Talk:Aurornis

A news item involving Aurornis was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 May 2013.

Wikipedia

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

Birds Low‑importance

Aurornis is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.BirdsWikipedia:WikiProject BirdsTemplate:WikiProject Birdsbird articles

Low

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

WikiProject Birds To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Endemic birds of Papua New Guinea (more)
Cleanup : Bullfinch • Vesper sparrow • Bird flight • Bird bath (more)
Copyedit : Plushcap • Magpie duck • Saker falcon (more)
Expand : Phalarope • Nidicolous • Gouldian finch • Cathartes • Cnemophilidae • Avian malaria (more)
NPOV : Debeaking • Driven grouse shooting • Abu Dhabi Falcon Hospital (more)
Stubs : Cathartiformes • Semiplumbeous hawk • Rainbow-bearded Thornbill • Sunda scops owl (more)
Update : Coal tit • Scottish crossbill • New Caledonian lorikeet • Operation Migration (more)
Verify : Argus (bird) • Blyth's frogmouth • Nik Borrow • Pytilia • Fregata • Chestnut-headed tesia • Darter • Pallid scops owl • Starling (more)
Wikify : Ninox boobook ocellata • The Institute for Bird Populations (more)
Other : Add photos to bird articles needing photos (search Flickr for free images). Add taxonomic authorities to genus articles.

More outstanding tasks at the project's cleanup listing, Category:Birds articles needing attention, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Birds/Todo.

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.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Aurornis xui was copied or moved into Aurornis with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Classification relevance

From the beginning of the classification section: "In 2011, Chinese paleontologist Xu Xing claimed Archaeopteryx was not a bird ancestor." How is this relevant? (I don't want to delete information unless I'm sure.) XndrK (talk · contribs · count) 15:37, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The abstract of the paper on Aurornis makes a point of noting this because the analysis contained in the paper (again) refutes this point, as other papers have already done. However, this seems to be as much a consequence of including more and better characters into the analysis, rather than simply adding Aurornis, so I don't think it's directly relevant to this article (it is relevant more to Archaeopteryx and Avialae). MMartyniuk (talk) 16:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lede clarity

OMG...this calls for some capital letters here. That first section couldn't have more 5+ syllable words if you tried. This is an encyclopedia, not a scientific journal. Articles like this should be for the general audience, not people who would naturally understand all that Latinate language. Would someone with a little expertise be able to unwind all of that to a more "general English" please? Hires an editor (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Image please!

There must be a free synthetic image of this creature someone out there... Fig (talk) 11:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next time just add the {{Image requested}} template to the top and specify the category of the image. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:37, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When is a "bird" not a "bird"?

David Attenborough in several of his TV shows declared that the presence of a feather defines a bird. This is consistent with the definition of a mammal (has mammary glands). As such it seems ... useful. 58.164.40.36 (talk) 10:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

this is true when talking about living birds as all living animals with feathers are birds, but this is not the definition most scientists, if any, use when talking abut extinct species. If everything with feathers was a bird, all tetanurans at least, including Spinosaurus and T. rex, would be birds. At most, all dinosaurs and probably pterosaurs would be birds, including pterodactyls and Triceratops. Note that scientists also do not define mammals based on mammary glands when dealing with fossils either, mainly because they don't fossilize. For all we know Dimetrodon may have had some kind if mammary gland! MMartyniuk (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently no evidence in the fossil record of feathers on T. Rex or any spinosaurid, let alone ceratopsians. ?? 2603:6080:21F0:6000:8442:56FE:BA73:A516 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Life restoration"

The image of a "life restoration" appears to be somebody's rather fanciful home-drawn attempt and looks suspiciously like a modern bird. Is there any scientific basis for this "restoration" whatsoever? Otherwise it would seem to be original research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.111.254.17 (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What else is it supposed to be? Scaly? Covered in spikes? Six limbs? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Most paleoart on Wikipedia is "home-made". As for looking like a bird, well, that should be a good thing. FunkMonk (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not to that degree. I thought I was looking at a more colourful gackle. 2603:6080:21F0:6000:8442:56FE:BA73:A516 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Syn. w/ Anchiornis

New study proposes Aurornis as a synonym of Anchiornis. They make a pretty convincing case. If there's more agreement in the lit, I think it would be a good idea to redirect it. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 21:12, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We should only merge if there is scientific consensus. Given the realities of Chinese paleontology, it will not be quick to materialise :o).--MWAK (talk) 06:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paper only say it's a "likely" synonym, so it isn't that clear yet, seems they only open up for further examination of the issue. FunkMonk (talk) 00:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cau specifically rejects the papers conclusions on this. Blog post, so not totally formal, but pretty good. IJReid ^discuss 01:31, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]