Talk:Argentinosaurus

message: I contest the included picture in the article. Is there any solid proof these argentosaruide giants could roam dry lands like biological versions of the AT-AT imperial walker? Common mechanical wisdom suggests a 100+ tons body would collapse the legs under its own weight! The fact that their nose openings were on top of the head indicates they lived in waters and their body was always submerged to support the vast weight with buoyancy. Only the top of their heads were above water ever. 81.0.79.88 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Water pressure would have crushed their lungs. Sauropods instead appear to have preferred drier areas, where their large digestive systems would have been an advantage for dealing with low-quality food. J. Spencer 22:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Plus "common mechanical wisdom" is generally bollocks. -- John.Conway 20:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Please add this info to the article instead of just leaving it here.  I've made a section for it: Argentinosaurus#Theories_of_aquatic_lifestyle. Gronky (talk) 18:53, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gravityless image is pure fantasy! 

message: :"(...) after all of its more familiar Laurasian Jurassic kin — like Apatosaurus — had long disappeared"
What is this supposed to mean? Did sauropods go extinct in Laurasia at the start of the Cretaceous? Why Apatosaurus, given that it's not closely related? I think the sentence is misleading at best. -- John.Conway 20:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Titanosaurs survived in Laurasia into the LK. Maybe something more along the lines of "after the diplodocid sauropods had gone extinct", or simply remove it as irrelevent. Dinoguy2 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable statement

message: Arigintinasaurus aquatic??? you 
have to be kidding! Everyone 
knows that was imposssible!
Either you are someone who
was somehow transported
through time from the
1930s or you are a 
creationist. mechanical
knowledge says ortherwise.
T.Neo 12:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? There is no implication in the article that it might have been aquatic? Circeus 00:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think, he was refering to the anonymous comment on this page above ("gravityless ..."). ArthurWeasley 05:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I was refering to the comment above on that page. The idea that sauropods were aquatic is outdated. "Common mechanical knowledge" actually points otherwise. At that depth the lungs would have collapsed. and the sauropds couldn't lift their necks into a vertical position.T.Neo 11:35, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please add this info to the article instead of just leaving it here.  I've made a section for it: Argentinosaurus#Theories_of_aquatic_lifestyle. Gronky (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, we don't know the position of the nostrils on the head in this species because we have never found the head, but modern research shows the actual nostril opening was at the tip of the snout anyway . Additionally, submerging the body in water would be impossible because sauropods were filled with air sacs like birds and, also like birds, would have floated on the top of the water without special adaptations for diving deeper . The only thing worse than hundred-year old argument is debunking them with 50 year old counter-arguments. MMartyniuk (talk) 11:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you add any of this to the article?  This isn't one of my areas of interest or expertise, but I got involved because it seems a waste to have such things documented only on the Talk page. Gronky (talk) 13:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As I mentioned on my talk page, such info is not relevant here, old theories like that were suggested for sauropods in general and discredited again long before Argentinosaurus was even found. It only makes sense on the general sauropod article, and it is indeed already there. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: From the most recent edit: "n the first half of the twentieth century, some experts suggested that Argentinosaurus was in fact aquatic." Given that Argentinosaurus was discovered in the 1990s, I hope you can understand why this statement is ridiculous... MMartyniuk (talk) 16:12, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: For a topic that has been the feature of hour-long documentaries and numerous scientific papers, the article is very short and vague.  Meanwhile, here on the talk page there are editors who seem pretty confident about their knowledge.  But the article is left in its poor state.  That's what's ridiculous. Gronky (talk) 01:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not ridiculous to add irrelevant material to an article just to make it longer? Seriously? Did you even read the arguments? How can we say a theory was proposed for the lifestyle of this specific animal, when it was deemed inaccurate a century before the animal was even discovered? Over a century ago, pterosaurs were proposed to be flying marsupials. Do you want us to add this "fact" to the, say, Eoazhdarcho page (named in 2005), just to make it longer? FunkMonk (talk) 06:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: " has been the feature of hour-long documentaries" So what? Documentaries focus on this animal for one reason only - it's big. That's about all we know about it, and that fact is talked about in the article. The skeleton is extremely incomplete and we don't have interesting things like behavioral traces, nesting sites, pathologies, etc. to write about. Argentinosaurus is simply an animal whose fame exceeds its scientific importance. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:01, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aquatic??? 

message: I think the sentence stating there were larger species of dinosaurs should be removed. It's a strong statement without merit and sentences like this chip away at wikipedias status as a credible source of knowledge.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.90.132 (talk) 23:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Largest dinosaur ever. 

message: The intro seems overly vague about its size:
:It is among the largest known dinosaurs.
What does that mean?  It's in the top 100?
I'm no expert on this topic, but would it not be fair to say "Many experts believe argentinosaurus to be the largest known dinosaur"?  (Or should that be "land-based dinosaur"?)  Or "After XYZosaur, argentinosaurus is possibly the largest (land-based) dinosaur"? Gronky (talk) 18:39, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it's not the biggest, what is? 

message: Why there are no sources for that estimate? And if you have sources, that information would be useful to me. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The source is in the article (footnote 6) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864407/ Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with User Dinoguy2.!--AlfaRocket (talk) 15:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  39.7m??? 

message: Is there any published critique on the inaccuracies of the Museo Carmen Funes mount? the conclusions of the analysis done by Sellers et al (2013) in some form rests on the accuracy of the mount and that is something they acknowledge: "The model relies heavily on the full body skeletal reconstruction and more work needs to be done on other, more complete sauropod specimens to confirm any findings." Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biomechanics and speed 

message: Sellers et. al give 3 different values for their mass estimate: 83,230.29 kg (Table 5), 83,230 kg (below Table 3), and 83 tonnes (3 times, in the Abstract, Discussion and Conclusion). All values other than the 83,230.29 kg value are rounded off. Next to the 83,230 kg value they state: "However it must be remembered that these values are necessarily estimates", meaning that they understand that the value displays false precision, which is why they use the 2-digit value elsewhere. If they can round the value off appropriately, surely we can too. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass estimate 

message: I don't know when the Argentinosaurus was discovered. According to the spanish page, it was discovered in 1989, but here it says 1987 so what is the true one? Turbo-Dino Rex (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 1989 is correct following the description paper, so I'd go with that one. IJReid  17:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a rough Paleoglot translation of the paper here: , and it actually doesn't specify when the specimen was found. The summer of 1989 seems to just be when funded excavation took place. The translation is, unfortunately, very rough. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: We have a few Spanish speakers in the paleo project that could help if needed. FunkMonk (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Checking on the *much superior* spanish article shows a link to the original paper, so anyone with spanish knowledge could probably read in there. From what I understood the specimen was located and excavated some time around/in 1989, which is good enough for our uses here.  IJReid  18:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, this might make a good future collaboration. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the list of most popular dinosaur articles, it might be the easiest of the top 30 that are not yet GA/FA to get there... The language issue is probably easier to overcome than the current messes Spinosaurus and Pachycephalosaurus are in (and Brontosaurus won't exactly be a piece of cake either). FunkMonk (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  When was it discovered? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Argentinosaurus. 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/20040501182902/http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu:80/~pine/Phil100/argentinosaurus.html to http://www.hcc.hawaii.edu/~pine/Phil100/argentinosaurus.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040414064931/http://www.fernbank.edu:80/museum/argentinosaurus.html to http://www.fernbank.edu/museum/argentinosaurus.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:21, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The skeletal mount in the taxobox has a variety of problems. Here is a list of (at least some of) them:
# The skull's morphology feels kind of... weird
# Extremely concentrated premaxillary teeth
# Maxillary tooth count of zero
# Cervical transitions seem... strange. Sections of those vertebrae seem to be cloned.
# Droopy cervical ribs
# The dorsal spines seem shorter and broader than they should be (perspective?)
# Has a ridiculously narrow chest (like, diplodocid narrow)
# Anterior part of illiac blades curve inwards
# Fourth pedal ungual
# Too many caudal verts?
Because of this, I think that we need to replace the image. Perhaps the holotype material display in the background of the image could be extracted for this purpose? Any input? Also, my skeletal's missing a rib. Does anyone know of any resources for it? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 00:15, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the mount remains the best image we have for Argentinosaurus. The skull, being obscured by view, is a lot less obviously wrong, the tooth counts are fine anyways, it looks like a Nemegtosaurus/Sarmientosaurus-based skull with narrow premaxillae. The vertebrae themselves are fine, we have known related taxa looking way more extreme (Mendozasaurus etc). The chest is wrong, but ironically is better than most sauropod mounts, as the coracoids are close to eachother instead of separated. And its actually about the right width, the Nima-version Futalognkosaurus with a massively wide torso is very wrong. The ilium and pedal claws are wrong, but they're not a very significant part. The wrist articulation is also not very good, but its not noticable either. And caudals, well caudals are known from about 2 titanosaurs with an entire tail, and in Macronaria range from ~30 to ~65. IJReid  00:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current image is the best compromise between looking presentable, and not focusing on too many unknown parts, like the earlier taxobox image did. This one may be even better in that regard, though it may look weird to most people. It focuses on parts that are known. Mike Taylor also used it in a presentation once. FunkMonk (talk) 07:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the top down image that Funk posted, although I agree it might confuse people and it still has problems. All mounts of Argentinosaurus are questionable interpretations which favour exaggerating the size like incredibly long tails, torsos and giant feet etc. My prefered solution would be a nice shot of the holotype material in the taxobox, with images of the mounts in the body of the article. Something like this...but free;  ( maybe we could try and contact the author and get him to release the image to the commons?) because that material is ultimately what 'Argentinosaurus' actually is. Thankfully Slate Weasel's diagram gives the viewer a decent idea of what's actually known. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever we do with it, acquiring such a photo would be great for the article. I've had some success with asking for licence changes on Flickr in the past (got a lot of nice Japanese dino expo photos through it), so should be possible. Not sure what happened to my Flickr account, though...  FunkMonk (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I contacted the author of that image and he's said it's fine for us to use it and any of the images on this blog post, although he asks for his face to be blurred out if he's in one.  There are some shots of neck and tail bones, which he writes in the image captions, belong to Argentinosaurus. The post is from 2010 so I suspect they might be from Patagotitan or something...unless there is undescribed material!? There is also a shot of Giganotosaurus material. Steveoc 86 (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds nice, make sure to get the permissions through otrs! FunkMonk (talk) 08:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

text: Nice way to show what's known. Not sure about putting a heap of bones in the taxobox though, when the skeletal mount photos aren't unambiguously inaccurate... FunkMonk (talk) 20:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As for getting the article to FA or similar, seems we just missed its 30th anniversary: FunkMonk (talk) 22:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If a comment on that story is to be believed, the find was reported in a newspaper in 1989 but it mentioned the remains where found two years previously. Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:25, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems  now got some free images of the holotype, but there might be some issue with if the author wants to be anonymous or how? FunkMonk (talk) 14:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, no neck bones are described for the holotype, either those neck bones are undescribed or belong to  Patagotitan maybe? Steveoc 86 (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I wonder if it can be identified from the skeletal at the upper left? FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  On further study, they could be Futalogknosaurus; the skeletal looks similar to the one published in Calvo 2007 Futalognkosaurus paper, the bones seem similar, and the photos are taken at Centro Paleontologico Lago Barreales where the fossils are housed.Steveoc 86 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I thin you're right, here's a photo of what appears to be the same bones, under the title "The real bones of Futalognkosaurus dukei". FunkMonk (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox Image 

message: Would anyone take issue if I removed the Mortimer DML estimates from the article? If the estimates sparked a discussion then I think they might be more notable but as far as I can see it's just one post. If we do keep them I think they'd be better off in an external links/see also section. I also think the inclusion of Hartman's comments on his blog might be questionable. I know that he has a reconstruction that he has yet to publish but the comments are somewhat in passing and preliminary. If he posts the reconstruction on his blog and talks more extensively about it then I think that would be more notable and would be happy to include it. Any thoughts? Steveoc 86 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In general, emails and blogs shouldn't be cited for controversial claims. I cited Hartman's blog in Giganotosaurus, though, and it seemed to be fine during FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 20:06, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the inclusion of that blog post is fine because it's explicitly talking about the mass of Giganotosaurus in detail with diagrams etc. The one in Argentinosaurus article is basically a paragraph? Steveoc 86 (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unpublished Size Estimates etc 

message: The Maximum allowable weight of Sauropod Dinosaurs is controlled by the 
Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the soil.  In Engineering, a common number
used is 2500 Pounds per square foot of surface area under foundations,
however, there is a factor of safety of 2 to keep structures from
settling as the soil compresses and moves down under load.  Dinosaurs
do not stand too long in one location, so they do not need the factor
of safety applied, and, they can apply, briefly, while walking, up to
5,000 lbs per square foot of surface area under one, usually rear,
foot print.   All you need to know to find out how much a Sauropod
weighed is to know the surface area of one rear footprint in square
feet, multiply by 5,000, and you have a good estimate of the animals 
weight.   So, you ask, what was the largest, and heaviest?  It turns
out they weigh a lot less than most people think. The Largest footprints
from the UK (?) have a foot bottom surface area of less than 16 square
feet for one rear footprint, so the Heaviest, by footprint, is LESS THAN
16 X 5,000 <= 80,000 pounds, or 40 short tons, (36.364 tonnes).  This
creates a bit of a problem.  How can an animal that displaces a Volume
up to 15 Male African Elephant Volumes ( Maximum )  weigh so little ?
The answer is in the Elephants.  The Elephants are the largest animal
that can currently walk the Earth in the current surface Gravity.
Sauropods are the largest animals that could walk the Earth in a prior
surface gravity.  The lower the surface gravity, the larger the allowable
Volume of the largest animal.  As it turns out the solution is fairly
simple. Volume is a Cubic Function, and Area, whether surface area, or
bone cross-sectional area, of foot bottom surface area is a squared
function.  The ratio of surface area divided by Volume is surface gravity.
Now the maximum Volume is almost 15.0 Male African Elephant Volumes,
while the Weight, and the foot bottom surface area are related to
15.0^(2/3) = 6.082202 Male African Elephant Weights.  The ratio is thus
6.082202 / 15.0 = 0.404 480 "g" for the maximum allowable Volume, and 
Maximum allowable Weight of the largest possible Sauropod.  Now Elephants
can displace, at maturity, between 5.5 and 6.0 cubic meters.  The best number 
to use is less than 6.0, I use a number between 5.84, and 5.85 cubic
meters per "large" Male African Elephant. ( 5.84255 ).  A 15.0 Sauropod
would displace 15.0 X 5.84255 = 87.63825 cubic meters, and if they were
possible in our surface gravity they would weigh in at 87.63825 X 2200 =
192,804 lbs (in 1.0 g).  There are a number of problems with this weight.  
One is that a single rear footprint would need to be 192,804 / 5,000 = 38.56 square
foot in surface area. This is more than 2.41 times the surface area of the
largest footprint ever found, so this kind of weight is not possible.
The 5.84255 cubic meter elephant weighs in at 5.84255 X 2200 lbs/m^3 =
12,853.61 lbs ( use 12,854 ) The Sauropod would thus weigh in at 
15.0 X 0.405480 X 12,854 = 78,181 lbs  (low g).  Its footprint would be
a maximum size of 78,181 / 5,000 = 15.6362 square feet of foot bottom surface
area, which is less than the estimate maximum of 16 sf. So Pi/4 X d^2 =
15.6362 feet, so d= 4.4619 feet or 53.5429 inches across at the diagonal.
This is fairly close to the maximum sized footprint ever found.
Another Note: The unit weight of water is about 2200 lbs per cubic meter
in 1.0 g, but would be only 892 lbs in the 0.405480 g "Largest" Sauropod
Environment.  Look at the Videos on Swimming elephants.  Their density is
about 99.7% of the Density of water.  Only the end of the trunk sticks up
above water.  Dinosaurs had similar densities.
Michael W. Clark,   Golden, Colorado 98.245.216.62 (talk) 00:53, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the Maximum allowable Weight of Sauropod Dinosaurs 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Argentinosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Carballido2017":
From Titanosauria: 
From Bonitasaura: Carballido et al., 2017
From Notocolossus: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 04:41, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Argentinosaurus]] 

message: I think we are soon in striking distance for FAC! Are you ready? Lets have a list what we may need:
*We somehow need to include the claim by Paul (2019) that Argentinosaurus was substantially larger than other titanosaurs.
*I wonder if the topotype femur should/could somehow included into the skeletal diagram? Right now, the ends of the femur are shown as "unknown", which is maybe not ideal.
::I've added in the femur, but I can't track down its specimen number. Anyone know what it is? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done by Slate Weasel. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: To make a bit more room for images, maybe  can fix the cladograms so they don't get pushed down by the images above, like he fixed it on Elasmosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 01:17, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I adjusted the width of the cladogram columns, hopefully that is enough. The image isn't conflicting with them for me, but thats probably because of screen dimension differences. IJReid  01:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me, thanks! I never figure out how to do these things on my own... FunkMonk (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What is this source, it would be nice to have in palaeoecology? I also found a 2004 study that reassigned the Huincul Formation to Turonian-Santonian: (). Things are getting complex (although not as complex as Puertasaurus, at least!). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I simply used the source you already included in the palaeoecology, as I couldn't find something better. If that other source proposes a Turonian-Santonian age, we should probably add a sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I was just thinking about asking you about this as well! The new Paul paper has been pretty exciting, and I think that the size section could warrant a whole new paragraph about Argentinosaurus compared to other titanosaurs (and other sauropods). Yeah, it's very vulnerable to vandalism, but even the published literature seems to be eager to contest/support Argentinosaurus as the biggest. On a mostly unrelated note, apparently the gigantic "Mamenchisaurus" is actually only known from 2 cervicals, not a nearly complete skeleton as previously though :( . Ah well, I was suspecting something like this for awhile. Anyways, collapsing the template is pretty easy to do,  should get the job done. I'll look for more info on the appendicular elements, and see what I can find on Argentinosaurus/Mapusaurus interactions. I could also work on a Lognkosauria size chart (probably showing Mendozasaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Argentinosaurus, Patagotitan, and Puertasaurus, as these are generally recovered as close relatives) for the classification section. I also could do a diagram of the different interpretations of the order of the dorsal vertebrae, seeing as that's been pretty contentious and is somewhat difficult to follow with text only (something like in Paul's paper). I'll see what I can do over the next week or so, I may be very free or incredibly busy over the next few days. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! True that the paragraph on the vertebra positions was hard to follow; I rewrote that now and hope it is better. Sure, a redo of the Argentinosaurus vs. other titanosaurs sounds good. Regarding the new paragraph "who was biggest", we have to try do not make it too centered on Paul. Maybe listing the different opinions chronologically would be best. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

text: Probably necessary, yes. Requested a copy edit now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I believe Holtz 2012 is the online appendix for his 2007 book. The most recent update is from 2015, although it is no longer accessible on the web:  Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah I see, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

text: I could go either way with keeping it or removing it, what do you think, ? (Thank you, Lythronax, for clarifying the difference between the two) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 22:32, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure either, but we should not include every update of the genus list, especially when one of these online sheets are not available anymore. Maybe throw the genus list out, and just keep the book? Decision is yours. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:20, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

text: *Would be great if you could give it a try – thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:02, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I gave it a shot, and tweaked some captions, any thoughts? I also wondered whether I should give it a pre-FAC peer-review, but it depends on how ready you feel the text is. FunkMonk (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better now, thanks! Hope Slate Weasel thinks the same. A pre-FAC peer-review would be great, makes it less stressful to fix stuff. I think it will be accepted at FAC if you just give your vote and cite the review? Before you start, let me read and copy-edit once again … I will ping you when done. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, I usually just specify that I've had my say during peer review when I only give a support at FAC, has been no problem before. As long as the peer review has been as thorough as a FAC review. And yeah, then there is no time limit, which is nice. We almost should have an internal dinosaur project peer review department as they do at the military history project... If there isn't already a forgotten site set up for it somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 18:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The new image placement looks good, although perhaps the new photo should be placed in the taxobox instead, seeing as it shows the dorsal vertebrae and sacrum more clearly? Sorry that I haven't been very active lately... --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Could be an option, though I do think it's cool that the current taxobox image shows both the reconstruction and the real bones. Also, the current infobox image does a good job of obscuring the profile of the reconstructed skull, which is probably incorrect... But I think you could use the new image also, it does show most of the known bones, except the lower leg, unfortunately. FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  sorry for the delay. If you could do a review, it would be much appreciated. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Removed one of the duplinks, although I left the one under "MCF" in the specimen numbers. I suppose I could change that to something like "MCF (Museo Carmen Funes)" if that's a better solution. Mapusaurus duplinking fixed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Removed "currently" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Transplanted information from discovery to limbs, unfortunately there isn't a great deal of information regarding the fibula that's been published. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Added with my 100th edit to this article! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Condensed to "In their 2004 study, Mazzetta" for consistency (occupation & nationality mentioned above) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Added assigned in parantheses. This is a pretty important palaeontological term, so I personally am reluctant to remove it, although I can if necessary. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to just use "assigned" and remove "referred" completely. The goal is to put the stuff in language that is understood by the general public, and we do not loose any precision in this case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Added. The Carballido (2017) reasoning is honestly kind of strange, hopefully I've explained it correctly and reasonably clearly. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Quoting Paul (2019): "More importantly for estimating mass, dorsal–sacral series/posterior dorsal vertebral height ratios are about 3 to 3.5, indicating that the dorsal–sacral series was  7.7  to  nearly  9  m  long  in  Maraapunisaurus,  much  longer  than  those  of  the  largest  titanosaurs.  Although  di-plodocoids  have  narrower  abdomens  and  pelves  than  do  titanosaurs, when envisioned as a robust diplodocoid (Car-penter 2018), the overall dimensions of Maraapunisaurus place this sauropod in the area of 80–120 tonnes in mass and 35 to 40 m in length (Fig. 5A)." --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but you don't seem to quote Paul after that paragraph, though. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation for Paul (2019) is placed at the end of the fourth size paragraph since most of the stuff in there relies on that paper. Should I put it at the end of the relevant sentences as well? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because currently the Paul source is only for the last sentence. Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Would seem so, since it is spelled that way under Palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I'ved searched for one but never found it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not mentioned in the original description, only later assigned to the genus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I tried with "evolved", not ideal but nothing better comes to mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Advanced"? That's at least what was used before derived became the norm... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: , added a sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Date should also be moved up, now it reads like the following statement is from a different publication. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, though possibly contemporaneous … Do you recommend we remove such vague ideas and stick with those that have been published in peer-reviewed papers? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe work around it by saying charcharodontosaurs instead of specific genera? I remember Luis Rey changing a painting of Giga and Argentino together because it was supposedly anachronistic... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noted that I completely misread the part on cooperative hunting, fixed now. I removed Giganotosaurus completely, as the book mentions it as a predator of Argentinosaurus on a different page only (where Mapusaurus is not mentioned). So maybe just another error of the book. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Finding sources here is usually pretty difficult, but I will have a look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Was the suggestion by the copy editor. Changed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Copy editor suggestion. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I've done this for all the papers. Not sure what to do for the books, capitalization-wise. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Book titles are usually in title case (large front letters, except of, with, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , also added a link to BHL for Powell's book. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

text: What needs to be changed here? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought I had removed that point. But since it's here, I think maybe the article body should state this explicitly somewhere too? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Changed to "one of the largest-known land animals of all time, if not the largest,". Sorry for the hiatus, things got super busy in real life. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, since José Bonaparte just died yesterday, it is a nice occasion to get this to FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have everything now. Thanks  for the great review, and  for fixing most issues when I had no time! Will nominate at FAC now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finishing the final issues when I didn't have the time! I have no clue what my schedule's gonna look like over the next week, so hopefully I'll be able to get some decent edits done during FAC. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Possibly, and that would be a great thing to add indeed, but I don't know a source! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Towards FA 

message: *Museo Carmen Funes is linked three times. Mapusaurus is double linked.
::Removed one of the duplinks, although I left the one under "MCF" in the specimen numbers. I suppose I could change that to something like "MCF (Museo Carmen Funes)" if that's a better solution. Mapusaurus duplinking fixed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed "currently" --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Transplanted information from discovery to limbs, unfortunately there isn't a great deal of information regarding the fibula that's been published. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Added with my 100th edit to this article! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Condensed to "In their 2004 study, Mazzetta" for consistency (occupation & nationality mentioned above) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Added assigned in parantheses. This is a pretty important palaeontological term, so I personally am reluctant to remove it, although I can if necessary. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:37, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest to just use "assigned" and remove "referred" completely. The goal is to put the stuff in language that is understood by the general public, and we do not loose any precision in this case. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Added. The Carballido (2017) reasoning is honestly kind of strange, hopefully I've explained it correctly and reasonably clearly. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:56, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Quoting Paul (2019): "More importantly for estimating mass, dorsal–sacral series/posterior dorsal vertebral height ratios are about 3 to 3.5, indicating that the dorsal–sacral series was  7.7  to  nearly  9  m  long  in  Maraapunisaurus,  much  longer  than  those  of  the  largest  titanosaurs.  Although  di-plodocoids  have  narrower  abdomens  and  pelves  than  do  titanosaurs, when envisioned as a robust diplodocoid (Car-penter 2018), the overall dimensions of Maraapunisaurus place this sauropod in the area of 80–120 tonnes in mass and 35 to 40 m in length (Fig. 5A)." --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but you don't seem to quote Paul after that paragraph, though. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The citation for Paul (2019) is placed at the end of the fourth size paragraph since most of the stuff in there relies on that paper. Should I put it at the end of the relevant sentences as well? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, because currently the Paul source is only for the last sentence. Corrected. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Would seem so, since it is spelled that way under Palaeobiology. FunkMonk (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I'ved searched for one but never found it. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: They were not mentioned in the original description, only later assigned to the genus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 15:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I tried with "evolved", not ideal but nothing better comes to mind. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: "Advanced"? That's at least what was used before derived became the norm... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 18:36, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: , added a sentence. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 01:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Date should also be moved up, now it reads like the following statement is from a different publication. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:15, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Yes, though possibly contemporaneous … Do you recommend we remove such vague ideas and stick with those that have been published in peer-reviewed papers? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe work around it by saying charcharodontosaurs instead of specific genera? I remember Luis Rey changing a painting of Giga and Argentino together because it was supposedly anachronistic... FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noted that I completely misread the part on cooperative hunting, fixed now. I removed Giganotosaurus completely, as the book mentions it as a predator of Argentinosaurus on a different page only (where Mapusaurus is not mentioned). So maybe just another error of the book. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Finding sources here is usually pretty difficult, but I will have a look. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Was the suggestion by the copy editor. Changed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Copy editor suggestion. Fixed now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:00, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text: I've done this for all the papers. Not sure what to do for the books, capitalization-wise. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Book titles are usually in title case (large front letters, except of, with, etc.). FunkMonk (talk) 10:54, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , also added a link to BHL for Powell's book. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

text: What needs to be changed here? --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:58, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I thought I had removed that point. But since it's here, I think maybe the article body should state this explicitly somewhere too? FunkMonk (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Changed to "one of the largest-known land animals of all time, if not the largest,". Sorry for the hiatus, things got super busy in real life. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:53, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

text:  --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, since José Bonaparte just died yesterday, it is a nice occasion to get this to FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 08:34, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have everything now. Thanks  for the great review, and  for fixing most issues when I had no time! Will nominate at FAC now … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:47, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finishing the final issues when I didn't have the time! I have no clue what my schedule's gonna look like over the next week, so hopefully I'll be able to get some decent edits done during FAC. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

text: Possibly, and that would be a great thing to add indeed, but I don't know a source! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Pre-FAC peer review

message: Link paleontologist. 50.201.78.236 (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps they mean link the word paleontlogist? FunkMonk (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, I linked "palaeontologist" in the lead, perhaps that's what IP is referring to, didn't really specify in what section though. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also linked the first instance of it in the article body as well (which was previous unlinked). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 21:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2021