Talk:Cultural depictions of dinosaurs

First sentence

The first sentence reads, "By human standards, dinosaurs were creatures of fantastic appearance and often enormous size." There are a large number of dinosaurs that weren't large by human standards, this should be clarified.--Blackmagicfish 05:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarified. How about that? Dåvid Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 15:23, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Dinosaur renaissance

Why does Dinosaur renaissance redirect here? -- it was shift in scientific thought as much as popular culture, and the article doesn't even cover it. John.Conway 12:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Caves and Volcanoes

I'm curious how an association came to exist between dinosaurs, caves, and volcanoes in trite cinema. I suppose that The Lost World and Brute Force had something to do with this, but does it go back even further? I understand that early (though forced) confusions in the timeline would put cavemen and dinosaurs at each other's throats, but how did volcanoes sneak in? 204.186.60.80 17:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd have to check the exact artist, but it was an influential muralist of the mid 20th century who really cemented the "volcano=dinosaur times" association. J. Spencer 20:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It was Rudolph Zallinger, from the post-WWII era, with his fondness for cinder cone volcanoes. J. Spencer 04:46, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Little Children

Shouldn't there be something in the article about how virtually every little kid is obssessed with dinosaurs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.238.142.89 (talk) 02:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

There already is, see the "Appeal" subsection at the bottom of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:31, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ad microsoft dinosaur.png

Image:Ad microsoft dinosaur.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions

I think it's not quite fair to list, for example, dinosaurs as 'monsters who do nothing but fight each other' as a misconception when nobody has any idea what dinosaur behavior is/was. A lot of animals spend all their time fighting... Tasmanian devils, for one. It's certainly a cliché, but hardly a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.63.142 (talk) 16:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

GA?

You know, I think this could be a good article. Any thoughts? J. Spencer (talk) 00:49, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The references need some reformatting, and there are some statements that need clarification, but I think we could nominate this in a few days when we do some tidying up. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 03:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. where does it need to be adjusted? J. Spencer (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

All the references need to use the appropriate Citation template. There's only a handful that don't, but it needs to be done before it can get nominated. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 02:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the web references. There are a few places where I had referenced an article or page in a book, and the book had already received a full citation treatment, so I only used part of the information instead of repeating everything again. This was to keep page size down. Would you prefer if I expanded those too? J. Spencer (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:CITET templates are expressly not required. From CITET: "The use of Citation templates is not required by WP:CITE and is neither encouraged nor discouraged by any other Wikipedia citation guidelines. They may be used at the discretion of individual editors, subject to agreement with the other editors on the article." Firsfron of Ronchester 13:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, the last GA nomination I worked on, the citations turned out to be the deal clincher. Better to have it done now than later when there's only a one week review. --NickPenguin_(contribs) 11:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

If people are failing GANs because of the use or non-use of optional templates, that's something that should be brought up at WT:GAN. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Your mother was a dinosaur!

Shouldn't mockings of relatives bieng dinosaurs be listed? Somewhere? 24.56.20.41 (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers

Shouldn't the kids television show Power Rangers be qualified under '1980s to the present', as the original series used dinosaurs as their source for 'zords'?[1]

--74.72.86.55 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)p4poetic--74.72.86.55 (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The article deals with the subject in a broad way, not as a list. Is there some particular aspect that makes the Power Rangers dinosaurs stand out above the crowd of dinosaurs in kids' entertainment? J. Spencer (talk) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Dinosaurs in Fiction

How about spawning a separate article to cover this topic. There are many works of fiction on dinosaurs (movies, novels, etc), and it would be a good idea to cover it separately. 94.6.243.138 (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cultural depictions of dinosaurs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080705213044/http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2006/01/17/sculptor-jim-gary-dies/ to http://www.hmnh.org/archives/2006/01/17/sculptor-jim-gary-dies/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:20, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Saltriosauro del parco della preistoria.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:51, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

Cultural depictions of dinosaurs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Delisting, a week has passed and no clear interest in fixing the major issues of this article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The GA status of this article is very old, dating all the way back to 2008. As a result, it's not up to standards in a couple of ways. For one, there's a glaring lot of uncited paragraphs, which fails criteria 2 of the Wikipedia:GACR criteria. Another is that there is clearly much more that could be written about the impacts of dinosaurs on culture and vice versa, as the ~169,000 results on "culture" plus "dinosaurs" on Google Scholar demonstrate. This article needs to be improved drastically to meet the GA criteria again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this article has the same problem as the parent dinosaur article - everything from 1980 onward is given such a brief and rushed treatment that it does the subject matter zero justice. But, more fundamentally, where should and shouldn't this article overlap with paleoart? It's really many of the same key players and events with both. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, it proves to be especially important to cover cultural depictions of dinosaurs in the 1980s onward considering that they've gained increased relevance and interest amongst public audiences, and it looks as if such high interest is here to stay for the time being. I think this article can stand if it extensively discusses dinosaurs in literature (writing, fictional media, public engagement with science, etc.), but this article currently does that very poorly which proves highly problematic. PrimalMustelid (talk) 20:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Under the current state of the article, if it receives no interest for GAR by other editors by the 10th of April and there is no opposition, I will mark it off as a Delist for GA for major unaddressed issues of the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.