lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Altispinax

message: Should it be mentioned that this creature appeared in the 1984 novel Carnosaur?
:No WP:trivia, please. FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Pop Culture

message: I'm a bit confused by the whole name situation, the Becklespinax article was recently moved to Altispinax, where I think it had been moved once before, but then moved back. Then we also have the separate article Megalosaurus dunkeri, which supposedly also refers to the same animal. So is the article presently at the right destination, and should dunkeri redirect here? FunkMonk (talk) 06:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Altispinax and Becklespinax were both named for the dorsal vertebrae (according to Maisch). Megalosaurus dunkeri was a species named for a single tooth that was believed to be the holotype of Altispinax until Maisch's revision. Megalosaurus dunkeri and Altispinax dunkeri are separate species based on separate material that just happen to share a species name. IJReid  15:07, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Becklespinax and Megalosaurus dunkeri 

message: Hello,
I myself am quite unfamiliar with the automatic taxobox system. I have noticed that while Altispinax is a basal carnosaur genus, it is not mentioned as being in the Carnosauria infraorder in the taxobox. Can someone experienced with the system fix this?
Thanks,
LVDP01 (talk) 12:56, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Carnosauria infraordo not displaying 

message: Isn't that child drawing inappropriate to have on Wikipedia? Rozchwierutany (talk) 20:47, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child drawing
Talk:Alwalkeria

message: Paul Sereno, in the 1990s, showed the herrarasaurids to be basal saurischians. Therefore change the classification to show that Alwalkeria is in the Herrarasauridae but is outside the Theropoda.
:Alwalkeria isn't a herrerasaurid. And in any case, Sereno thinks they are theropods. More recent studies have suggested they may be basal saurischians. Read the text of the article, there is a short explanation. Sheep81 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alwalkeria's phylogenetic position 

message: Remes and Rauhut (2005) demonstrated that Alwalkeria is a chimera. While the dinosaurian remains represent a basal saurischian and belong to Alwalkeria, the non-dinosaurian remains belong to an unnamed crocodylomorph. Therefore, update the Alwalkeria page. 
Remes, K. and Rauhut, O. W. M. 2005. The oldest Indian dinosaur Alwalkeria maleriensis Chatterjee revised: a chimera including remains of a basal saurischian; p. 218 in  Kellner, A. W . A.,  Henriques,  D .D. R. and  Rodrigues, T. (eds.), II Congresso Latino-Americano de Paleontologie de Vertebrados. Boletim de Resumos. Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which animal is the name attatched to in cases like this?Dinoguy2 03:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lectotype must be chosen, otherwise the name is just a nomen vanum.--MWAK (talk) 07:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alwalkeria, a chimera
Category talk:Shopping malls by country

message: There already exists a List of shopping malls page on Wikipedia. Please merge both pages. --Jibran1 01:41, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists and categories perform different functions and co-exist throughout wikipedia. Olborne 22:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Why is it called "centers" in some countries and "malls" in some other countries. J 1982 (talk) 13:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name
Talk:Ampelosaurus

message: Am I the only one who thinks that the skull on the reconstruction, the drawing and the partial one in the display case all look like they come from completely different animals? Abyssal (talk) 19:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If the skull is only known from that incomplete mess shown in one of the photos, then the real complete shape is probably anyone's guess, thus you get different interpretations. FunkMonk (talk) 19:09, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I would've thought there would be more material. It reminds me a bit of Nigersaurus around the mouth. Abyssal (talk) 19:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it's a sauropod, it might have a lot of post cranial material, but only crappy skull remains. In any case, I think the life restoration is a bit unlikely, as it should probably resemble other titanosaurs just a bit more I would assume. But who knows. FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Changed the head, now it looks kind of like the Loch Ness Monster, less like Godzilla. FunkMonk (talk) 20:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  WTF? 

message: I was browsing the plos one website publications and randomly came across . It is a whole study of the neuroanatomy of Ampelosaurus. This could greatly expand the article and provide some brand new brain reconstructions and braincase images. Is anyone in to expand this article or upload the images? Iainstein (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plos One Article 

message: Reid,iain james - In follow up of this request, Ontogenetic stages in the long bone histology of sauropod dinosaurs mentions Ampelosaurus and also cites to the references Eggs, nests, and baby dinosaurs and Dinosaur Eggs and Babies. The citations were not in line and the Ampelosaurus was only mentioned in the Ontogenetic stages article, so it was not clear that the article connected the two. Ontogenetic stages in the long bone histology of sauropod dinosaurs was the only source I found mentioning both Ampelosaurus and egg. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It would be great to know what it says, but if you can't show me or tell me, I'll have to take your word for it. Would it be possible to have the page and what it says (in "quotes")? Iainstein (talk) 14:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: "Egg" is only mentioned in the references cited at the bottom of the paper. I did not read the source, so I do not know whether the source supports the idea tht Ampelosaurus has had eggs assigned to it. -- Jreferee (talk) 15:13, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure I get what your saying. I think you mean that the only mention of egg is in the references, and therefore it mentions nothing about ampelosaurus having eggs assigned to it. Is that what you mean, and if not, could you explain it better? Iainstein (talk) 16:03, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Source
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 38

message: There is a Village pump discussion (sparked by the date link dispute) titled: . "Is it permissible to implement the guidance in the Manual of Style?". Interested parties are invited to contribute.bobblewik 15:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village pump discussion titled: "Is it permissible to implement the guidance in the Manual of Style?" 

message: Is there a policy about "first' vs "1st" etc?  does it go by "names of numbers" (spell out small ones?  Bubba73 (talk), 04:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "first' vs "1st" etc 

message: Hi all,
Should we capitalize unit names? The problem came up when using amperes. I believe that we should only capitalize when refering to the scientist.
Tony 05:58, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, the unit names should be lowercase, even though unit symbols for units named after people start with a capital letter.  One of the quirks of English is the capitalization of proper adjective identifiers of those units as in degrees Celsius and degrees Fahrenheit, however (in the old days it was degrees Kelvin, but now that kelvin is a noun, the unit name kelvins is lowercase).  Gene Nygaard 09:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of unit names 

message: a table in this section shows Kb for kilobyte; this should be KB, to match the rest of the table, to match common usage of KB and to match the rest of wikipedia.  I just do not know how to find the source of the table to make this change.  Help! please.  Thanks Hmains 20:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: done. −Woodstone 20:28, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Actually, common usage is KB = 1024 bytes, so using KiB = 1024 and kB = 1000 bytes is correct. — Omegatron 03:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Binary unit prefixes
Talk:Amurosaurus

message: The same study that found Blasisaurus and Aralosaurus to be sister within Parasaurolophini apparently found this to be basal to Parasaurolophini-Lambeosaurini split (Or, at least the phylogeny from that paper that is currently on the Balsisaurus page...), therefore this to should have lambeosaurinae as the most specific parent clade.http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02724634.2013.772061#tabModule142.176.114.76 (talk) 21:48, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lambeosaurin 
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers/Archive 39

message: I've changed these as they had beoe a bit confused (or at least I had) .  Any ptroblems, please fix or talk to me, as usual. Rich   Farmbrough. 11:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prefixes - headers 

message: Once upon a time this was a bit clearer, but now it's lost under the subheading Dates in article titles which seems to only relate to the first sentence, and that could easily come under the previous subheading Usage of links for date preferences. I therefore propose that the subheading be changed to Date formats related to topics and put after "In article titles, dates will not be converted" which will form the last sentence of  the previous subsection. so that the subsection begins with "It is usually preferable to use the format preferred in the variety of English that is closest to the topic". This would help to avoid the perennial problem of date formats being changed inappropriately. ....dave souza, talk 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. The section has been significantly weakened since 27 February, and this change in guidance needs to be carefully considered. ...dave souza, talk 09:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Date formats related to topics
Talk:Amygdalodon

message: "Amygdalodon was discovered by Cabrera in Argentina in 1947." -- 
Ángel Cabrera (naturalist)?? -- Writtenonsand 00:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cabrera, discoverer 

message: -odon does not take stress in English, because the o is short in Greek and therefore unstressed in Latin. I just checked the OED, and all 30 words like coryphodon are stressed on the antepenult. kwami (talk) 22:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  IPA 

message: The nomen dubium status of Amygdalodon is based on Upchurch et. al. (2004). However, Rauhut (2003) and Carballido and Pol (2010) find Amygdalodon to be valid. A cladistic analysis by Carballido and Pol (2010) finds Amygdalodon to be a non-eusauropod sauropod. The original description for Amygdalodon is Cabrera (1947). 
Upchurch, P.M., Barrett, P.M., and Dodson, P. (2004). Sauropoda. In: Weishampel, D.B., Dodson, P., and Osmólska, H. (eds.). The Dinosauria (2nd edition). University of California Press:Berkeley 259-322. 
CARBALLIDO, J.L. & POL, D. 2010. The dentition of Amygdalodon patagonicus (Dinosauria: Sauropoda) and the dental evolution in basal sauropods. Comptes Rendus Palevol. 9: 83-93.
Rauhut, O. W. M. (2003), Revision of Amygdalodon patagonicus Cabrera, 1947 (Dinosauria, Sauropoda). Fossil Record, 6: 173–181. doi: 10.1002/mmng.20030060110
Cabrera, A. 1947. Un saurópodo nuevo del Jurásico de Patagonia. Notas del Museo de La Plata, Paleontología 12(95): 1-17.83.206.236.228 (talk) 08:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  References
Talk:Anatotitan

message: Brett-Surman (1989) refuted the hypothesis that the differences distinguishing Anatotitan from Edmontosaurus were related to crushing in skulls on the grounds that "an analysis of the type shows this is certainly not the case" (p. 77). This conclusion supports the assertion that the skulls of Anatotitan weren't crushed, meaning that Anatotitan deserves to be in its own genus.
Brett-Surman, M.K., 1989. A revision of the Hadrosauridae (Reptilia: Ornithischia) and their evolution during the Campanian and Maastrichtian. Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.. pp.1-272. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 17:35, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No evidence of crushing in Anatotitan skulls 

message: Trachodon is not a junior synonym of Anatotitan, but instead a nomen dubium based on poor material. Sternberg (1936) assigned Trachodon to Lambeosaurinae. For this reason, Trachodon should be removed from the Taxobox and placed in a separate page. Creisler (2006) provides a nomenclatoral history of Trachodon, based on the hadrosaurid research he has compiled.
Creisler, B. J. 2006. Deciphering duckbills: a history in nomenclature; pp.
185-210 in K. Carpenter (ed.), Horns and Beaks: Ceratopsian and Ornithopod
Dinosaurs. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
C. M. Sternberg. 1936. The systematic position of Trachodon. Journal of Paleontology 10(7):652-655. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 03:45, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trachodon Leidy, 1856 

message: I recall reading that Anatotitan has officially been sunk into Edmontosaurus recently. Should we redirect? Oxalaia (talk) 21:20, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion here. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Officially sunk 

message: If the redirect keeps getting reverted, we should maybe have the title protected? FunkMonk (talk) 19:35, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, not many people watch reidrects. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, seems the "war" stopped right after I made this section... FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection
Talk:Anchiceratops

message: It was removed, is it incorrect? FunkMonk (talk) 14:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've now modified the skull and limbs, does it look alright? FunkMonk (talk) 13:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The front limbs look good to me, by the hind limbs look hyperextended at the knee... MMartyniuk (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I see, what would be the maximum extension? FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Maximum knee extension in a ceratopsian would probably be the rear (foreground) leg here:  MMartyniuk (talk) 12:20, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ouch! Seems like I've got some breaking to do... FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries, I've actually just been playing around with this in Photoshop, give me a few minutes I might be able to get a decent fix in :) MMartyniuk (talk) 12:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, while we're at it, should the body be based on NMC 8547, the ilium (including attached muscle sheet) should be made much longer, the tail a lot thinner and the neck a lot longer.--MWAK (talk) 13:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Heheh, nice, and I see you did the skin cover trick, Dinoguy! And isn't NMC 8547 a bit iffy, since it has no skull? And isn't it actually NMC 8538? According to that Darren Naish article, AW's image could need a fix too, if it is to be used here in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 15:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Naish had me confused too for a while, but NMC 8538 is the type specimen of Macrophalangia canadensis! NMC 8547 in fact does have quite large frill fragments preserved and these show the typical "veined" surface of Anchiceratops. The problem is that Arrhinoceratops shares this trait. On the other hand Anchiceratops is apparently more common; the only Arrhinoceratops specimen that can reliably be referred to the genus seems to be the holotype. So combining NMC 8547 with an Anchiceratops skull, apart from showing the traditional image of the taxon, has the benefit of presenting a quite plausible interpretation. As regards the Tamura image, there should be three epiparietals on each parietal edge, not two. Remarkably even Paul gets this wrong. Furthermore the image lacks the typical "knobs" at the parietal midline.--MWAK (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems Naish is repeating the caption from the Greg Paul image... I'll gie the image some changes soon. FunkMonk (talk) 13:06, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restoration
Talk:Angaturama

message: I think that Angaturama should have its own page--Bubblesorg (talk) 09:19, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Genera is plural. And if you read the article, you will know that what you say is not at all the conclusion of the latest studies. There are three possibilities; it is a distinct genus, it is another specimen of Irritator, or it belongs to the same specimen as the Irritator holotype. FunkMonk (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: In just about every other case we'd give a genus in that situation its own page, though. I do prefer the current arrangement, since the topics are so intertwined, but it completely breaks precedent. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Unlike other similar cases, it doesn't seem like anyone is solely considering this a distinct genus. At most, it has been presented as one of several possibilities. Can't think of any similar cases off hand (unlike for example Torosaurus or Vagaceratops, where there are two distinct camps arguing against each other). FunkMonk (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

text: , please self-revert. There is no consensus to make that change. 2001:569:7BB3:9200:1D7C:B949:2CEE:DE41 (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

text: Your behavior here is getting more and more unacceptable. If it continues, I will have to support a block. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have told you like ten times now that you should never do controversial edits before getting consensus on talk pages. This is the last straw, and I agree you should be blocked. FunkMonk (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , when Ponyo recommended that we "drop the stick", they meant in the context of our suspicion into your relations to IP addresses. That does not apply here, where we are trying to stop you from making destructive edits. You are harmful to this project and are acting incredibly rude. We have reminded you repeatedly to change your ways, but you have not made any efforts towards doing so apart from empty promises. You're sitting on a knife edge here. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Angaturama is its own genera
Talk:Steinberg v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

message: The past reversions had a section "Did the court get it right?", which with the contents seemed (IMAO) to be inappropraite original research on the legal basis, atleast with that phrasing. Tagged for someone better at formatting to give it a pretty courtcase box, etc. 68.39.174.238 01:56, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:TorqueFlite

message: Dana60Cummins, in this edit you added material related to TorqueFlite designation that does not, in my search, seem supportable. I cannot find evidence to support the assertion that TorqueFlites with  control designations necessarily used electronic control for the TCC and overdrive, but used hydromechanical control of the first three gears. That may be the case with e.g. the 42RE (renamed A998), but not with the 41TE (A604), which is fully electronic. Likewise, I find no material referring to a  control designation used to designate "fully electronic" TorqueFlites. Do you have a reliable source for the  assertion? —Scheinwerfermann T·C00:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No source, just experience.    41TE may be different from the 42/44/46 and 47 RE's.  But those transmissions have the torque converter clutch controlled electronically, as well as overdrive.  RH's are the same.  I got wiring diagrams to prove this. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

text: The only difference notable between the RH's and RE's in the 46/47 types is the fact one is controlled  hydromechanical and the other electronically controlled.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 01:07, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nomenclature

message: Anyway, incredibly, the 41TE is NOT shown in the list...!  Amclaussen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.100.180.19 (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Still Incomplete List
Talk:Amphisbaenia

message: What about this one? Jimp 10 March 2006
: According to the Axolotl article it's not an Amphisbaenia, it's from the Amphibia class. Amphisbaenia are from the Sauropsida class, according to this article. --portugal (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Legless

message: The article says "Their name is derived from Amphisbaena, a mythical serpent with a head at each end."  This may not be 100% correct - T. H. White in "The Book of Beasts" suggests that the mythical creature was an exaggerated version of this real animal. Vultur (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: There are such animals in Portugal as well, I've seen them. --portugal (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Presence 

message: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/04/01/amphisbaenians-and-origins-of-mammals/ 74.109.193.163 (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Note the date of that article ;) MMartyniuk (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  No Longer Squamates 

message: The current map is inaccurate, showing, among other things that amphisbaenas occur in Madagascar, in a different area of the Arabian Peninsula from their actual range, and missing their range in Asia Minor. The second page of this article contains an accurate map of Amphisbaenia distribution and I'd like to request that a new map be made for this article based on it. Note that the article has different colors for each Family within the group, and that the range of Amphisbaenia is the aggregate of those ranges. It might also be worthwhile to make a distribution map for each family to be included in the respective articles on those taxa. Cheers! Peter G Werner (talk) 02:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New map request 

message: ...Most of the skull is solid bone, with a distinctive single median tooth in the upper jaw.......able to tear chunks out of larger prey with their powerful, interlocking teeth.
i was initially going to ask if this is a contradiction, because i read the first sentence as "they have a single tooth", and not "they have a single tooth that is distinctive, and they have other teeth too".. but i decided to be proactive and now am quite glad that they are small and burrow in the ground.
Bipes biporus
Anops kingii
≈Sensorsweep (talk) 04:47, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  teeth or tooth?
Talk:Antarctosaurus

message: I redid the references to make them the nice wiki style ones with all the bells and whistles. Please make sure I didn't make any mistakes while converting from the old "standard essay"-type citations. Thanks! <3 Abyssal leviathin (talk) 00:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Redone references

message: Is it possible that eggs from the Anecleto formation could belong to Wichmannianus? Because it said they found eggs there.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.128.204.201 (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eggs 

message: The image caption and the image description say A.giganteus; the file name, the plaque in the museum say A. wichmannianus? I'm struggling to find copies of the description, does anyone know which is correct? Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, on further reading it would seem that only A.giganteus is known from a pair of femurs which would imply the plaque is incorrect. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Femur Picture, ''Antarctosaurus wichmannianus''?