Talk:Struthiomimus

Struthiomimus received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I've been kinda distanced from the paleoscene for the past few years, but I recall a few years back a discovery hinting at ornithomimid filter feeding ala flamingo. I never read any in depth treatment of the subject, so I don't know if the fossils were of struthiomimus or some ornithomimid, but I'm sure one of you guys know. It may have some bearing on the article.Abyssal leviathin 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong, but I think it was suggested for Gallimimus, but rejected shortly afterwards. John.Conway 14:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithomimids had very muscular legs, I find it hard to believe that they could only reach 25 mph and sustain that only for short times. Heck, us humans can do that, and we're not exactly the most athletic of beasts. What was the source for that? Was it really a trading card?Abyssal leviathin 00:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree. I might replace it with something ref'd out of Predatory Dinosaurs of the World, but I would like something newer. John.Conway 16:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone calls the dino cards a trading card one more time I swear I'll go dino on your arse!!!! Anyway, the card was referring to the muscular legs part, not the actual speed. How the heck do I know what speed they run at? You'd need an expert for that lol! Gosh, I dunno bout these days peoples! Spawn Man 08:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spawn I hope you realize there are different levels of sources.[1] Your dino cards sound like they might be secondary at best. If they dopn't cite their information, as even tertiary sources should, they are no better than trading cards. Does this card say in which journal or book it is published that ornithomimids had muscular legs?

Whether or not this is a good thing, a book is always going to be a more respectable source than somethnig presented on a card, "trading" or not. I grabbed the first dinosaur book within reach (PDW, actually. What a coincidence!). I flipped to the section on ornithomimids and immediately found a discussion of their "powerful" legs. Boom, more respectable source than the card, and it's even a secondary source, not tertiary. If I did a longer stint of searching on the internet and on the DML archives, I bet I could find a primary source to back this claim up. In short, it's worth a little extra effort to avoid having people think your sources are BS, whether they are or not (and it does sound like these cards are accurate, it's just the presentation that could make someone less knowladgable doubt it).Dinoguy2 16:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have explained my rational for my card use to you several times before. Firsfron gets it, Sheepy gets it, only you seem to have trouble remembering why I used the cards & what has been agreed on. The cards were only used in a pinch to cite uncited material, especially during the Tyrannosaurus FAC. Then I'd wait for a more reliable source to be the main citation for the uncited material. The cards were only then to be support references to that main citation. Not a hard concept to explain. I'm not like you people, flippant enough to buy dinosaur books left right & centre. I am both angered & extremely angered that you would accuse me of not making that extra effort towards these articles. These cards are the only source I have had on hand for a while, as my books are tied up. I would appreciate a little more courtesy when throwing out accusations that I don't put in the extra effort. I have contributed to many dinosaur articles, gotten 3 of them featured, run the dinosaur collaboration, re started the dinosaur project & make general good contributions all round. I don't want to sound big headed, but I have made more than enough extra effort & any other member would vouch for me. I despise your train of thought & would appreciate if we ended the matter before it gets out of hand. Spawn Man 04:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Dinoguy, the cards aren't a suitable reference, and bring down the tone of the reference material. I'd prefer things remain un-referenced, or tagged with citation needed. As for not having access to reference material yourself, then maybe you should consider leaving editing to those who do, or go to a library. John.Conway 14:50, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get stuffed! How dare you suggest that you {Insert swear word starting with w or f} Maybe you should consider getting a life you pathetic person you. I'm not going to give up editing for toad weeds like you... Spawn Man 00:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Behavior that is unacceptable

One more outburst like that and I'll reccomend you be suspended.Dinoguy2 03:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I considered you a friend Dinoguy. Now I see that you are just another two-faced liar who makes people feel bad. It should be you who is suspended for suggesting that I don't put enough effort into my work here on wikipedia. Check my achievement's box on my user page & you'll see that you're... um.... WRONG!!!!! Speak to me again & I'm going to one of my admin friends or even an admin which isn't my friend to ask to deal with your harrassment. I'm sick of not being appreciated around here, & nobody ever says I don't work hard enough. Ever. Period. I suggest you back of this subject & line of thought that says I'm not a hard worker, as you've already made an enemy in me "friend". 02:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Nobody ever said you don't work hard enough. I don't know where you're getting this from. Howeverm there is no excuse whatsoever for calling another editor a "pathetic person", a "toad weed", telling them to "get stuffed", etc. This is clearly stated in Wikipedia policy. I and others have suggested that other sources should replace the cards. You reaction to this has been to hurl ad hominim insults at your fellow editors.Dinoguy2 05:23, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Spawn Man, I think it would be preferable if you took the second option, and take the time track down appropriate references. That would benefit everybody. John.Conway 11:55, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do. Don't talk to me in that demeaning tone. I do great work. Leave me alone until you can see that from beyond your cataracts... Spawn Man 03:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you do, but the way you're acting at the moment isn't helping you out. And your attitude to reference material seems a little out of whack. John.Conway 10:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder that this image is still available for the article (once there's room):

John.Conway 12:05, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noone likes your picture. There's no room for it here. Spawn Man 03:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I love it, though I agree some room needs to be made first. What's with the negative comments Spawn?Dinoguy2 04:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is cute, though having a chum who has a largely horizontal posture nearby may help highlight the posture. Did you feel like getting out the coloured pencils and colouring it a nice Ostrichey or Cassowary colour (like the Ornithomimuses in Prehistoric Park ;)). We do need to get some more text though. I don't have any on Struthiomimus....cheers, Cas Liber 06:34, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The posture section needs to be revised as it is... while walking the posture was horizontal in theropods, but that doesn't mean they were somehow "stuck" in that poition like a statue ;) Dinoguy2 14:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's possible they got around tilted up, a lot of birds do. I don't think we need a horizontal animal in the picture -- that's going to lead down a road of trying to show animals in their most typical posture in drawings (which would actually be on the ground asleep for most theropods), which is a silly way to go. I didn't want to stick it right next to the text about posture though. I put it here so that it would be easy to find once someone get around to expanding the article, not to start agitating to have it included straight away. John.Conway 13:34, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for offer of pic - let's hope we can summon up more text from somewhere. - Ballista 03:19, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's room now. It looks like the animal is stretching itself to that position to look out for something, so it doesn't necessarily depict the default posture. Looks good, the negative comment was quite uncalled for. FunkMonk (talk) 20:10, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it has now become obsolete, as it does not show wings... FunkMonk (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, are you sure that Struthiomus was also discovered in Hell Creek Formation? It's to strange because this site (The Paleobiology Database) don't say that. The fossil sites that are mentioned in the link are Alberta, and New Mexico, but not Montana (or a nearly state of the Hell Creek Formation). The formation of the Late Cretaceous New Mexico that also say here is the Kirtland Formation. What isn't an error? Also in the history I see that the one that wrote this was a IP, someone that can't be always trust in his editions. --Dropzink 21:52, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to DinoData, S. altus is from the Horseshoe Canyon formation, Judith River group, not Hell Creek. Dinoguy2 03:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Struthiomimus sedens was discovered in the hell creek formation, Struthiomimus altus was not.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Struthiomimus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "XuQiupalong":

• From Anserimimus: Xu, L.; Kobayashi, Y.; Lü, J.; Lee, Y. N.; Liu, Y.; Tanaka, K.; Zhang, X.; Jia, S.; Zhang, J. (2011). "A new ornithomimid dinosaur with North American affinities from the Late Cretaceous Qiupa Formation in Henan Province of China". Cretaceous Research. 32 (2): 213. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2010.12.004.
• From Ornithomimidae: Xu, et al. (2011).
• From Qiupalong: Li Xu, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi, Junchang Lü, Yuong-Nam Lee, Yongqing Liu, Kohei Tanaka, Xingliao Zhang, Songhai Jia and Jiming Zhang (2011). "A new ornithomimid dinosaur with North American affinities from the Late Cretaceous Qiupa Formation in Henan Province of China". Cretaceous Research. 32 (2): 213–222. doi:10.1016/j.cretres.2010.12.004.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all reference to Struthiomimus sedens was removed form this article a while ago, what's the reason for this? FunkMonk (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]