (and occasionally frustratingly so) Wiki policies.

As far as original research (OR) goes, it's safest to avoid anything that hasn't been published in a peer-reviewed source. So I think GDI (especially with your own reconstructions) would be considered OR. As for equations, you can see WP:NOR and WP:CALC (very straightforward "tried-and-true" calculations are ok), but also WP:SYNTH (don't combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not stated by any source). This particular instance is kind of a grey area. Personally, I would avoid doing this (the point of Wikipedia is that it is an encyclopedia—a collection of what people have already published, rather than an avenue to present new content), but it might be worth discussing at WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page to get some additional opinions. -SlvrHwk (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing me! SirBlameson (talk) 22:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]