Talk:Majungasaurus

message: What happened here? All went quiet. Ready to nominate Sheepy? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: (.......should get Rapetosaurus worked up for a real Malagasy soiree of dinos...)cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I could also do Rahonavis, Masiakasaurus and Maevarano Formation for a featured topic... Sheep81 03:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fantastic idea - will support as I can. OK 24 hours it is then -with fingers at the keyboard ready............cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Feel free to nominate it and I'll do my best to keep up with it. How about in like 24 hours though? Sheep81 03:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK ready now?cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep anytime. Sheep81 07:32, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Righty-ho then....you happy for me to do it or do you want to do the honours? :) cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did it! Sheep81 07:49, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kewl - this one is one of the best prose-wise so should be a shoo-in. Just fixed the dashes. Fingers crossed for dino FA #14....(thought you were gettin' cold feet or somethin')cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:53, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Couldn't the majungasaurs have just gotten the tooth marks in a fight over mating or territory? Not that they wouldn't have eaten their own kind but tooth marks on bones seem like pretty flimsy evidence for this kind of behaviour.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 04:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If that were the case you would expect the bite marks to be healed. Instead they show no signed of healing, and are not only bite marks but scrape marks indicating flesh being removed from bone, very unlike known combat bites like those found in some T. rex specimens. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Cannibalism?

message: If the species name was based on some teeth, how can the dentary found later be the type specimen? FunkMonk (talk) 01:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question. TTD lists it as a referred specimen. Maybe he intended to change the type in violation of ICZN? MMartyniuk (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Type specimen 

message: Tortosa et al. (2013) found Majungasaurus to be a member of a new subfamily, Majungasaurinae. However, I can't work out how to edit the automatic taxobox. Can somebody with a better grasp of how to use the taxoboxes change it for me? Gruekiller (talk) 06:35, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reclassification. 

message: Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 18, 2015--Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Today's Featured Article: 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Majungasaurus. 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/20070927204236/http://www.vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/contents-16-4.cfm to http://www.vertpaleo.org/publications/jvp/contents-16-4.cfm
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) 20:47, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: On a recent change of the taxobox image, the edit was subsequently undone on the basis that the legs of the skeleton were largely not visible in the new image. The current taxobox image is quite unclear, and is very dark. The new image that was put up is much more clear, and was also the image used by the Ultimate Dinosaurs exhibition(the exhibition displaying these Majungasaurus casts). Even though the legs aren't visible, the new image suggested is much more clear, and all the bones are clearly shown. In the current image, the foot of the mount is obscured by the Rapetosaurus mount behind it. All parts in this new image are visible other than the bones beneath the pelvis and small portions of the tail. In the current image, though it includes almost all of the skeleton, it almost looks like the display is sinking into a black hole, because the current image is so dark. BleachedRice (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them are perfect, but at least I think we should show as much of the animal as possible. The new skull image, though, is worse than the existing one, being cropped both at the top and bottom, not even showing the horn. This image could be better for the taxobox, yet it also has problems with shadows, and the hand may be too developed. FunkMonk (talk) 01:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The suggested one is certainly much better looking, but not fully showing the legs is unfortunate, their length is rather characteristic. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 02:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The "new" image is certainly sharper, which is as plus. The best solution would of course be a photo in similar quality with the entire body visible. But at present, I am not sure what is better, but leaning towards the full body shot. Maybe we should get some more opinions. FunkMonk (talk) 02:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: In the new image, the mount is actually the exact same as the ROM mount, just the exhibition was in a different place. Also, the head isn't cropped, so I don't see any problem there. Since the mount is actually exactly the same as the ROM mount, the hands are both the same, too developed or not. BleachedRice (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, no one said there was anything wrong with the mount, it is simply the crop that is iffy. The one with the wrong hand is the one in Japan I linked. FunkMonk (talk) 12:31, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Either way, I think both should be in the article somewhere. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 14:13, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: If the Japan mount is as wrong as I think it is (are the legs too short as well?), it can be replaced by one of them. Or maybe with this one, where the Rapetosaurus mount is also shown: Would look good in the feeding section, and it is very similar to the proposed replacement image anyay. FunkMonk (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why did you replace the huge resolution, very clear image of the Field Museum skull with a smaller, darker, blurrier, and glarier version? FunkMonk (talk) 14:51, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox Image