Talk:Dinosaur size: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Latest revision as of 05:57, 13 November 2024

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4	Archive 5

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by when more than 3 sections are present.

Largest Theropod Sizes Inaccurate

On the theropod article, the sizes are wrong. Tyrannosaurus would actually have been the heaviest theropod, since it’s 9 tonnes, and Spino is 7.5. The Spino also wasn’t 18 meters long but 16. Giga wasn’t 14.8 meters but around 13 instead. Mikail2009 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They are not wrong, we are giving a range of estimates that have been produced instead of sticking to one alternative. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just chiming in, but I presume the commonly thrown around 7 or 7.5 tonne figure is from the new Ibrahim discoveries. Nizar Ibrahim has actually stated in a Reddit Q&A that he now believes that the Spinosaurus is something more like 10-12 tonnes based on a newer model that will probably be published in the future (can't be used until then). Although he did say that he thinks theropods in general are underestimated. I guess we'll have to wait for concrete evidence. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rules for Sources

I've been away from Wikipedia for a while and it looks like the controversial heavy mass estimates for therapods have been removed. May I ask what are the current standards for deciding what sources are reliable to be used in the page? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The one who removed the data from this page is absolutely IDIOT because for large dinosaurs dimension estimates varies a lot and there is no way to determine for sure if they were accurate. As long as dimensions attributed to dinosaurs reflected the estimation made by scientists it was legit to appear on this page and to reclaim so called inaccuracies of this page is completeley STUPID. A previoussly very useful wikipedia page became just a stump. 85.120.166.69 (talk) 15:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Other sizes

This article presents itself as being about dinosaur size generally, but then is mostly about big sauropods. What was the smallest sauropodomorph? What was the average size for sauropods and therapods? What about sub-types like ceratopsians and stegosaurs? Furius (talk) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been severely cut down since its inception due to persistent issues with the use of some sources. It obviously needs a major overhaul, but nobody has taken on this task, presumably because it would require a huge amount of work and a lot of people would have differing opinions about it. If that's a task you're interested in, I suggest you post on WP:PALEOAW so that we can get a team of editors on it. If not, I can't imagine it will change soon. It's on my long-term to-do list but most of my attention is on other projects at the moment. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-{{WikiProject Dinosaurs|class=list|importance=mid}}
 {{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
@@ Line 8: / Line 7: @@
 |algo = old(14d)
 |archive = Talk:Dinosaur size/Archive %(counter)d
+}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=
+{{WikiProject Dinosaurs|importance=mid}}
 }}
 {{archives|search=yes}}
+== Largest Theropod Sizes Inaccurate ==
+On the theropod article, the sizes are wrong. Tyrannosaurus would actually have been the heaviest theropod, since it’s 9 tonnes, and Spino is 7.5. The Spino also wasn’t 18 meters long but 16. Giga wasn’t 14.8 meters but around 13 instead. [[User:Mikail2009|Mikail2009]] ([[User talk:Mikail2009|talk]])  <!--Template:Undated--><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|undated]] comment added 11:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== Another Source ==
+:They are not wrong, we are giving a range of estimates that have been produced instead of sticking to one alternative. ''[[User:Lythronaxargestes|Lythronaxargestes]]'' ([[User talk:Lythronaxargestes#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Lythronaxargestes|contribs]]) 17:03, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
+::Just chiming in, but I presume the commonly thrown around 7 or 7.5 tonne figure is from the new Ibrahim discoveries. Nizar Ibrahim has actually stated in a Reddit Q&A that he now believes that the Spinosaurus is something more like 10-12 tonnes based on a newer model that will probably be published in the future (can't be used until then). Although he did say that he thinks theropods in general are underestimated. I guess we'll have to wait for concrete evidence. [[User:Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan)|Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan)]] ([[User talk:Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan)|talk]]) 15:10, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
-Found a blog post that shows a massive sauropod (at least 80 tonnes as far as I can tell). If you think the source is still unreliable, the blog cites a source that also describes the sauropod in question (albeit briefly). Can this be catalogued - that is, if we do not rework the whole list?[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 09:39, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
-:I realise have forgotten to link the post, here is the link:https://thesauropodomorphlair.wordpress.com/2020/06/04/the-candeleros-monster/.[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 09:43, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
-::This, again, does not qualify as a reliable source. With blogs, stick with those published by the experts in the field (i.e. SV-POW!). Rib scaling is honestly quite a terrible method to get a reliable estimates. This post assumes that "proximal half" means exactly one half of the rib AND that this rib belongs to a lognkosaur in order to reach the conclusions. The error margin for such estimates is immense. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩ 12:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
-:::State Weasel, I also mentioned that this blog post cited the article in which it got the rib from. The same source also hints at this dinosaur being similar (or even a sister taxon), to  Argentinasaurus, which is a Longkosaur.[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 00:27, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
-::::The source provides no overall size estimate though, other than that it comes from a "gigantic" animal. Additionally, the source only hints about a relation to ''Argentinosaurus'', stating "Further studies (Calvo ''in prep.'') will establish if it has some relationships with the largest known sauropod, ''Argentinosaurus''." This leaves things a little open-ended, as such a study seems to be lacking, and it is only stated that it ''could'' be related to ''Argentinosaurus''. Titanosaur phylogeny has changed radically in the last 21 years, so that throws further uncertainty on things. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩
-:::::Admittedly, I seem to be unable to argue on such shaky ground:)[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 00:04, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
-== Name of MPM-PV-39   ==
-What is the name of that dinosaur?[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 07:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
-:It is a femur from the Cerro Fortalezo Formation (then known as the Pari Aike Formation) described briefly by Lacovara et. al. (2004) in an abstract. It is indeed massive, measuring about 2.2 m long and bearing a circumference of 99 cm, and apparently also quite robust. Here's the citation:
-:* <small>{{cite journal|last1=Lacovara|first=Kenneth|first2=Jerald|last2=Harris|first3=Matthew|last3=Lammana|first4=Fernando|last4=Novas|first5=Rubén|last5=Martínez|first6=Alfredo|last6=Ambrosio|year=2004|title=An  enormous  sauropod from the Maastrichtian Pari Aike Formation of southernmost Patagonia|journal=Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology|volume=24|issue=3|pages=A81}}</small>
-:This specimen has no name, and if I had to guess, it probably belongs to either ''[[Puertasaurus]]'' or ''[[Dreadnoughtus]]'' (neither of which were named in 2004). --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩ 12:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
-::{{ping|User: State Weasel}} Try Notocolossus? Dreadnoughtus is far too skinny and small. Whilst, we barely have anything on Puertosaurus. I'd either bet Notocolossus or Patagotitan. Both are MUCH more complete than Puertosaurus, and MUCH larger than Dreadnoughtus.[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 01:03, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
-:::I don't fully understand. ''Dreadnoughtus'' has some of the most robust limb bones of any non-saltasaurid titanosaur, hardly "far too skinny," not to mention that it probably exceeds the similarly long lognkosaur ''Futalognkosaurus'' in mass, not to mention that the only known specimens are immature. ''Notocolossus'' is from the [[Plottier Formation]], and ''Patagotitan'' isn't even from the same epoch. Granted, as [[WP:OR]] bars us from assigning this to any species in particular for the article, but we already have two named giant titanosaurs from the Cerro Fortaleza Formation. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩ 12:09, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
-::::Dreadnoughtus, my friend, has weight estimates ranging from 22.8 to 59.1 tonnes! And its certainly somewhere in the middle (probably 35 tonnes - if I had to guess).  We also know that the largest specimen's length if only around 23 or 24 meters long - which is still a little shorter than F. Dukei. As for the fact that these specimens are juveniles, there are no estimates on the specimens' age, so that's fully of the park for now.
+== Rules for Sources ==
-Now, returning to the topic, Dreadnoughtus is probably way smaller than this unnamed dinosaur - at least, until we know how old the  largest specimen was. As for Puertosaurus, we do not have any limb material assigned to that genus. Puertosaurus is way to fragmentary to  be assumed as the genus in which this new dinosaur is to be placed!
+I've been away from Wikipedia for a while and it looks like the controversial heavy mass estimates for therapods have been removed. May I ask what are the current standards for deciding what sources are reliable to be used in the page? [[User:Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan)|Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan)]] ([[User talk:Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan)|talk]]) 15:21, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
-And, okay, P. Mayorum is not in the same epoch. My bad. But, Notocolossus is our best bet since is in a similar size range to this new and undescribed dinosaur. Furthermore, even if these two options are incorrect, I would like to know if this dinosaur is even a titanosaur, or some somphospondyl.[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 00:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
-:I think that we both may have gotten a bit to far into this, as it doesn't really impact the article at all - although I must say that I don't understand why you argue that ''Notocolossus'' is a better assignment, since it doesn't preserve a femur either and isn't from the same formation. The femur of ''Dreadnoughtus'' is 1.91m long in the larger specimen, but even knowing which stage of growth it was at (which we do - it was mentioned in the appendicular osteology paper) won't allow us to reliably estimate adult size as far as I know. For the moment, though, it's probably best just to think of it as an indeterminate titanosaur until we can get some more info. The abstract does seem to assign  the femur to Titanosauria, and it definitely exhibits characteristics of titanosauriformes. On the subject of the article, I'd recommend that we avoid dealing with unnamed and indeterminate taxa, unless there's really good reason not to (i.e. pre-2017 ''Patagotitan''). Also, specimen numbers don't go in italics. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩ 11:44, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
-::Agreed. We are going far of topic. I only argue for Notocolossus because it is a little more complete than Puertosaurus, and, an adult. By the way, what article estimates the age of Dreadnoughtus? I think it might be of some interest to me.[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 00:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
-:::[https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Ullmann/publication/308944780_Appendicular_osteology_of_Dreadnoughtus_schrani_a_giant_titanosaurian_Sauropoda_Titanosauria_from_the_Upper_Cretaceous_of_Patagonia_Argentina/links/5abe7e6daca27222c75771fb/Appendicular-osteology-of-Dreadnoughtus-schrani-a-giant-titanosaurian-Sauropoda-Titanosauria-from-the-Upper-Cretaceous-of-Patagonia-Argentina.pdf Ullman & Lacovara (2016)] provide an estimated age of "subadult" for the ''Dreadnoughtus'' holotype, or a "stage 9" individual out of the 13-14 ontogenetic stages of [https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Paul_Sander2/publication/230888970_Ontogenetic_stages_in_the_bone_histology_of_sauropod_dinosaurs/links/5559b53908ae980ca6107ca1.pdf Klein & Sander (2008)]. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩ 00:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
-::::Thank you. Quite young then.[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 00:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)
+:The one who removed the data from this page is absolutely IDIOT because for large dinosaurs dimension estimates varies a lot and  there is no way to determine for sure if they were accurate. As long as dimensions attributed to dinosaurs reflected the estimation made by scientists it was legit to appear on this page and to reclaim so called inaccuracies of this page is completeley STUPID. A previoussly very useful wikipedia page became just a stump. [[Special:Contributions/85.120.166.69|85.120.166.69]] ([[User talk:85.120.166.69|talk]]) 15:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
-== Encyclopedia ==
+== Other sizes ==
-I've seen many theropods' sizes cited with Molina-Perez and Lammarendi's new encyclopedia. I'm not sure if this is to be considered a reliable source, since it has not been elsewhere. Should we remove uncertain theropods like 'Megalosaurus' Inges (which is in one of the lists of theropods)?[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 03:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
-:I think that we concluded that they weren't [[WP:RS]]: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 32#Sauropod Encyclopedia|This was the initial discussion]]. Further doubt was cast upon it at [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bajadasaurus/archive1|''Bajadasaurus''{{'}} FAC page]]. It's probably best to remove these instances. ''[[Asiatosaurus]]'' is, in particular, quite egregious, as it's based on an isolated tooth attributed to a sauropod family of tenuous placement and composition. But that is one of the major problems with these books - they extrapolate an estimate from EVERYTHING, no matter how unreliable it might be. We should never use popular books as sources, except for a select few (such as Paul's field guide) that have been cited in the literature (or for non-controversial information about discovery, but that's not really relevant here). --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩ 22:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
-::I'm sorry about the Dinosaur Facts and Figures estimates. I had no idea it was an unreliable source, but I agree with the discussion surrounding the books. What other sources should we use, other than Greg Paul's field guide? Should limb-bone circumference equation mass estimates be on this list? [[User:Meekororum|Meekororum ]] ([[User talk:Meekororum|talk]]) 12:22, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
-:::No worries. For sources, we can use basically anything from the published literature, although more recent sources are usually preferable. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩ 12:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
-::::So are we going to replace this particular source with more accurate estimates (and/or remove unreliable estimates cited with this resource)? [[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 00:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
-:::::Also, I think we should sort out 'reliable' methods for estimating parameters from unreliable ones, and probably only use two or three, since different methods produce a wide variety of different estimates that are likely unreliable.[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 00:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
-::::::I'll begin working on removing the citations to the book from the article. Also, I'll look into reinstating the range of length estimates for ''Tyrannosaurus'', which, for whatever reason, constantly seem to get deleted (not every specimen was Sue-sized, after all). I'm also trying to find a way in which to write the article without lists, although progress on that's pretty slow at the moment. --[[User:Slate Weasel|Slate Weasel]] ⟨[[User talk:Slate Weasel|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/Slate Weasel|C]] - [[User:Slate Weasel/sandbox|S]]⟩ 21:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::Happy to help. I'll see what I can do about replacing unreliable sources. I doubt we'll be able to remove the lists without a '''major''' makeover to the article.[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 00:13, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
-:::::::For ''Tyrannosaurus'', do you mean putting an average size, or a size range based on all adult ''Tyrannosaurus'' specimens? [[User:Meekororum|Meekororum]] ([[User talk:Meekororum|talk]]) 5:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
-::::::::Probably a range - a range would be more accurate in depicting the size of a species than an average (since we probably do not have enough specimens to  determine an accurate average).[[User:PNSMurthy|PNSMurthy ]] ([[User talk:PNSMurthy|talk]]) 01:08, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
+This article presents itself as being about dinosaur size generally, but then is mostly about big sauropods. What was the smallest sauropodomorph? What was the average size for sauropods and therapods? What about sub-types like ceratopsians and stegosaurs? [[User:Furius|Furius]] ([[User talk:Furius|talk]]) 09:15, 12 November 2024 (UTC)
-== Argentinosaurus ==
+:The article has been severely cut down since its inception due to persistent issues with the use of some sources.  It obviously needs a major overhaul, but nobody has taken on this task, presumably because it would require a huge amount of work and a lot of people would have differing opinions about it.  If that's a task you're interested in, I suggest you post on [[WP:PALEOAW]] so that we can get a team of editors on it.  If not, I can't imagine it will change soon.  It's on my long-term to-do list but most of my attention is on other projects at the moment. [[User:A Cynical Idealist|A Cynical Idealist]] ([[User talk:A Cynical Idealist|talk]]) 05:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)
-Should that likely outdated skeletal mount of a taxon known from few bones really illustrate the article? Why not use the considerable more completely know ''Patagotitan''? [[User:Kiwi Rex|Kiwi Rex]] ([[User talk:Kiwi Rex|talk]]) 04:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)