lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Stygimoloch

message: Let's remember to watch the weasel words and speculation in this and other articles. Imputing behavior, or functions for anatomy, on the basis of "it seems obvious" is questionable science. :-) -- Writtenonsand 22:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Watch the weasel words and speculation, please 

message: Could someone P*L*E*A*S*E take the time to read the comments and referred articles on the Dracorex-Stigymoloch-Pachycephalosaurus situation featured here: http://paleoking.blogspot.com/2010/01/farewell-to-2009-yeares-best-and-worst.html
The article's tone seems to take Horner's proposal of Stygimoloch being a juvenile of another pachy species for granted way too much; the matter is still very much open to debate, and that is not reflected here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.230.91.121 (talk) 13:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the fact hat this article doesn't redirect to Pachy is open enough... also blogs don't count as sources and nobody has published a rebuttal. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading Article 

message: "Stygimoloch" doesn't mean "thorny devil from the River Styx" it means "devil from the River Styx" (not that Moloch is necessarily a devil; depends on the tradition).  You need the "spinifer" to get "thorny." 72.240.64.25 (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Since nobody has countered these arguments on the Pachycephalosaurus talk page, I am bringing them up here, copied and pasted in their entirety. 85.211.136.200 (talk) 10:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since no scientific papers have contested this synonymy, the issue does not seem to be contentious. Anyhow, here is the discussion that lead to the merger: FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  How definite is definite for you? As the previous discussion concluded, the weight of the current scientific consensus on this matter - an uncontroversial one - is that they are ontogenetic synonyms. We are not beholden to some hypothetical future paper that might argue for their separation. If and when such a paper is published, then we can reevaluate whether we should keep them merged. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lumping.
Talk:Stokesosaurus

message: The citation for the possible synonomy between Stokesosaurus and Tanycolagreus was mentioned in the book Jurassic West. I forget who the author of the book is, but he works at a museum in Western Colorado.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metalraptor (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed
Talk:Stormbergia

message: The paper by Knoll et. al. has been published online. The citation for their paper should be:
Knoll, F.; Padian, K.; and de Ricqles, A. (2010). "Ontogenetic change and adult body size of the early ornithischian dinosaur Lesothosaurus diagnosticus: implications for basal ornithischian taxonomy". Gondwana Research 17 (1): 171-179.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.61.237 (talk) 04:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, it's fixed.  Thank you! J. Spencer (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation change  

message: A new paper also indicates this is a junior synonym of Lesothosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time to merge with Lesothosaurus?
Talk:Streptospondylus

message: Delair (1966) considered Streptospondylus major to be a valid species of Iguanodon, as Iguanodon major, but his proposal has gone unnoticed in the literature except Naish and Martill (2008). However, it should be noted that the original description of Streptospondylus major by Owen (1842) was based not only on a cervical from Cuckfield, West Sussex but also similar cervicals from Brook Point and Culver Cliff on the Isle of Wight. However, such remains are sparse to uphold Streptospondylus major as a synonym of Iguanodon, so Streptospondylus major is probably a nomen dubium referrable to Iguanodontia indet.
Streptospondylus meyeri is based on an isolated cervical (or anterior dorsal) from Brook Point, Isle of Wight (Owen 1854). However, this species has remained unstudied since Owen (1854) and the taxonomic status of S. meyeri has not yet been determined, but is probably a nomen dubium since one vertebrae is not sufficient grounds for establishing a new species.
Streptospondylus grandis is a nomen nudum because Hulke (1879) does not provide a description.
Delair, J. B., 1966, New records of dinosaurs and other fossil reptiles from Dorset: Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, v. 87, p. 28-37.
Naish, Darren; and Martill, David M. (2008). "Dinosaurs of Great Britain and the role of the Geological Society of London in their discovery: Ornithischia". Journal of the Geological Society, London 165 (3): 613–623.
Owen, Richard (1854). "Descriptive catalogue of the Fossil organic remains of Reptilia and Pisces contained in the Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons of England." London p. 1–184
J. W. Hulke. 1879. Vectisaurus valdensis, a new Wealden dinosaur. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London 35:421-424.68.4.61.168 (talk) 17:56, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Streptospondylus major
Talk:Estadio Carlos Tartiere

message: The name is Carlos TArtiere, not TOrtiere
:Moved. - Liberatore(T) 19:07, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled
Talk:Styracosaurus

message: Just a note that a whole bunch of articles about frill morphology, ontogeny, evolution, taxonomy, etc. of Styracosaurus were published this year, so it'll take some time to get this old FA up to date. See the following: FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I missed this. Maybe  or  could try? LittleJerry (talk) 01:23, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: None of them are really active anymore. But it's just a heads up if someone wants to have a look. FunkMonk (talk) 05:50, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  2020 papers on ''Styracosaurus'' for expansion 

message: Formal request has been received to merge: Rubeosaurus into Styracosaurus; dated: February 4, 2021. Proposer's Rationale: There's effectively no reason for them to be separate articles, since Rubeosaurus turned out to just be another specimen of Styracosaurus. There are pages for other invalid ceratopsians, but only because we don't really know if they're unique or just fossils from something else. -User:Borophagus . Discuss here. GenQuest "scribble" 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on the latest words on the issue, I also think a merge is in order. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger proposal
Talk:Succinodon

message: Since Succinodon is a mollusk and not a dinosaur, remove this taxa from the categories "Invalid dinosaurs" and "nomina dubia". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.116.63 (talk • contribs) 
::Done. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Status of Succinodon 

message: Add this reference to this page:
Bivalve nature of Huene's dinosaur Succinodon.
Pozaryska, K. and Pugaczewska, H.
ACTA PALAEONTOLOGICA POLONICA 26(1); 27-34 (1981). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.136.184.122 (talk) 02:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference for Succinodon 

message: Perhaps this would be better off merged to the Kuphus article? FunkMonk (talk) 04:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with Kuphus?
Talk:Suuwassea

message: Could someone check the original source of this for copyright violation? I have an intuition that it may have been copied from either the book it references or from some other website. --Improv 17:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The original text from January does not closely resemble the reference, which can be found online here in html format or here in PDF format. A google search on random bits of text also didn't immediately pull up any copyvio.--Firsfron of Ronchester 19:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Check for copyvio? 

message: The article should be updated to reflect that Suuwassea has been recovered as a dicraeosaurid in the analysis of Whitlock (2011). While Woodruff and Fowler (2012) consider Suuwassea a juvenile of a known diplodocid from the Morrison (in part because the degree of bifurcation of its neural spines is ontogenetically variable), Hedrick et al. (in press) disagree with Woodruff and Fowler on the taxonomic status of Suuwassea, even though they do agree that ANS 21122 is a subadult. Additionally, some dicraeosaurid characters of Suuwassea (e.g. posparietal foramen) are also found in the diplodocine Kaatedocus Tschopp and Mateus 2013 and the non-neosauropod Spinophorosaurus (Knoll et. al. 2012). Therefore, Suuwassea remains a dicraeosaurid even if the postparietal foramen is not restricted to Dicraeosauridae.
WHITLOCK, J. A. (2011), A phylogenetic analysis of Diplodocoidea (Saurischia: Sauropoda). Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society, 161: 872–915. doi: 10.1111/j.1096-3642.2010.00665.x
Woodruff, D. C. and Fowler, D. W. (2012), Ontogenetic influence on neural spine bifurcation in diplodocoidea (dinosauria: Sauropoda): A critical phylogenetic character. J. Morphol., 273: 754–764. doi: 10.1002/jmor.20021
Hedrick, B.P., Tumarkin-Deratzian, A.R., and Dodson, P. in press. Bone microstructure and relative age of the holotype specimen of the diplodocoid sauropod dinosaur Suuwassea emilieae. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica http://dx.doi.org/10.4202/app.2012.0049
Knoll, F., Witmer, L. M., Ortega, F., Ridgely, R. C. & Schwarz–Wings, D. 2012. The braincase of the basal sauropod dinosaur Spinophorosaurus and 3D reconstructions of the cranial endocast and inner ear. PLoS ONE, 7, e30060. Extrapolaris (talk) 02:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification
Talk:Central Expressway (Dallas)

message: Does anyone object me moving the information here over to U.S. Route 75 in Texas.  --Holderca1 talk 21:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[U.S. Route 75 in Texas]]

message: The article says that reconstruction began in 1992.  I thought it was a bit earlier, perhaps 1989 at the latest. -- Gyrofrog  (talk) 20:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reconstruction
Talk:Szechuanosaurus

message: This animal is described as similar to a small Allosaurus at 27 ft. But the Allosaurus page gives an average size for A. fragilis as 28 ft, which to me seems like no difference, within normal variation. So I don't think 'small Allosaurus' is an accurate description. Also, while there is a pretty big range of estimates, the average weight for Allosaurus is given as 1500 - 3000+ lbs. I can see no way how an animal of similar appearance, size and build could possibly weigh a tenth of that.
I would edit this, but I'm not up on dinosaurs at all. I just know these numbers don't add up. 209.217.221.149 (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever wrote that was probably thinking of the largest Allosaurus specimens. Unfortunately, when dealing with the sizes of dinosaurs, people are usually more interested in the absolute maximum, rather than the average size. This in turn leads people to forget 'average' exists at all. MMartyniuk (talk) 07:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's kind of a lost cause to give any size for Szechuanosaurus, given it is based on teeth.  That said, 100-150 kg for 8 m?  Someone should talk to that boy's mother about fattening him up! J. Spencer (talk) 00:59, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical Description v Allosaurus
Talk:O du lieber Augustin

message: How common is the English lyrics variant of the song?? Georgia guy 21:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: English

message: i speak german and alles ist hin doenst have anything to do with winning. it means everything is gone so someone should probably change the english translation in the article. (Wildtvnews (talk) 02:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wildtvnews

message: I believe the proper name is "Ach, du Lieber, Augustin". MamaWaluigi 21:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is the German “O” supposed to be an exclamation (like “Ach!”) or the vocative address form “O” (as in “O Lord”)? It changes how the English would translate (O… vs. Oh,…). Gsopera (talk) 17:19, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Song Title

message: This sounds like "Polly put the kettle on" to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.62.179 (talk) 19:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It is.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.152.96 (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustin 

message: This sounds like "Polly put the kettle on" to me.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.62.179 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Augustin 

message: I was surprised that there was no playable version of the song here, so I made one.
The tune is as I remember it; the fairly crude harmonisation is my own. If you don't like it, feel free to replace it with a better one :) --Kay Dekker (talk) 16:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound file added.
Talk:Tarchia

message: Isn't there a Tarchia skull that bears (partly-healed?) marks of a tyrannosaurid attack? That would be a good addition to the article I would think, but we might need to find a cite. Albertonykus (talk) 04:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be PIN 3142/250 as well.--MWAK (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyrannosaurid attack

message: I'm afraid specimen PIN 3142/250, skull casts of which have been widely exhibited under the name of Tarchia, has in 2014 been referred to Saichania by Arbour. The nice osteoderm image too has become doubtful as the specimen has not been referred to Tarchia.--MWAK (talk) 09:31, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I surmise this is PIN 3142/250 itself. In Arbour's analysis Tarchia = Minotaurasaurus and the standard image of Tarchia has been an amalgam of "Dyoplosaurus" giganteus, itself a nomen dubium, and PIN 3142/250, which is either Saichania (the hypothesis preferred by her) or a third (fourth, fifth?), as yet unnamed taxon. Maybe GSP can have a go at it ;o).--MWAK (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If we merge Minotaurasaurus into this, the image problem will be solved... Is it premature? FunkMonk (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel it's a bit early for that. The identity is in essence the conclusion by a single researcher, based on limited fossil material. If it's clear the scientific community agrees, we can merge but that will take a few years. Also it's always tricky when good material is referred to a poorly known taxon. Allosaurus and Stegosaurus come to mind :o). There is of course no objection against using the Minotaurasaurus images, as long as we make the situation understandable to the reader.--MWAK (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Wrong images

message: This article is badly out of date. There are more images here of Minotaurasaurus than of Tarchia, and not coincidentally there are more images of Tarchia in the Saichania article, than of Saichania! So, that needs fixing too. Those images should be moved here. There are also new skulls referable to Tarchia teresae that are not mentioned in this article. Azul iguana (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, you are very welcome to update as you see fit. FunkMonk (talk) 06:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time for an update
Talk:County Hall, Cork

message: I have found no evidence of an increase in height from 64m/211ft to 67m/219ft on google: could someone please supply a reference for this claim?  The external links still have 64m so it looks bad. jnestorius(talk) 21:56, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Irish Times article linked does reference that a restaurant was to be in the glazed pavilion added to the roof replacing a plant room. I assume that this is taller then the plant room, which may or not have been counted as part of the height in the first place, and this accounts for some increase in height. I couldn't find anything online to confirm it but I will keep looking for some definitive reference to the height after redevelopment.--Plasmoid 22:11, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extended height
Talk:Typhoon Caitlin (1991)

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
----
:Typhoon Caitlin →  – Typhoon named Caitlin is only 1991 storm. 1994 storm named Caitlin was not typhoon (It was tropical storm). So please move this article to List of storms named Caitlin.--126.255.235.130 (talk) 08:22, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 
Talk:Telmatosaurus

message: I added information to reflect B. Creisler's list at Dinosauria Online, but I still have two questions:
1)  What was Marsh's original (1872) creature?
2)  How does Hecatasaurus Brown, 1910 fit in? Did Brown not know of Nopsca's 1903 renaming, and just do so himself?
-- CFLeon (talk) 07:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like Limnosaurus is a junior synonym of Pristichampsus. Interestingly, Limnosaurus itself was a new genus name for Crocodilus ziphodon Marsh 1871. Not sure about #2, but it wouldn't be too shocking for Brown not to have known about Nopcsa's replacement name back in those days, as they were writing on different continents and presumably different languages. I hadn't heard of Hecatasaurus before now, too bad, pretty cool name! MMartyniuk (talk) 08:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

text: Indeed, Barnum was apparently unaware of Nopcsa's 1903 article — even though it seems to have been written in English! The incomparably better information flow of our century doesn't prevent similar mistakes: see e.g. what happened with Nedoceratops.--MWAK (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Renaming Questions
Talk:XM satellite radio footprints

message: I am suggesting that this page be merged with XM Satellite Radio as a section named "Coverage Area" between Technology and Controlling interest. Appropriate tags will be in place shortly. Anyone with any comments on this please post your oppinion. Thanks Agonizing Fury 21:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested Merge with [[XM Satellite Radio]]
Talk:Tenontosaurus

message: I agree that I don't think Deinonychus preyed on Tenontosaurus as a co-ordinated pack, nor do I think they would have limited themselves to juveniles. I agree that normally Deinonychus would have avoided adult Tenontosaurus, but if multiple Deinonychus scented the blood of an animal wounded by a larger predator such as Acrocanthosaurus, they may have gathered in large numbers, attracted by this common lure, and afterward engaging in a feeding frenzy, similar to today's sharks and pirhanas.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Views on Deinonychus as predator of Tenontosaurus
Talk:Termatosaurus

message: Actually, Termatosaurus is a genus of phytosaur named by Hermann von Meyer and T. Plieninger in 1844. The type species is Termatosaurus albertii  von Meyer & Plieninger, 1844, with a second species, T. crocodilinus Quenstedt, 1852. Therefore remove Termatosaurus from the category "Invalid dinosaurs" and tranfer it to the category "Phytosaurs".
http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/phyto.htm —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk • contribs).
:The man is absolutely right.  Termatosaurus appears to have wormed its way onto modern dinosaur genera lists as a typo\transposition taking a couple of species from Tetragonosaurus, when it was really a phytosaur all along. J. Spencer 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Termatosaurus, a phytosaur
Talk:Pittsburgh and Ohio Central Railroad

message: Pittsburgh and Ohio Central is the full name of the railroad, should Pittsburgh and Ohio be wikified? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jimktrains (talk • contribs) .
:No, in general we don't make parts of the subject name into links to other articles.  Take a look at other articles about US railroads such as those listed on the Class III navbox shown below:  Slambo (Speak) 13:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry about not signing...Anyway, I was wondering because someone else made them so and I didn't just want to change them back without checking first. --Jimktrains 15:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: * 'No Merger' As long as one of these short-lived short lines had some sort of independent existence, it would be a good idea to keep them separate.  The separate articles are useful in figuring out the evolution of larger railroads, and may be useful for historical, legal, and genealogical reasons. Pustelnik (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The complexity of the short-line railroad industry is too great to merge articles like this one into other articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 14:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger
Talk:Thecocoelurus

message: Richard Lydekker in 1888 was apparently the first to name it Coelurus Daviesi in Lydekker, R., 1888, Catalogue of the fossil Reptilia and Amphibia in the British Museum (Natural History). Part I. London, pp. 2–42 but I'm not sure whether his publication predated that of Seeley or not. Could anyone provide this information?--MWAK (talk) 07:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Priority problems
Talk:Therizinosaurus

message: this sentence in thedescription section sounds awkward to me.  "The most distinctive feature of Therizinosaurus was the presence of three gigantic claws on each digit of its frontlimbs."  it reads as if  there are three claws per digit, giving the animal  a total of nine or twelve claws per hand...comments???Ruraltexas (talk) 08:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: I had rewritten much of this article to use "its" when referring to Therizinosaurus, as the treatment of a genus as a singular seems to be the usual standard. User: Firsfron reverted me with the explanation that "this is an entire genus, not a single specimen". I am bringing the matter here for discussion. --Khajidha (talk) 21:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Treating the genus as a singular is common but not grammatically correct. A genus name, like a family name, is a collective noun. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If the use of "their" is preferred for dinosaur articles on wikipedia, why do several featured article level dinosaur articles use "its"? --Khajidha (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's easy to forget and start using the wrong word (as I've done myself on many occasions). But here we have an example of an article which actually uses the correct grammar. No need to switch to something less grammatical just to "standardize", IMO. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Its vs their 

message: Has the skull of this animal ever been found?  I think I have seen reconstructions with both a large and a small head.
2015-01-03 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
:As can be seen on the diagram in the article, only postcranial material is known. The head is reconstructed after related animals. FunkMonk (talk) 17:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Head size 

message: The female figure is a bit too small, if she's an adult woman.  Look to the first diagram for a closer approximation. 50.111.41.216 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Since there is already a size comparison, we might simply remove the human from the life restoration... FunkMonk (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd restoration drawing 

message: {{GA nominee|09:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Mmmhh yeah, quite not feeling it. I think there are some issues around the Description section. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article nomination