Talk:Giraffatitan

message: The text here says that only GSP and George Olshevsky use Giraffatitan in the literature. I don't think that forms the conservative scientific consensus. This article should be merged with Brachiosaurus until we have some sort of consensus that brancai isn't Brachiosaurus. (Ignore all this if there is newer literature supporting Giraffatitan.) John.Conway 16:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The text does also mention the skull, which lends credence to the idea that they are separate genera. I guess, as always, it comes down to lumpers vs. splitters. I think it has been the general policy here to keep separate articles for names which have not been conclusively proved to be junior synonyms, or whose synonomy is still debated. "Wyomingraptor", which as far as I know is only proposed by Bakker, has its own article. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's original research -- we ourselves should avoid having to be lumpers or splitters on the Wikipedia (though I concede that it's sometimes necessary for us to use our own judgment). The problem is that the Giraffatitan specimens are really famous as Brachiosaurus, and have been called that for decades in thousands of books, papers and pictures. One (fringe) researcher isn't enough to justify splitting the article, George Olshevsky's Mesozoic Meanaderings is not a peer-reviewed journal, and certainly doesn't justify the treatment it gets in the Brachiosaurus article. GSP in his peer-reviewed paper had it as a subgenus of Brachiosaurus. So, as far as I know, Giraffatitan has never been erected as a genus in the scientific literature. I think people just like the sound of Giraffatitan. John.Conway 08:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind a merge at this time, since as John points out, it hasn't yet made it into the literature as something people take seriously (and it was proposed as a subgenus anyway).  I keep it as separate at my place because I believe it probably is, but such a view is hardly the consensus at this point.  I wouldn't be surprised if a sauropod worker makes the case for a separation in the next few years, or at least publishes a detailed analysis of the question; the thing that's been holding back research is the fact that historically, Morrison brach material is not that common. 90% of everything that's been written about Brachiosaurus is about the African material anyway. J. Spencer 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--I was actually trying to follow up on this last week. The new Brach skull from north america probably makes a good case for splitting, but that case has not really been made in print yet and gained wide acceptance. So, I vote for a redirect to Brachiosaurus with modifications to that article. We can always bring this one back later when it (probably inevitably, from what I've been reading on the DML and such) gains wider acceptance as a valid genus. Dinoguy2 15:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...yeah. I tend to like the idea of 'merging mainly because of the knowledge being so enmeshed, but not strongly..cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 21:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Concensus

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Giraffatitan. 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/20120113052322/http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/junk_in_the_trunk.php to http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/03/junk_in_the_trunk.php
*Added  tag to http://bill.srnr.arizona.edu/classes/182h/vertebrate%20evolution/DinosaurNoses.pdf
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) 07:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Telecommunication Technician  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.207.45 (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sesotho