Talk:Mapusaurus

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Minor screw up[edit]

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) Luigi Gaskell (talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Edit[edit]

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)[reply]

Age of the Huincul Formation[edit]

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)[reply]

I will add this tomorrow TheCarch (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Actually give me a source TheCarch (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Mapusaurus[edit]

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: Rey LV, Holtz, Jr TR (2007). Dinosaurs: the most complete, up-to-date encyclopedia for dinosaur lovers of all ages. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-375-82419-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
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)[reply]

Not 10.2m[edit]

10.2m estimate is not in Coria & Currie. We have to cite another source. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The 10.2m estimate is in Coria & Currie. It's in the table for Appendix III on page 116. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Link for 10.2m? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Scroll to page 116, see Length column, which lists the length estimate for every known specimen. 10.2m is the largest one.[1]

You mean this?:

Specimen number Element Length Side of body MCF-PVPH-108.3 Dentary 5.5 Left MCF-PVPH-108.44 Femur 9.9 Left MCF-PVPH-108.203 Femur 10.2 Left MCF-PVPH-108.233 Femur 9.5 Right MCF-PVPH-108.58 Tibia 9.7 Left MCF-PVPH-108.67 Tibia 8.1 Right MCF-PVPH-108.68 Tibia 9.8 Left MCF-PVPH-108.132 Fibula 8.4 Left MCF-PVPH-108.189 Fibula 8.3 Left MCF-PVPH-108.202 Fibula 8.8 Right MCF-PVPH-108.33 Metatarsal II 7.2 Left MCF-PVPH-108.34 Metatarsal II 6.1 Right MCF-PVPH-108.38 Metatarsal II 6.6 Right MCF-PVPH-108.31 Metatarsal III 6.4 Left MCF-PVPH-108.32 Metatarsal III 6.0 Right MCF-PVPH-108.188 Metatarsal III 6.5 Left MCF-PVPH-108.201 Metatarsal III 6.3 Left MCF-PVPH-108.37 Metatarsal IV 7.3 Right

The lowest there is 5.5m, not 10.2m. Is the 5.5m Mapusaurus a juvenile? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another question. Since the links are Link 1 and Link 2, why the PDF in the reference was this website? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those direct pdf links were probably not free at the time (and might not remain so for long!). The journal is not open access so the web site link is more stable (a doi would be better). And yes, presumably all of the individuals represent different growth stages and/or individual variation. Contrary to popular belief, not all adult dinosaurs of the same species were the exact same size, just as not all adult human males are the same height. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a doi but I can find the ISSN Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi Gaskell (talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox Image[edit]

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)[reply]

Is it obvious from this angle that they are pronated? if not, is it a problem? FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]