OK thanks I found the description paper of the tracks here s a link to it it was cited in the blog post you sent me to On page 43 it says the theropod would have been 10 19 meters which definitely would put it on the list The only reason I would think that we wouldn t want to include it is because is based on tracks I m not sure what the status of footprints is for this page I would advocate for including it but I ll ask the other editors what they think I m a little concerned about the potential hype generated from the 19 m upper bound estimate It s probably only about the same size as the other large theropods we know of