Talk:Glossary of dinosaur anatomy

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Links to definitions in the glossary may be added in other articles and pages using Template:Dinogloss – {{Dinogloss}} – in the form {{Dinogloss|term}}. This will work for exact terms or phrases defined in the glossary, or those anchored to a definition. If a term you wish to link is not already defined or anchored in the glossary, you can pipe a link to a definition, in the form: {{Dinogloss|actual term|display term}}. See the template's documentation for more information.

Missing definitions

Feel free to add any suggestions for additional entries below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • arthral/mesarthral
  • horn
  • maxillary antrum
  • ectethmoid
  • parietosquamosal (shelf, frill)
  • pelvic shield
  • pituitary gland
  • pronation
  • quills
  • rosette (terminal, dentary)
  • sail
Since I'm quite familiar with this anatomical trait, being a frequent spinosaurid editor, I added in an entry for it. Hope it's not too shabby, feel free to make changes if there's anything I missed or got wrong. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 18:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • sagittal crest
  • skull crest
  • stapes
  • spongiosa
  • symphysis
  • tail club/knob
  • vertebra
  • inner ear
  • …
  • I wonder if the various intertwining processes of the premaxillae, maxillae, and nasals, should be covered? I'm running into them quote a bit with Xixisaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 00:57, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@FunkMonk: – I am sorry, only saw your comment now while checking the list for what need to be done next. Regarding your question: I think, in general, yes. Problem is that these terms (such as "nasal process of the premaxilla" are quite descriptive, so that they are seldom actually defined somewhere. For many terms, usage differs between researchers a lot, and they are often defined ad hoc. So I think we should not define them as actual terms, as this would require too much original research? But I can try to add a general description of each bone (based on the basal ornithischian and saurischian condition). For example: the premaxilla typically shows a triangular main body, with two elongated processes extending backwards, the nasal process above and the maxillary process below. The nasal process is wedged between the nasal bones …; maybe something like that? And by the way, I saw that some of your Dinogloss links in Xixiasaurus are not working as the terms are not defined yet … just leave them, I try to complete the glossary accordingly in the next few days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I figured I should just leave non-working links. Writing the Xixiasaurus article has also been a nice way to find out which links work or do not, so I've added a bunch of alternate names to the the glossary in the meantime. And by the way, I also added the glossary here[1], a page linked to at the sidebar of Wikipedia. As for the processes, it seems fine to describe what they are very vaguely as you suggest, if they can't really be defined any one way. FunkMonk (talk) 23:16, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright; all Dinogloss links in Xixiasaurus should work now, I hope! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:47, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! The article is also very close to being finished... So it'll be cool to see the glossary go live in a nomination for the first time, and if anyone notices. FunkMonk (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to look up the definition for mandibular ramus when fixing Thalassodromeus for FAC, but I didn't see any here, perhaps worth defining in an appropriate section? FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very good catch, as the usage of the term is completely different from the usage in human anatomy. I added the entry! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe coronoid process should have an entry? Can't find any definitions for dinosaurs online... FunkMonk (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For sure. Will add it soon. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:45, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Now added. I also had some more thought on the outstanding issue of how to provide decent illustrations (illustrations are crucial here, and we need much more than can be placed in the glossary). In the new entry I (unconventionally) linked directly to an image on commons, as this seems to be the most practical for the time being. We could have at least one such link for each definition. Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that could probably work, which entries would have illustrations shown in the article and which won't? I think there is another way to link images that might look nicer and more noticeable, how about (see figure here) or similar? Alternately, the images could also be shrunk so we can fit more in without cramming. Or maybe that wouldn't look very good, actually... FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A thought I just had that might solve the image issue, but I'm not sure if its possible: show very small images beside the term (maybe 100px wide or tall?) that expand when hovered over. I know this functionality is possible because that can be set to happen when hovering over links, but I'm not sure if the means exist for its use like this here. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see some potential problems here. We often need quite long image captions to point out what can be seen, and those alone take much space. Also there would be excessive loading time, there are people with slow internet connections. It would also require JavaScript I think, and the page definitely needs to work without that as well. And we probably should stay as close to the Manual of Style as possible, although linking to images, as I suggested, is already a serious violation I think. I for now changed the link according to FunkMonk's suggestion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:18, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is a hemimandible the same as a mandibular ramus? Either needs a redirect or a new definition here... FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Splenial also needs an entry. FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both are defined now, as is brachyiliac/dolichoiliac. "Opisthopubic" already has a definition. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quite an important (and confusing) one indeed. Added now! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came across "cotyla" in the Nasutoceratops description, perhaps worth a mention somewhere? FunkMonk (talk) 20:39, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a general term, also spelled "cotyle", and is the opposite part of a "condyle". For example, in a ball and socket joint, the ball is the condyle and the socket is the cotyle. Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Added now in the context of vertebrae … but finding a source for it in the general sense (these terms are not only used for vertebrae) is difficult! Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, makes sense, the relevant text was: "The cranial end of the first cervical preserves the characteristic deep cotyle for articulation with the occipital condyle". FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, I think it is possible to avoid the term entirely by writing something like "the front surface of the first cervical forms a deep socket that received the occipital condyle of the skull to form the skull joint" or something like that. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternate terms

I'm adding some alternate versions as I write along in Xixiasaurus (the first article where I've added links to the dinogloss from the beginning), and while adding the plural of some terms, I noticed that most of the terms don't have the original Latin and Greek words as alternates. We should add these too, right? Both in singular and plural too... FunkMonk (talk) 21:14, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I left them out because they are not commonly used in dinosaur research. I felt that this glossary should reflect the terminology that is actually used in the field, and not the terminology of other disciplines; I feared that the ability of the glossary to document dinosaur terminology would diminish if these forms are included. But I also see your point and will give it another thought; also happy to hear more opinions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see, in any case, they will not be visible, so can't hurt? FunkMonk (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I see, you are only referring to the anchors. Yes, it would not hurt (only loading time would increase slightly), but when neither the glossary nor our dinosaur articles use terminology not used in dinosaur research, what would be the benefit? I personally would do this only when the Latin forms are actually used (as is sometimes the case with muscles, for example), but I feel we don't need a "Os frontale" for example. But still, as you said, it can't really hurt, and I am thus not objecting to adding those. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow missed this, Jens Lallensack; the benefit is that often I do actually link from the Latin/Greek terms, because I usually translate the terms in parenthesis after the words (I usually don't use the common names first), but the links should come at first occurrence. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me if I misunderstood: Do you mean something like "Os frontale (frontal bone)" in the articles, where "Os frontale" is linked to the Dinogloss? Here, I am not sure if we should use "Os frontale" in the first place, since it is not the terminology used in the field. Typically or dinosaur articles are not doing this? Do you think we would need the Latin for all those terms, or only for some? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe more commonly used non-English terms, for example I would write premaxillae, fenestrae, and foramina (with the original plural forms), and then expect to be able to link to it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I completely misunderstood! I think those are the English terms, e.g. here. I did try to add most of them while writing definitions, both singular and plural forms, and you did add plenty yourself already, but we surely I missed a lot as well! Hopefully I can free some time to resume working on this gloss, and eventually finish it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But we can alternatively always use something like {{Dinogloss|premaxilla|Os premaxillare}} if we want to link to a variant not given in the glossary (result: Os premaxillare). Defining them in the Glossary directly is just more convenient! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, then it seems we're on the same page, but aren't those the Latin plural forms? It's possible that the English plural versions are just taken directly from the originals, but isn't it the same issue with both "forums" and "fora" (the Latin version) being accepted in English? Perhaps "premaxillas" is also accepted? FunkMonk (talk) 15:59, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes they surely were taken from Latin. I'm not sure "premaxillas" (or worse: "femurs") is accepted in English, though, it feels just wrong! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HTML cleanup

@Jens Lallensack: Hey, sorry about the uninformative cleanup tag. Since February I've put together much more detailed instructions and added a flag to the template to indicate what HTML needs to be cleaned up. In the case of this article, there are a ton of <dd> tags, which can be replaced with the preferred markup documented at MOS:DLIST. Glossary of bird terms does indeed have the same problem. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 01:54, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed both articles. -- Beland (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another technical issue, I just noticed that the link at the Dinogloss template[2] still goes to Jens' sandbox. I'm unable to fix it, perhaps IJReid can? FunkMonk (talk) 01:10, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've replaced links to the sandbox in the documentation for the template. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, didn't get where the actual transcluded text was! FunkMonk (talk) 01:30, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Neural arch

There are no any sources in the neural arch subsection. Can anyone add them? --Mozenrath (talk) 14:25, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I assume Jens wrote that section? FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was just recently added Fanboyphilosopher (talk · contribs), which is great, since this entry is of central importance. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section about neurocentral sutures is also lacked sources. --Mozenrath (talk) 05:57, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Glossary_of_dinosaur_anatomy"