Talk:Caudipteryx

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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.

The linked site is very nice but states that the bodyfeathers are "downy". This is simply incorrect - or at best ambiguous.

MWAK

Caudipteridae

Caudipteridae is the correct spelling for this family. Yes, it SHOULD be Caudipterygidae, but the authors (Zhou & Wang, 2000) did not form the name properly. I know that in some similar situations (like Ceratopia being used in place of Ceratopsia) people have gone ahead and ignored the original spelling or revised it themselves, but as Caudipteridae is a family-level taxon, it is goverened by ICZN priority rules and cannot be changed.Dinoguy2 14:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Correction- this would not apply to a situation like Ceratopsidae/Ceratopidae, since Article 29.4 only applies to family names formed after 1999.Dinoguy2 14:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub tag

Is a stub tag really necessary for this article? The history log shows it's nearly 7kb long, considerably longer than most dinosaur articles... Firsfron of Ronchester 15:28, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added that after re-formatting and looking over some of the published material. There's a ton of material out there on Caudipteryx, and in my opinion this article right now doesn't do an adequate job of even summerizing it. It's a stub relative to available info, not overall length. Or is there a better term for that? (Ironically, I'd bet a majority of the file size is created by the references, each of which point to barely a sentence of text!). Dinoguy2 03:23, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dec 2007 edits

Dinoguy2, why did you take out all the stuff about Osmolska et al? Were my ref tags not working or what? The refs are good, from The Dinosauria and Vertebrate Paleontology by Benton! That's trustworthy stuff, and shows the diversity of opinion in this debate. And, again, tahnks for trying to fix up my crappy syntax. i fixed some myself and I tried to get the italics and punctuation right so as not to drive you crazy.Jbrougham (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi J! Sorry, might be confusing as I was having a hell of a time getting the ref tags to work. It's only necessary to use a full ref once. Subsequent times, simply use the (ref name="whatever"/) tag. That way, the same ref doesn't show up multiple times in the footnotes, instead it shows up once with multiple links back to its use in the text (^abc etc). This also helps keep the file size of the article down, as refs take up a lot of room! I didn't intentionally remove any refs completely--if I did by accident, of course feel free to replace them, provided they're not already in there somewhere. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minor typo

The clause beginning with "as they are dromaeosaurids, ..." doesn't make sense as written. Perhaps it should be "as they are in dromaeosaurids, ..."? NoJoy (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Someone should redirect "caudipterix" to this page. 24.252.195.3 (talk) 04:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks for the suggestion. Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birdlike

Maybe I'm asking a stupid question, but how can teeth be birdlike? As much as I know, no modern birds have teeth, only some have serrated edges of their bill. --77.77.241.97 (talk) 10:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how you define bird, but most birds in the Mesozoic had teeth, and these teeth were similar to those in Caudipteryx. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:23, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. --77.77.241.97 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Caudipteryx. 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:

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) 10:40, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Caudipteryx. 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:

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) 08:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Feather colors

I've looked at the whole article, and it doesn't mention the color of it's feathers anywhere. Hopefully someone can add that in, along with a reference to the original study made by Xu Xing et al. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinoman45 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]