Talk:Mapusaurus

message: :Hi, I apologize for accidentally removing the size comparison image in the "description" category. Could someone fix that? I don't know how to upload images properly. 
  		
And I also think that I wrote the reference to the same paper twice (Canale et al 2014). May need a more experienced user to fix that. Sorry again, I'm new here.  — Luigi Gaskell (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor screw up

message: Some body deleted all the content and told people to troll at a forum. I reverted it but this guy is, err, well you now... Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Edit 

message: I've just finished reading the new paper on Siats, and I noticed that in figure 5, Mapusaurus is showed as been known from the Coniacian from 89-86 million years ago, this promt me to look in other papers, Carrano et al. (2012) lists it as Turonian-Santonian (so Coniacian too?), has there been some revision or something? Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I will add this tomorrow TheCarch (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

text: Actually give me a source TheCarch (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Age of the Huincul Formation 

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 :Mapusaurus'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 "Holtz2008":
From Tyrannotitan: Holtz, Thomas R. Jr. (2008) Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages Supplementary Information
From Dinosaur size: Holtz, Thomas R. Jr. (2012) Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, Winter 2011 Appendix.
From Dinosaur: 
From Theropoda: Holtz, Thomas R. Jr. (2011) Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, Winter 2011 Appendix.
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. AnomieBOT⚡ 07:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Mapusaurus]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mapusaurus. 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/20160930130941/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0417_060417_large_dino.html to http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0417_060417_large_dino.html
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) 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The hands in the taxobox image are actually pronated, so should we switch the taxobox image to the skull image we currently have on the article? I think that accuracy matters more than showing an entire mount.BleachedRice (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it obvious from this angle that they are pronated? if not, is it a problem? FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Well, I don't know about your definition of obvious, but it is pretty clear in the younger mount that the hand is pronated, and also noticeable in the adult image. As the arms are posed in that wimpy sort of fashion, the pronation is clear when being able to see the entire back of the hand. We probably need more opinions on this to make a decision.BleachedRice (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Originally I had actually placed a photo of their skulls in the infobox. But yeah, it is always good with a discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxobox Image