Talk:Yi (dinosaur)

A news item involving Yi (dinosaur) was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 30 April 2015.

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

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

This looks like an interesting candidate for

That's what I thought! Although it should probably be move to "Yi (dinosaur)" first. Abyssal (talk) 15:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think it is a significant enough discovery to warrant an In the News posting, and have nominated it as such. Please feel free to comment there. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:05, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It sure is significant. The styliform rod is not supernumerary so could be a redeveloped fourth metacarpal :o).--MWAK (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Posted at ITN. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it can no longer be eligible for DYK. Never mind. Main Page coverage has been achieved. AshLin (talk) 03:06, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, in a blurp that does not mention the relevant aspect (membranes) but makes a nonsensical claim (first gliding dinosaur) :>(.--MWAK (talk) 05:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The blurb actually posted is "Scientists announce the discovery of the first known dinosaur with membranous wings, Yi qi." It looks like it was briefly changed to "gliding dinosaur" and then changed back. On a different note, the page will get WAY more views on ITN than it would on DYK. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad there's no image in the article... I'm hoping to finish an illustration and put it up on Commons tomorrow. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's excellent news! I'm always astounded how fast you produce your work, given the obviously very labour-intensive technique you apply. And I'm glad the blurp was changed.--MWAK (talk) 05:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow!--MWAK (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice lighting! FunkMonk (talk) 20:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the Mandarin name appears to be 奇翼龍 qí yì lóng. (The text seems to imply it's called "yi qi" in Mandarin) Siuenti (talk) 11:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The text merely indicates the Chinese etymology of Yi qi. This does not imply that in Chinese the species name as such is "yi qi", but it's a mistake someone might make. I'm not sure whether this possibility justifies an explicit explanation. It could be useful to indicate that the Latin species name inverts the normal word order because of the convention that the specific name functions as the adjective.--MWAK (talk) 16:52, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the propatagium in the reconstruction be covered in feathers, as in birds? Or was it preserved without a covering? 50.250.62.201 (talk) 11:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no propatagium has been discovered. If a brachiopatagium was present (again: not discovered, hence the "frog model" conjecture) and "naked", a propatagium might be without integument too. In bats and pterosaurs probably at least some hair/picnofiber covers the membrane. In Yi some feather filaments were found on the membrane. If that was their original position, it might be an indication that they covered the entire wing. However, given the lack of data any illustrator may allow himself a lot of artistic licence. Showing a naked skin has the enormous educational advantage of emphasising that these are not normal feathered theropod wings!--MWAK (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. 50.250.62.201 (talk) 12:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems the presence of the patagium between the finger and the "spur" is somewhat hypothetical (the Headden skeletal doesn't show it)? So though the taxobox image is very good, perhaps the photo of the fossil replica would be better there, for neutrality? FunkMonk (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]