Talk:Spinosauridae

message: is there any pic for spinosauridae? can we put reference from jurassic park 3 movie? i remember there's spinosaurus in that movie. HoneyBee 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could always use one of the nearly equally artistic sculpts of Suchomimus... spinosaurids are a very poorly known group, any museum mount will have a lot of guesswork and sculpting involved. The only error here that I can see is the upper jaw is too robust, but I wonder how much individual variation could account for that, as many undescribed specimens seem to have more robust jaws than the dal Sasso skull. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: picture

message: Shouldn't this be merged with spinosaurid (spinosauridae is the plural of spinosaurid)? 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: merging

message: I created a new section talking bout this new 2010 study
Amiot, R., Buffetaut, E., Lécuyer, C., Wang, X., Boudad, L., Ding, Z., Fourel, F., Hutt, S.,Martineau, F., Medeiros, A., Mo, J., Simon, L., Suteethorn. 2010. Oxygen isotope evidence for semi-aquatic habits among spinosaurid theropods. Geology, 38, 139-142. 
http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/2/139
Spinosaurids were semiaquatic  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio (talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Saw that; I did some massaging of the text to add some detail and make it less just the end of the abstract. J. Spencer (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  habitat 

message: On another wiki page it states that their is a Spinosaurid fossil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maevarano_Formation#Dinosaurs.
If it is true than we could extend the temporal range.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 (talk) 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Said "spinosaurid" fossil is indetermined and may or may not actually be a spinosaurid.  The temporal range should not be adjusted until said fossil's identity as a spinosaurid is confirmed.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Campanian-Maastrichtian record 

message: Given the new Spinosaurus that's been published by Ibrahim et al., should the image of Spinosaurus here be changed to another image (e.g. another spinosaur, or Spinosaurus as it currently is on its own page)? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  New image? 

message: The Sigilmassasaurus... So its well known subject now... Should we add the new spinosauroid to this page ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The New One 

message: Ichthyovenator laosensis is listed in the classification diagram twice, in the subfamilies Baryonychinae and Spinosaurinae.
I suppose only one of these can be correct.92.29.248.209 (talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Well spotted! Reference added under Baryonychinæ; duplicate under Spinosaurinæ removed.—Odysseus1479 20:06, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification confusion 

message: Hi,
I have a class wikipedia assignment to edit this article. I'm adding a lot of stuff to a version of it in Word that I plan to post to the body of the article as soon as it's graded. Maronaut (talk) 07:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Class Project edits 

message: http://www.dinosaurhome.com/extending-the-temporal-range-of-the-spinosauridae-14490.html. I'm just going to add temporal range of possibly starting 170mya.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.87.67 (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Early Jurassic Spinosaurs 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spinosauridae. 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/20131219195023/http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Megalosauroidea.htm to http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Megalosauroidea.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) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It appears User:Bubblesorg does not want to let go of the article he created even though there was a consensus on it being merged with Spinosauridae, he keeps recreating the page and has even gone as far as to revert some of my edits on this article as some sort of 'comeback' and has started an edit war. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 03:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: He looks to have stopped but someone might still want to notify him/her about this to keep them from doing something like it in the future. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 07:38, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have placed the redirect under extended confirmed protection in order to enforce the AfD result. I also left a note at Bubblesorg's user talk page. Mz7 (talk) 08:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone keeps recreating the Australian Spinosaurid article 

message: Why is not Baryonychinae mentioned in the taxobox? Is it no longer a valid taxon? I preferred not to add it and ask it since the article is under review. Super Ψ Dro 20:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: A paper last year questioned it as a natural group, so it's the safer bet to not show it and then mention it in the text. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:28, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Then should it be removed from the Megalosauroidea template? Super Ψ Dro 21:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baryonychinae 

message: The article states that juvenile spinosaurids are "exceedingly rare", but it might be worth mentioning that according to some sources they are locally common in the Kem Kem beds? 209.136.39.130 (talk) 14:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rare or common? 

message: After a few days of work and solving some namespace issues, the article Baryonychinae is finally up. The discussion for the proposed merge can be concluded there. Pinging all people above involved. Hiroizmeh (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Update

message: Spinosaurinae is currently in the process of getting created and well, as for Ceratosuchopsini=merge into Baryonychinae, we'll think of that another time. Magnatyrannus (talk) 00:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spinosaurinae 

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 :Spinosauridae'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 "buffetaut2007":
From Suchosaurus: Buffetaut, E. (2007). "The spinosaurid dinosaur Baryonyx (Saurischia, Theropoda) in the Early Cretaceous of Portugal." Geological Magazine, 144(6): 1021-1025. 
From Iberospinus: 
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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Spinosauridae]]