Talk:Dinosaur size: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Apokryltaros (talk | contribs) m Reverted 1 edit by 2601:5CC:8301:F510:44D8:52DA:F4EC:68E1 (talk) to last revision by Cewbot |
→Rules for Sources: Reply |
||
| Line 27: | Line 27: | ||
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) |
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) |
||
: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) |
|||
Revision as of 15:19, 17 October 2024
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
|
|||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Semi protection
I think it would be a good idea any thoughts? Jakegaming7788 (talk) 14:50, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)