Talk:Inostrancevia

Untitled

Can we include that it featured in Dino Crisis II?

What is that? Enlil Ninlil 04:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You can put that under Popular culture. Enlil Ninlil 04:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Size

Inostrancevia is the largest gorgonopsid so far known. Of the 2 holotype skeletons one have the skull 51 cm length (measure and pic by me, http://rivita.ru/i/user/g1.jpg). Ang the skull on this page http://www.paleo.ru/museum/hall4.html amounts approximately to 64-67 cm (measured by me through the glass).--188.123.252.14 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

If you manege to find a published source that agrees with you, then it can be included. If not then no, it can't be included.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 16:08, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Skeletal illustration

While I think the image Inostrancevia_4DB.jpg is powerful, I can't help but notice it's done in the style of the shrink-wrapped dinosaur. Would someone be able to update this image to more accurately reflect how Inostrancevia might have looked?

Note that you can see the skull clearly, it has no lips, and you can almost count the ribs. I haven't seen any animal look like this unless it's starving.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by A garbage person (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

I fixed the visible skull, but as for visible ribs, check out for example the white rhinoceros. As for lips, it seems to have them, but whether they would completely cover the teeth or not we simply don't know, and there are various mammals today with partially exposed teeth, such as naked mole rats or Tasmanian devils. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

References problems

Although I'm quite satisfied that the article is reformed, unfortunately it has no external links with regard to certain sources, and I would like them to be corrected immediately. If my proposal is made, then I thank the author who made this modification. Amirani1746 (talk) 18:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, do you mean there should be links to all the sources? That's not always possible, often they do not exist online. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

FunkMonk Look at the French Wikipedia page of Inostrancevia to realize this...Amirani1746 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean, where on that page should I look? FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

FunkMonk The references do not include external links that allow direct access to the sources, and I would like them to be filled. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

If you can find working links for the sources, add the =url parameter to the citation templates with the links in them. FunkMonk (talk) 13:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Reverting

@Eotyrannu5-Returns:@Amirani1746:There seems to be a dispute going on over whether or not this article should include a gallery. Perhaps it would be beneficial to the articles quality and everyones time if it was discussed here? --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Amirani1746:@Eotyrannu5-Returns: : I find that there is little reconstruction concerning the animal, especially for a very well-known animal, afterwards you can delete it, but if ever the article becomes more and more developed, do not hesitate to use them. 17:30, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I have already discussed this off-site, but the question seems to be about whether the gallery which Amirani has been trying to re-add is a worthwhile contribution to the article. It seems that the rest of us have some issues with the three images in question, with the tooth image having little educational value, and the NT and DB life restorations having dubious anatomy, shrinkwrapping, etc. I do think that a gallery would be a worthwhile edition to the page, since it helps present images in a more organized manner when the text is short enough that it would look a bit cluttered otherwise. It's just that a good gallery would exclude the images in the current gallery. I've put a proposed re-organization and new gallery idea in my sandbox, would that be a good compromise that accounts for both of these arguments? Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

To say that the reconstructions of DB are dubious reveals bad faith... Amirani1746 (talk) 22:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of their quality, WP:galleries states images should preferably be incorporated into relevant sections, not as stand-alone galleries. In any case, the images can be fixed if they are inaccurate, but you need to stop reverting them when they are modified, otherwise we won't use them. I would argue it does have interest to show the isolated canines and their roots, but then it should be in a relevant section where they are discussed. FunkMonk (talk) 22:55, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the guidelines of WP:galleries, though the article is currently is too short for all useful images to be incorporated into the text. I see galleries as kind of a temporary "band-aid" solution for short articles, since images are very useful educational tools and are much easier to incorporate than text expansions, which take a lot of time and effort. Regardless, there have been good arguments made against the anatomy of the Bogdanov and Tamura reconstructions (and I'm not just talking about exposed canines, I have no problem with that). Maybe we can re-open an image review, if anyone feels strongly about this topic. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 22:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been updating some of their images recently (removing external ears, hiding incisors, smoothed out fenestrae, etc.), so I think it would be a good idea if more issues could be pointed out so they can be fixed. These images will be floating around forever regardless of whether we remove them from Eng Wiki articles, so better to make them as accurate as we can, as we're unlikely to get alternatives for all genera any time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 22:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)