Talk:Arthropleura

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

A. Armata?

Can someone clarify the usage of A. Armata, seemingly in place of Arthropleura, in various places throughout this article? There is no introduction for this term A. Armata, nor does it show up in the "synonyms" of Arthopleura in the sidebox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:FCA0:7E25:34B9:28AD:A6D9:9C83 (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Consistency: Article early on describes animal as probably carnivorous, but later as definitely herbivorous. Sandcastlesofstone 09:47, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stalagmite to Pneumatophore

I changed the use of the word "stalagmite" to the word "pneumatophore", a type of aerial root used by mangroves, often found in swampy environments, as evident in the show.

An herbivorous animal

I think Arthropleura was a herbivorous animal.The biggest weight is almost ever, with herbivorous or onivorous animal.Agre22 (talk) 11:56, 8 February 2009 (UTC)agre22[reply]

Image:WalkingWithMonsters

No way this is fair use. We're not talking about the film 64.131.243.173 (talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Width

I've been trying for years to find out how wide the animal and/or the tracks of this creature are. Is there anyone who can add this data to the article? --Suttkus (talk) 23:16, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Without a width the length measurement is largely meaningless. Was it 1 cm wide or 1 foot wide? Fig (talk) 10:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I found this: Imprints are 5-7 cm wide and up to 1.5 to 2 cm deep (Fig. 4C-E). The external width of the trackway is 32- 38 cm. Based on the body width/length ratio of 3.6 to 4.4 (Kraus, 1993; Schneider and Werneburg, 1998), an Arthropleura of 1.37 to 1.67 m body length was the trail maker [[1]] Triangulum (talk) 08:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Halo Reference

There appears to be an obscure reference to Arthropleura on page 335 of Halo cryptum MMFA (talk) 00:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Nearby, something like a small tank passed by me on many pumping legs, a gigantic armor-plated arthropod almost three meters long. It ignored me, for I was not the rotting vegetation it favored as a meal." - Page 335 of Halo: Cryptum MMFA (talk) 00:39, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it actually said it was Arthropleura, and or explains how this mention of Arthropleura is important to the plot of Halo, please don't use the "In Popular Culture" section as a laundry list of "spot the monster"--Mr Fink (talk) 04:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit it, I was just making a suggestion MMFA (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"or explains how this mention of Arthropleura is important to the plot of Halo," You've got this backward--it needs to explain how the plot of Halo is relevant to the animal Arthropleura or has effected public perception of that animal. Otherwise it belongs only on the Halo page at best. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bad picture removed for a reason

I removed the picture because it contradicts the information in the article. This is an encyclopedia article, not an art gallery. The artist's impression is not verified, cited, or anything. So what if that is an unknown artist's impression of the animal?

Encyclopedic pictures enhance articles. Random drawings are for refrigerators. --2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 18:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How does it contradict the article? The article states it was up to 2.3 meters, which it looks to be in the image (assuming the average person is less than 2 meters tall). Note that the shaded figures at the bottom are the size comparison. clpo13_(talk) 18:48, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When you glance at the picture it looks like it is comparing a human shadow to the big colored picture; which makes it appear that the organism is 10 metres long. I just got a handful of "copied from Wikipedia without reading" assignments turned in that describe this 10 metre long creature based on this badly done drawing. When an image has two different scales in it, as this image does, it should clearly indicate that. The artist's impression of the creature could stand alone, but once the artist added a completely different drawing that is about scale to the same image, the artist should have clearly indicated the scale alongside the bigger image.

Although at least you're not editing a million pages and calling me a vandal. --2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 18:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the image says nothing about the size of the human, so are we looking at a 1 meter tall human and an arthropod about that same length, or a 2.3 metre one next to an American basketball player? How about an average male human, somewhere in the 1.75 metre range, and an average arthropod, or the maximum length arthropod, rather than some random and unknown size? The artist is not conveying encyclopedic information, they just drew a picture and uploaded it to Wikipedia without thinking about it or making it useful. Again, we're not an art gallery, we're an encyclopedia. --2600:387:1:809:0:0:0:B1 (talk) 19:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. I'll see if maybe I can add an inset box around the size comparison to differentiate it from the color picture. clpo13_(talk) 19:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to remove the image for now since, as you said, it's sorely lacking in useful information. Hopefully I can put together a more informative and less confusing image, like File:Vraptor-scale.png at Velociraptor. clpo13_(talk) 19:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think of the newer version I uploaded? [2] Triangulum (talk) 12:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]