Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Dinosaur collaboration/Past DCs

OK, here's one out of Left Field - a hypsilophodont from Oz - cool page could include - continental drift stuff, polar dinosaur (expand), biology (large eyes) talking about climate etc.

Megalosaurus (3 votes, stays until 23 June)[edit]

Nominated June 9, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by 23 June, 2006

Support:

Ballista 16:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Early & historically very important dinosaur, demonstrating evolution of palaeontological thinking in the early years of dino-collecting. Lots of material available. - Ballista 16:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm...dittoCas Liber 22:02, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant by a less well-known dinosaur. 'Course, this one will need a lot of work. Have you seen the papers? --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly not seen the papers but there's a load of stuff in the Museum of Natural History in Oxford - may even be able to get a 'chat' with someone(?). I had hoped that one of the well-read types on this collaboration would have seen the papers! - Ballista 04:07, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- here's an example - just an abstract, actually (the full version costs $40.00, though there's better ways to get free material).--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'nother photo i took at Crystal palace in 1995 - Cas Liber 00:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC) [[1]][reply]

Awesome. Unfortunately, I don't have very many good photos, but was considering a trip to the "local" museum sometime.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:24, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protoceratops (2 votes, stays until 23 June)[edit]

Nominated 9 June, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by 23 June, 2006

Support:

Cas Liber 09:18, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

OK, moving away from the US, here's a dinosaur with loads of interesting stuff on it. Would be ace to get some other non-copyrighted images and highlight research on sexual dimorphism etc. etc.
Needs some work, and quite an interesting dinosaur. One of my favorites.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iguanodon (4 votes, stays until 30 June)[edit]

Nominated 9 June, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by 30 June, 2006

Support:

Cas Liber 09:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ballista 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man 21:53, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

A euro-dino this time. Loads of potential here, I tried to take photos 10 years ago when I was in the museum in Brussels with the 30 Iguanadons in the one room which looks amazing but they turned out terrible. There is a funky sculpture outside which I will scan from the one photo which worked out OK.
I LIKE Iguanodon - bit of an old favourite, I'd like this to be a candidate soon. - Ballista 10:06, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: I can get a photo, during next couple of weeks. - Ballista 16:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yippee! (anyone from Belgium handy............?)Cas Liber 10:07, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK - scanned image to here, but can't see how to get it onto page without more text....Cas Liber 02:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[2]]

OK....scanned my Crystal Palace photo of Mr & Mrs Iguanodon from 1995 when I was there Cas Liber 00:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[3]]

- Awesome, awesome pictures. Thanks a lot! Sheep81 10:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I never understood why the reconstructed models from the earliest days had such thick, short necks. Clearly, the fossils of Iguanodon show much longer, more gracile necks. Even if you didn't know it was bipedal, you could at least get the length of the neck right, you'd think. --Firsfron of Ronchester 18:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but think of our preoccupation with therapods having scales or teh origin of birds...problem is, no matter how scientific scientists are, they are still human :) Cas Liber 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure if much of the neck or the rest of the skeleton was known at the time those sculptures were created.Sheep81 08:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - true - probably not the first few, you're right. But after 1878 they had the Belgium dinos Cas Liber 10:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Triceratops (4 votes, stays until 30 June)[edit]

Nominated 9 June, 2006; needs at least 6 votes by 30 June, 2006

Support:

Spawn Man 01:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ballista 03:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:51, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sheep81 10:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Another "biggy" dinosaur that has a stupid article. It has all the right starts, such as in popular culture & it's stats, but needs a real push to get it to FA status. Spawn Man 01:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Same reasons as Tyrannosaurus but slightly less high profile. Get some 'biggies' out of the way, then we could try to 'feature' some with lesser profile but with lots of interesting material. - Ballista 03:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, pity can't get a copyright-released depiction of the animal on the page. I guess there's a wiki image of O.C. Marsh which could go on the page. Um, Spawn Man, why did you vote for it if you said it was a stupid article? BTW I think it is great that you give lots of feedback to lots of things though. Cas Liber 06:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC) PS: I started a discussion on this on hte discussion page for Triceratops Cas Liber 06:47, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I think Spawn just meant that the article in its current state is "stupid" and not worthy of the status of this dinosaur.Sheep81 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd vote for this one after T. rex just 'cause this is one of those animals you would expect to be featured. I think we should be careful about becoming too focused on North American dinos though, there's good stuff from all over the world now. Sheep81 07:32, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Swingin' - found an old analogue photo I took in Brussels 10 years ago - we gotta model Cas Liber 02:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allosaurus (2 votes, stays until 4 July)[edit]

Nominated 20 June, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by 4 July, 2006

Support:

Cas Liber 02:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man 03:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Another famous dinosaur - it has a reasonably well-developed page currently (thus a good head-start to Featured Article candidate??) Cas Liber 02:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Camarasaurus (1 vote, stays until 4 July)[edit]

Nominated 27 June, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 4 July, 2006

Support:

Cas Liber 01:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Another not-quite-so-famous dinosaur -lots of skeltons, a few species, babies......not as well known as above. I do think we need a sauropod. Cas Liber 01:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apatosaurus (1 votes, stays until 19 July)[edit]

Nominated 12 July, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 19 July, 2006

Support:

Cas Liber 10:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Ditto this one. I am starting to think the whole brontosaurus/apatosaurus debate should be on the one page. This one became famous because of bronto....Cas Liber 10:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC) PS: I won't take it personally if no-one else votes for these....:)Cas Liber 10:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You really need to start getting the format for these nomnations right Cas! Don't copy it from other nominations, but from the template up there... Thanks, Spawn Man 22:17, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratosaurus (1 vote, stays until July 27)[edit]

Nominated July 20, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by July 27, 2006

Support:

20.139.67.50

Comments:

This person wanted to nominate but just stuck the name down. There's a beefy monograph of the beasty available online Cas Liber 11:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am seriously considering voting for this but am having major ideological conflict with voting for yet another #### therapod but I do like it. Oh this is so hard......Cas Liber 11:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Saurischia (1 vote, stays until 1st August)[edit]

Nominated 25 July, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 1st August, 2006

Support:

1. Soo 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This article is very short for such a fundamental topic. I would like to see this WikiProject sort out these higher-order articles which don't get as many edits. Nominating with Ornithischia since I don't know which is more popular. Soo 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithischia (2 votes, stays until 8th August)[edit]

Nominated 25 July, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by 8th August, 2006

Support:

1. Soo 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheep81 07:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

This article is very short for such a fundamental topic. I would like to see this WikiProject sort out these higher-order articles which don't get as many edits. Nominating with Saurischia since I don't know which is more popular. Soo 09:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Both these headings were important to all of us as kids as it seemed then there was no discrete group 'Dinosauria' and the term was of historical value only - these two terms were highlighted. Now, as Dinosauria is resurrected with cladistic analysis, they lose their value a bit. Apart from diagnosis (i.e. talking about the hipbones) they are disparate groups of other dinosaur groups each with their own pages. I think this idea's a good one, but feel these two pages should be short and lead into longer pages on the subgroups -my money would be on one of Ceratopsia, Sauropoda, Stegosauria or Theropoda -that people identify as discrete 'groups' of associated critters. Even some of the intermediate groups are fairly disparate (look at Marginocephalia...Cas Liber 11:25, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering if anyone was going to nominate any larger taxa... I like ornithischians better so here is my vote! Sheep81 07:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gasosaurus (1 vote, stays until 23 August)[edit]

Nominated August 16, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 23 August 2006

Support:

Spawn Man 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

New nomination for a new week... Spawn Man 01:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hadrosaurid (1 vote, stays until 31 August)[edit]

Nominated 24 August, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 31 August, 2006

Support:

Cas Liber 10:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

OK, moving away from genera if we're thinking this may be an alternative, this is a clearly definable group which could be very interesting (all the funny shaped heads and all......). Lots of discussion of headcrests etc.Cas Liber 10:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Campylodoniscus (2 votes, stays until 6 September)[edit]

Nominated August 23, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by 6 September 2006

Support:

Spawn Man 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber 05:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Randomly chose this one, as there should always be at least 3 nominations to be democratic (hence why America is whack...). I hate sauropods, but vote for this anyway, the article absolutely reeks of stubbiness.... Spawn Man 03:30, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You feelin' OK Spawnman? This is a herbivore.....;) Cas Liber 05:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I picked it randomly... *sigh*... Spawn Man 23:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've expanded the article a bit, just now... Not much, actually, but it's longer than it was. --Firsfron of Ronchester 00:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coelophysis (3 votes, stays until 7 September)[edit]

Nominated 24 August, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by 7 September, 2006

Support:

Cas Liber 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ballista 03:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

As much as I think we've done loads of theropods, this one is fairly substantive and probably wouldn't take too much to get to FA. I think that ones to work on for FA are ones about which a fair deal of interesting stuff is known.Cas Liber 10:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Plus it looks kinda cute, so it has my vote.... Spawn Man 03:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Graciliraptor (1 vote, stays until 19 September)[edit]

Nominated 12 September, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 19 September, 2006

Support:

Spawn Man 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Randomly picked from the list of dinosaurs. Plus, raptors are cool, so vote for it! Yay! Spawn Man 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aublysodon (1 vote, stays until 19 September)[edit]

Nominated 12 September, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 19 September, 2006

Support:

Spawn Man 03:31, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Randomly picked from the list of dinosaurs. Plus a bit of info on it already. Spawn Man 03:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- hahaha. how come your random picker always picks theropods......Cas Liber 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just cause it was random doesn't mean I didn't suddenly forget to remember which sauropods I chose randomly first... *Whistles*. Spawn Man 07:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC). P.S. Muahahaha...[reply]

Maiasaura (2 votes, stays until 27 September)[edit]

Nominated 13 September, 2006; needs at least 4 votes by 27 September, 2006

Support:

Cas Liber 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ballista 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Dinosaur about which a bit is known. Interesting stuff on communal nesting. Cas Liber 03:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Unique dinosaur, in terms of insights into mothering etc. - Ballista 04:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yandusaurus (1 vote, stays until 3 October)[edit]

Nominated 26 September, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 3 October, 2006

Support:

Spawn Man 08:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 04:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Randomly picked from dino list. Not a carnivore :..( Ahh well... Spawn Man 08:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Euhelopus (1 vote, stays until 3 October)[edit]

Nominated 26 September, 2006; needs at least 2 votes by 3 October, 2006

Support:

Spawn Man 08:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 04:46, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Randomly picked from dino list. Not a carnivore again! :..( Ahh well... Spawn Man 08:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allosaurus (6 votes)[edit]

Nominated March 19th, 2006;

Support:

Dropzink 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ZeWrestler ^Talk 17:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 00:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Spawn Man 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 23:47, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Tons of material. Article needs some improvement. Firsfron of Ronchester 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I agree. Dropzink 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see a dual advantage in doing this: it's a common dino, so not only will it be easier to get to GA and beyond, but people will also find if more useful generally. Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 11:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scelidosaurus (5 votes)[edit]

Nominated February 20th, 2007;

Support:

Cas Liber 02:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 22:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dropzink 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArthurWeasley 06:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Lemming42 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: fascinating dinosaur, especially how it was found after the vogue and interest began to be about all the 2-legged ones; classification; evolution; etc Cas Liber 02:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my all-time favorites. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, Sceli is catching up the big theropod, we'll need a tie-breaker now! ArthurWeasley 06:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Al need more improvement and help, and Sceli is already a good article. Better first help the theropod, and later the thyreophoran. Also there are more featured herbivorous dinosaurs than carnivorous. Because those reasons I eliminate my vote here. Dropzink 07:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's a way to force the issue ;). But note that there is an overrepresentation of North American dinos compared to other continents and an overrepresentation of theropods compared to other groups. The current collaboration, Deinonychus belong to these two overrepresented groups and so is Allosaurus. Just a thought. ArthurWeasley 07:29, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think scelidosaurus is an interesting and important dino, and its a well-written articleLemming42 20:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Parasaurolophus (4 votes)[edit]

Nominated March 6th, 2007;

Support:

Firsfron of Ronchester 09:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Casliber | talk | contribs 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dropzink 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mistyschism

Comments: Cas says there's "oodles" of stuff to write about this one. He's never steered us wrong. It's also a really neat dinosaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aww, gee thanks. Nice partner to Iggy too :) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Partner?! I'd hate to see the love-child of a Parasaurolophus and an Iguanodon (biological impossibilities aside, of course)! Firsfron of Ronchester 21:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of my favorite dinosaurs. Dropzink 13:57, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Mine too Mistyschism 13:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plateosaurus (4 votes)[edit]

Nominated February 24th, 2007;

Support:

.Cas Liber 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 22:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dropzink 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Pros: loads of potential information, no triassic dinos featured as yet. Cons:Needs alot of work...........Cas Liber Cas Liber 06:01, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would love to do a Triassic dinosaur, and this is one of the few good examples. Also: we haven't done any Prosauropods yet. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Massospondylus (4 votes)[edit]

Nominated March 6th, 2007;

Support:

.Casliber | talk | contribs
.DinoBird | talk | contribs
J. Spencer 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 02:56, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Another jurrasic dinosaur there should be a range of material. Also a Southern Hemisphrere beastie, the first methinks.cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 10:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should be featured, a nice dinosaur that kills syntarsus! DinoBird | talk | contribs 9:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Change of pace, with interesting growth data behind it; well-known; Gondwanan; and Early Jurassic. Would need the most work of any of the current choices. J. Spencer 19:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This article is too short to be featured, but its a cool dinosaur

Ankylosaurus (3 votes)[edit]

Nominated February 17th, 2007;

Support:

Cas Liber 04:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 00:24, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dropzink 01:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Also has had alot of work. Shouldn't be too far off FA. Cas Liber 04:58, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maiasaura (3 votes)[edit]

Nominated April 11th, 2007;

Support:

Spawn Man 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dropzink 12:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 02:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Already a solid start for work; Maia is an important dino in the dino world & she has numerous piles of info on her. Hmm... Cas, this is pretty close to your clean slate date - can we keep this here since it's such a late entry or is that cheating? ;) Spawn Man 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Europasaurus (2 votes)[edit]

Nominated March 19th, 2006;

Support:

Dropzink 14:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Firsfron of Ronchester 00:43, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Minmi (2 votes)[edit]

Nominated April 13th, 2007;

Support:

Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
ArthurWeasley 06:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Fairly well-known Australian dinosaur (one of the more complete specimens), and has the advantage of appearing in multiple dinosaur books as the "token" Aussie dinosaur. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good choice. Nominated on friday the 13th, eh?? ArthurWeasley 06:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison Formation (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated March 5th, 2007;

Support:

.Casliber | talk | contribs

Comments:

And now for something completely different.......a geologic formation. May not be as fun though....cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 12:42, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
....oh come on all you ^&&*$%#$#@ - wasn't that bad an idea ?! (joke) cheers, Casliber | talk | contribs 08:14, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not a bad idea, Cas, but I'm more interested in the animals than the rocks that encase them. Just a personal preference, you understand. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 20:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Me too, I was just being open-minded and throwing up an idea for discussion. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 20:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anchisaurus (2 votes)[edit]

Nominated 12th May, 2007;

Support:

cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Another triassic dinosaur - a lot of discusion could make a meaty article cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 08:58, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If we do this, we'll HAVE to get a hold of a copy of Yates (2004) in Postilla. It basically redefines the whole animal. Sheep81 10:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beipiaosaurus (2 votes)[edit]

Nominated 16th May, 2007;

Support:

Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
M&NCenarius 08:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

With this I have tried to nominate another unrepresented group (was looking for a Segnosaur initially), so to give people an idea of what we haven't done yet. Also from China, has feathers and lots of taxonomic stuff. cheers, Cas Liber | talk | contribs 02:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term "Segnosaur" is officially discouraged because of the (now discredited) association with Prosauropods. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suchomimus[edit]

Nominated January 20, 2008;

Support:

69.76.52.74 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tutthoth-Ankhre (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

It's pretty well known by now, and it shows interest to a wide variety of the public. I've always thought of it as a larger version of a Baryonyx, with a few other distinct features. The article itself has a nice base, but it needs work in my opinion. 69.76.52.74 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]