Talk:Opisthocoelicaudia

message: What is the authority for calling this a titanosaur and a saltasaurid? I have seen several references to it as a camarasaurid. Srnec 17:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Salgado and Coria (1993)  discuss the fact that, while originally considered a camarasaur, they find it to be a titanosaur. All current phylogenies I've seen (this site , etc) follow this.Dinoguy2 20:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Titanosaur?

message: It doesnt sayin the article but i belive its name translates to some thing like 'posterior caviy tail'  according to a book and game i have.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 22:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: I will have a pre-nomination look over the article as soon as it is ready. Sorry about the nomination. Iainstein (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems this could be ready for GA, ? FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yah, definitely. I completely forgot about this with a whole bunch of stuff happening in life, but if it is nominated, I will be very happy to review it. :) IJReid (talk) 15:01, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone know if this pelvis belongs to Opisthocoelicaudia? http://www.flickr.com/photos/sergioconti/9616250052 From the holotype?  FunkMonk (talk) 13:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: From my experience, it is. IJReid discuss 16:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be cool, because the image is free. But does that mean that the mount is exhibited without that part? Maybe it's too heavy? FunkMonk (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I presume that the Japan mount includes material not in the above image, as comparisons between JAime's skeletal and the mount seem to imply material missing from that region. One of them could be a cast also. IJReid discuss 17:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: Seems like Palaeontologia Polonica has been confused with Acta Palaeontologia Polonica in the refs! Though the names are similar and they are associated, they are different journals. Only the latter is CC licensed, sadly. FunkMonk (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! It's fixed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Acta Palaeontologia Polonica 

message: New paper out, and one about sauropod footprints in the Nemegt which might be relevant: FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah I've read it. The discussion about the synonymy is really more about them being possible synonyms as opposed to probable synonyms. In any case, we should be ready in case they get formally synonymized without opposition. IJReid  17:01, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of stuff there that should be mentioned in this article in any case. We already discussed this when it weas just an abstract of course, but in the small chance  hasn't seen the published paper, there's a ping... FunkMonk (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not, only saw the footprint paper ;) Many thanks. I can add the new info, but it will have to wait until Wednesday. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

text: And in case someone missed it, here is the newer paper claiming the two were distinct after all: The two papers should hopefully be covered in the article before it reached the main page... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possibly synonymous with ''[[Nemegtosaurus]]'' 

message: I think one or more theropods should be listed besides Tarbosaurus here. 50.111.19.2 (talk) 00:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: paleo-ecology

message: There is considerable MOS:SANDWICH here, and some images might be reduced.  SandyGeorgia (Talk)  18:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images