Talk:Mamenchisaurus

message: I tried fixing the IPA, but either the stress was wrong, or the vowels were. It wasn't a possible English pronuntiation. Please confirm that I didn't mess it up further. kwami 07:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At The Dinosauria Translation and Pronunciation Guide, there are two pronunciations listed.  I've always used the second, which means it's probably wrong because it's closest to phonetic sounding, and it seems like dinosaur names derived from Chinese do not sound at all like what they "look" like. However, I've never heard anyone say it with a "u" sound for the second vowel, as is presented there. J. Spencer 14:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  pronunciation 

message: Isn't the rising sauropod in the Field Museum Barosaurus?--MWAK (talk) 12:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't look like it, you may be confusing it with the rearing Barosaurus in the AMNH. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I did :oS.--MWAK (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong image?

message: The article says Mamenchisaurus had a tail club "like Shunosaurus and Omeisaurus", but the Omeisaurus article says that the "Omeisaurus" tail club is likely to be that of a large Shunosaurus. Sauropods aren't my strong suit; which is correct? Albertonykus (talk) 06:12, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The recent M. tail club paper doesn't mention any debate over Omeisaurus's tail club. The line about Omeisaurus tail club is unscourced. There is this on the DML,  but I don't know of any published sources saying that. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Omeisaurus''' tail club

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Mamenchisaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927091006/http://www.bmnh.org.cn/web/cn/kppd/dekt/dektnr/1968/20040806/25176.html to http://www.bmnh.org.cn/web/cn/kppd/dekt/dektnr/1968/20040806/25176.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928010631/http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinom.htm to http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinom.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061008164638/http://www.dinosaur.net.cn/museum/Mamenchisaurus.htm to http://www.dinosaur.net.cn/museum/Mamenchisaurus.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "it may include one of the largest complete dinosaur specimens known" and "M. sinocanadorum was described, which consisted of skull material and the first four cervical vertebrae. [...] Additional remains attributed to this species, but not yet formally described, belong to one of the largest dinosaurs known—the restored skeleton measuring 35 metres"
"Attributed to this species" and "restored skeleton" confirm there is no complete M. sinocanadorum skeleton.Gamma 124 (talk) 23:48, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch, now corrected. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:30, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictory information 

message: An IP user has noticed an issue with the first cladogram. When I expanded the article, I copied it over from the old version, but that cladogram doesn't appear in Wilson 2002. Does anyone know which paper it's from? or if there is a better one to use? Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've temporarily swapped the current cladogram for a simpler one by Allain and Aquesbi 2008. Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:06, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The same cladogram was on the Shunosaurus page (which I deleted) and on the Omeisaurus page (I just removed the Tazoudasaurus, which would make the cladogram anachronistic) 49.144.207.182 (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, I noticed it's on a few pages. I found a potential cladogram from Otero et al. 2015. It mas many of the taxa from the old cladogram and it's more recent than the one by Allain and Aquesbi 2008. However, I've never drawn cladograms in Wiki code, and my attempts have been unsuccessful. Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cladogram