Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Image verifiability

A question of verifiability has been raised regarding images of fossils at Fossil, please take a moment and comment on the subject [[1]] as the outcome could easily strip images from many of the articles under this projects banner. --Kevmin (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A guide to feather colors

Extensively referenced, this pretty much constrains what should be acceptable in reconstructions of feathered critters (might also extend to pycnofibers, see e.g. File:Pterodaustro BW.jpg) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

What, where? FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Not sure which one he means (seems to have forgotten to add the link) but I wrote one here fwiw: [2] MMartyniuk (talk) 00:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Unrelated illustration help

I was wondering if one of the artists would be up for working with me (and hopefully a lemur veterinarian) on creating a labeled, color illustration of the lemuriform sublingua. I put in a request for help at the Graphics Lab, but got no replies. The article for the subject has an illustration from 1918, but it is only in the public domain for the U.S. I would love to see a new illustration or two (from the underside and possible from the side). SVG is the desired format, but I'll take anything at this point. I'm hoping to get a new illustration before submitting the article for FAC. – Maky « talk » 18:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Lost contributors

We've just lost two of our paleoart contributors due to Wiki formalities, darnit.

First: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ferahgo_the_Assassin

Now: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ArthurWeasley

Hope they'll come back anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:04, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't get it, they were banned for trying to delete their own images? MMartyniuk (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
AW was apparently, he tried to change the licenses to a non-free one, and some admin just went and deleted them all. Then another admin blamed AW for it (even tough admins have to check images before deleting them), and blocked him when he nominated some of his inaccurate images for deletion (nomination of own images is allowed). So AW didn't actually do anything prohibited, the admin just got annoyed.[3] Really a shame. I unblocked him, but I can understand that he got upset. FunkMonk (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposing explicit sourcing as a criterion for this sub-project

See proposal here. Samsara (FA • FP) 16:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Image requests

Here you can request images for articles within this project, such as photographs or artistic restorations.

Most wanted (articles lacking illustration)

Most wanted (additional illustrations for articles that already have at least one)

Is anyone doing Mesopropithecus? Seems to be the only of those lemurs that don't have an article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a disclaimer that "passing review" doesn't guarantee inclusion.

While this is no doubt a valuable source for improving portrayals of prehistoric life, I think it bears mention that simply because there is an image available, editors are in no obligation to include it in an article, e.g. if it is of lesser quality to existing images, or its inclusion would unnecessarily crowd an image, or other reasons described in WP:PERTINENCE. I propose the following changes to the header text (additions in italics):

You can also request images for articles within the paleontology project on the paleoart review-talk page. Images that have been deemed inaccurate should be placed in the Wikimedia Commons category "Inaccurate paleoart"[9], so they can be easily located for correction. User created images are not considered original research, per WP:OI and WP:PERTINENCE, but it is appreciated if sources used are listed in file descriptions. Completion of paleoart review does not guarantee that images will be used in Wikipedia. Images, even accurate ones, may not be included in articles if consensus determines they do not add value to the article, for example if they add clutter to an illustrated article, give undue weight to certain ideas, or are otherwise not pertinent.

Thoughts? --Animalparty! (talk) 00:25, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about this. I mean, generally speaking we use the best illustrations, and it should be a given that just because it is accurate doesn't mean it'll be used. But I'll let other decide on this. IJReid discuss 00:31, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say it's a given, we have plenty of "good" images that are not in use, and images are replaced all the time. FunkMonk (talk) 16:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Pinnae on nonmammalian cynodonts

Kemp (2007), p. 438, argues in detail that, because of their role in jaw articulation, the quadrate, articular, and postdentary rod of nonmammalian cynodonts collectively had a minimum mass of 0.5 g and that, as a consequence, the animals could not have been sensitive to frequencies greater than 2 kHz. At frequencies in excess of 10 kHz, a pinna can act as an acoustic horn and provide directional sensitivity; Kemp argues, though, that pinnae are useless for an animal limited to 2 kHz, so we can conclude that nonmammalian cynodonts did not have them.

The images File:Trirachodon.jpg, File:Thrinaxodon BW.jpg, File:Cynognathus BW.jpg, File:Exaeretodon BW.jpg, File:Pachygenelus.jpg, File:Oligokyphus BW.jpg, and File:Tritylodon BW.jpg all clearly exhibit pinnae. The images thus differ appreciably from implied non-skeletal elements, so there are criteria sufficient for removing them.

One more: File:Massetognathus.jpg.Inserted by Peter Brown (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Though the case for removing File:Morganucodon.jpg is weaker, I challenged the image in June, 2012; the response at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Thrinaxodon BW.jpg was "Kept: Files are in use and/or licences can not be revoked." Do I conclude that the list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review of criteria sufficient for removing an image is in error? There is nothing there about an image's being in use. Peter Brown (talk) 00:42, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Images should not be deleted, just be removed, and we have a template to add for inaccurate images (See[10]). Then they can be corrected afterwards. As is, it seems to be somewhat hypothetical whether they had pinnae or not, therefore not based on direct evidence? Either way, removal of ears would be an easy fix with Photoshop if we all agree it has to be done. FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the distinction. An odd use of the term "remove", which should be better explained; usually, when something is removed from a location then it isn't there anymore. I suppose that "direct evidence", in this case, would be molds of these therapsids' heads that show clearly the absence of pinnae. But Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Paleoart review considers a difference in "implied non-skeletal evidence" to be sufficient for removal, and—given the care with which Kemp has studied the matter and the absence of rebuttals—this evidence is quite strong. Peter Brown (talk) 15:44, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm definitely going to revise mine. I'd say that Kemp's reasoning is pretty solid, because we know the function of pinnae, and we can infer from the jaw anatomy of cynodonts that pinnae would not have been effective. However, for early mammaliaforms, its less clear. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
The author of the other images is not around anymore, but I can fix them myself. Others are of course welcome to give it a try as well. Should there be holes, or just nothing, instead? FunkMonk (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
I think there would be holes, but I'll have to check on that. If the animals are restored with lots of fur, the fur may cover the holes. Smokeybjb (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Probelesodon, or at least hope I did (when cookies clears). Petter Bøckman (talk) 07:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure where your latest Morganucodon is. If it has an external ear, as I've noted, it needs to be near an eardrum, which in turn must be associated with the angular bone. It has to be either in the jaw itself or at the back of the neck near the jaw joint. Peter Brown (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Only saw this now, it has no external ear, you can see it in the Morganucodon article. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Pterosaur in amber

According to Brian Engh on twitter there is a fossilized pterosaur with soft tissue in amber at the Czerkas Dino Museum in Utah. [11] [12] There are probably some things important in this that we'll need to use for pterosaur restorations (pycnofibres, crest shape etc). I'd say it looks like a Darwinopterus based on the head, but that of course is OR. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 19:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it in amber, though? It is shown in Witton's 2013 book on page 50, but with no mention of amber. FunkMonk (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Yeah Brian Engh got it wrong apparently. Its a Pterorhynchus specimen shown under UV light. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

NPS Petrified Forest Images

Are these images in the public domain?

If they are, they would be nice additions to articles related to the Chinle Formation. However, I wanted to check with you guys before taking action just in case. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 14:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

A good deal of them are already on Commons. All the images that are currently on the NPS site should be fine, with the right tags added, but I'm not sure if the ones in the first link have all been published anywhere by the NPS too... FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Also, is the shuvosaurid Effigia]] or Shuvosaurus? I think that it's Shuvosaurus, but I'm not sure. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
It is labelled as Shuvosaurus in your first link (though it has some added crests). FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

New image requests

Hi, I may not have understood the principle of this page but I put down here some suggestions of species that deserve a reconstitution:

Yeah, requests haven't really been done before, so this is a first. I'll ping some artists who have restored fish in the past, Apokryltaros and Obsidian Soul, maybe Triangulum is also interested. FunkMonk (talk) 02:17, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello! I've tried to make a restoration of Hyneria in the past. But somehow it didn't work out. But I will take a look. I'll see what happens! Triangulum (talk) 08:03, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. I take this opportunity to leave other suggestions for the years to come:

--92.155.41.223 (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Small update, as well as some new proposals --90.47.16.16 (talk) 00:48, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Several of those seem to have old, yet still not inaccurate, restorations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Image for orcinus citonesnes request

So i think a paleoart restoration would be a good idea--Bubblesorg (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Please note, he's talking about Orcinus citoniensis   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:01, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Moa Head

Is this Ok?

Generic Moa

--Bubblesorg (talk) 17:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, the glaring issue is that we should not have restorations of "generic" animals, moa species have distinct differences, so I see no point at all for such an image. Pick a species and depict it. Other than that, the eye seems both too small and too close to the back of the head. And this is the talk page, it should be posted to the front page. FunkMonk (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok i will change it up--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Paleoart_review/Archive_1&oldid=1137370082"