File talk:Betasuchus by jonagold2000-d9vf4gw.png
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Inaccuracy tag[edit]
@HenriDuvent, Wikiklaas, and JanCK Fietser: This is getting ridiculous. Please visit en:WP:DINOART to comment on the accuracy of the piece instead of starting an edit war. If you do not respond to this by the end of today (approx 6 hours) I will be removing the inaccuracy tag. There is no reason for this to be an edit-war, simply follow my recommendations and comment in the proper location instead of only in edit comments. Pinging FunkMonk who was informed about this earlier, and also Jonagold2000 because its his artwork, in case of a discussion beginning here. IJReid (talk) 00:24, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Remember that the inaccurate paleoart tag is for images that are demonstrably inaccurate, not speculative. As long as we note in descriptions and captions that it is speculative, we are covered in that regard. FunkMonk (talk) 00:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- In addition, looking at the massive dutch discussion, there are more than two voices in the accuracy discussion, view this section instead en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Image review#Hyper-speculative pieces. IJReid (talk) 00:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- It's really quite simple: we know nothing about Betasuchus. Only half a femur was found, and based upon this single piece, scientists expressed the opinions that the animal should be placed in Megalosaurus (Seeley), in Ornithomimosauria (Friedrich von Huene), in Abelisauridae (Le Loeuff & Buffetaut), or as a close relative to Dryptosaurus in Tyrannosauroidea (Carpenter, Russell & Baird). These groups are not even closely related. One cannot just pick one of those major groups (like Abelisauridae), create an image of an average representant of such a group, and then label it as "an image of Betasuchus" That's not just "inaccurate" or "speculative", it is a fantasy influenced by just one of the several opinions.
- One cannot create an "image" of Betasuchus as no one has the faintest idea of what the animal must have looked like. But placing an image like the one concerned here in an article on Betasuchus has the consequence that readers attach just this and no other image to their idea of what Betasuchus would have looked like. Not a single Wikipedia should make itself responsible for such a scam. This image should be tagged not just as "inaccurate" but as a fake. It's not that if one cannot exactly point at the items in a reconstruction that do not agree with the real animal, that one should accept any reconstruction. Based upon the single fragment known of Betasuchus, one could not blame me for providing an image of a horse, stating it is what Betasuchus must have looked like.
- In the discussion concerning this "species" much emphasis has been put on the "Original Research" guideline not being applicable to images, where the emphasis should have been on: "do we serve our readers well if we show them this image?" Wikiklaas (talk) 01:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Betasuchus preserves an almost complete femur so its not as dubious as many other dinosaur taxa. I think historic classifications are a bad example, considering taxa as complete as Deinocheirus have been called a Carnosaur, Therizinosaur, Ornithomimosaur since the 1980s. An ornithomimosaur and megalosaur placement for Betasuchus have been refuted since their original proposal, so there is no modern classification of Betasuchus in either of those clades. The only classifications for Betasuchus since the Dinosaur Renaissance was either just outside Tyrannosauridae (Carpenter et al, 1997) or in Abelisauroidea (LeLoeuff & Buffetaut, 1994). These two groups are similar in anatomy except for skull shape, with reduced arms, and regular theropod proportions otherwise. There is nothing specifically inaccurate about a speculative restoration, especially when we are only adding images to the wiki to give the reader the idea of what the animal may have looked like. No life restorations will ever be 100% certain for any dinosaur that doesn't preserve complete integument with pigment and colouration, so we might as well not start removing all speculative restorations. There is a basis for the anatomy of the Betasuchus presented here, which is enough for our needs. We have a very good idea that Betasuchus either looked like in this drawing, or it looked like Dryptosaurus, there isn't an unlimited amount of possibilities. IJReid (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think we should keep the discussion in one place, so I'll continue at the dinosaur review page. FunkMonk (talk) 10:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
- Betasuchus preserves an almost complete femur so its not as dubious as many other dinosaur taxa. I think historic classifications are a bad example, considering taxa as complete as Deinocheirus have been called a Carnosaur, Therizinosaur, Ornithomimosaur since the 1980s. An ornithomimosaur and megalosaur placement for Betasuchus have been refuted since their original proposal, so there is no modern classification of Betasuchus in either of those clades. The only classifications for Betasuchus since the Dinosaur Renaissance was either just outside Tyrannosauridae (Carpenter et al, 1997) or in Abelisauroidea (LeLoeuff & Buffetaut, 1994). These two groups are similar in anatomy except for skull shape, with reduced arms, and regular theropod proportions otherwise. There is nothing specifically inaccurate about a speculative restoration, especially when we are only adding images to the wiki to give the reader the idea of what the animal may have looked like. No life restorations will ever be 100% certain for any dinosaur that doesn't preserve complete integument with pigment and colouration, so we might as well not start removing all speculative restorations. There is a basis for the anatomy of the Betasuchus presented here, which is enough for our needs. We have a very good idea that Betasuchus either looked like in this drawing, or it looked like Dryptosaurus, there isn't an unlimited amount of possibilities. IJReid (talk) 04:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
