Talk:Dinosaur size/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Orphaned references in Dinosaur size

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 Dinosaur size'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 "AP-20140731":

• From Evolution of birds: Borenstein, Seth (31 July 2014). "Study traces dinosaur evolution into early birds". AP News. Retrieved 3 August 2014.
• From Theropoda: Borenstein, Seth (July 31, 2014). "Study traces dinosaur evolution into early birds". AP News. Retrieved August 3, 2014.

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⚡ 05:01, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions

Is the Bee Hummingbird a dinosaur? The photo and caption suggests that it is.

May I suggest listing Mapusaurus under Giganotosaurus in the "most massive theropods" category? Coria and Currie (2006) specifically wrote that it was approximately the same size as Giganotosaurus carolinii. Perhaps write "comparable to Giganotosaurus". Just because there are no published mass estimates of 6-8 tons doesn't necessarily mean that the scientists are implying the animal to be smaller. "Approximately the same size as Giganotosaurus carolinii" means roughly >6-8 tons — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi Gaskell (talk • contribs) 06:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

For starters, they have renamed it to Heaviest Theropods. The other thing that does not support your evidence is that on the Mapusaurus page, it said that it only weighs 3 tonnes, a massive difference compared to Giganotosaurus' 8 tons. You have a point though, there might be some errors in the list. For example, 15 tonnes is far too high for Carcharodontosaurus- most sources give a maximum weight of 7.5 tonnes. Secondly, Carcharodontosaurus saharicus and iguidensis are reasonably close enough to five an average weight of 5.5 tonnes, making it right below Tyrannosaurus. Because Giganotosaurus' maximum weight is bigger, Giganotosaurus should technically go in second. In size, though, Mapusaurus may belong above Giganotosaurus, as a certain source said that some of the largest of the individuals in the Patagonia bed (mentioned in Planet Dinosaur) may have been bigger than Giganotosaurus, but I will check later. That is all I have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jk41293 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Birds

Ugh. Yes, we get it, birds are technically dinosaurs. It still looks really stupid to say that dinosaurs range from hummingbirds to titanosaurs. Can we use common names here? --BDD (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Only if we can add the blue whale to the list of biggest fish. Common names can be wrong and misleading, and anyway, there is no common name for dinosaurians, unless you count the inaccurate use of the word to include anything big an prehistoric, like mammoths and megalodons. The statement you find really stupid is even essentially a direct quote sourced to a journal, so maybe you should take that up with the authors and reviewers and editors of PLoS ONE? Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Also should the article on animal only state information on non-human mammals? Since it's common usage to say "Insects, fish, birds, animals, and humans". Editor abcdef (talk) 21:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

So why are you posting a message on a dinosaur article? You are talking about Animal. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 00:02, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm making an analogy, if the article on dinosaurs should't include birds because of common usage, then the article on animals shouldn't include these things I said. Editor abcdef (talk) 05:05, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Dinosaur literally means "terrible lizard," a definition that was expanded to include what dinosaurs were, which is reptiles. Birds are not reptiles. Dinosaur also describes reptiles that have gone extinct; otherwise, we would just call them reptiles. The condescending one-upsmanship on Wiki disgusts me. Stop picking and choosing select ideas from scientific articles to support your pet views. Science is not a body of truth, but more a body of consensus (i.e., peer review). Picking and choosing (i.e., bias) is actually counter to scientific method.

None of what you said about the definition is accurate. Have you read the article Dinosaur? "Birds are not reptiles" Yes they are. "Dinosaur literally means "terrible lizard,"" So what? Etymology is not always accurate. "Dinosaur also describes reptiles that have gone extinct; otherwise, we would just call them reptiles." No, dinosaurs are a specific group of reptile, not extinct by definition, you're thinking of the colloquial use of the word "dinosaur" to describe a large failure. "Stop picking and choosing select ideas from scientific articles to support your pet views" Provide even one reliable source that contradicts this and we'll talk. You seem to be arguing from a profound ignorance of the basic topic, or possibly reading some old or outdated or just bad popular books. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Apparent contradiction?

Record sizes is contradicted by smallest/lightest non-avian theropods in that Anchiornis is listed as the smallest non-avian dinosaur "known from complete specimens" with an estimated length of "34 cm" and a weight of "110 grams", but it does not appear in the latter list. What is going on? 142.90.84.6 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't know what's going on either, but I don't know shall I change it. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 23:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

It was removed because many recent studies found Anchiornis to be an avialan rather than non-avialan. I re-added it just because there is some ambiguity here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 10:57, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Missing

Why Shortest and Lightest Theropod has only a few dinosaurs? It should be ten there. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 23:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Source

Can anyone help me with the sources? I have problems fixing to citations. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 08:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't find the second source but with different content brusatte.26sereno2007'. Can any users or bots help out with it? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 07:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit failed, making a suggestion instead

I found a source where Sereno gives 13.6 meters for Carcharodontosaurus saharicus, and I was going to add the citation here : http://www-news.uchicago.edu/releases/96/960513.dinosaur.shtml Could someone complete this task for me? I have trouble fixing the citations. Luigi Gaskell (talk) 03:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Remove the 18 tons figure for Tyrannosaurus

I am aware that Tyrannosaurus rex is listed at number 2 on the "Most massive theropods" list due to one paper (that paper being Hutchinson et al. 2011) giving a figure of 18 tons. I feel it important to point out that the 18 tons figure is based on the most liberal 3D model for FMNH PR 2081, and even the authors themselves stated that it was too excessive and unlikely that T. rex was as massive as their 18 tons estimate for Sue. To quote Hutchinson et al. specifically : " For the four adult Tyrannosaurus models we obtained a wide range of body masses and COM positions because our methodology purposefully produced wide “error bars.” We expanded our range of models to extremes that we qualitatively consider to be too skinny, too fat, or too disproportionate.

If you are going to keep the T. rex listed at 18 tons despite the same study clearly stating that 18 tons is implausible, then you are being dishonest. Solution? I suggest fixing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi Gaskell (talk • contribs) 06:53, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't, we are already being dishonest by keeping 21t for Spinosaurus and 13-15t for Giganotosaurus/Carcharodontosaurus, we know those estimates are plain wrong but there's nothing we can do about it as they come from a scientific publication and have not been formally declared as wrong in another scientific publication. We are supposed to follow the rule stated in the article "only the highest values are given if these individual sources give a range of estimates.", Hutchinson et al. (2011) gives a range of estimates so even if they say it's not plausible the rule says we should include it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 07:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Well that's an annoying situation. While it wouldn't fix the problem, I would propose taking out the rule of only including the highest values from each publication, to have a more honest representation of what our sources are saying. Ashorocetus (talk) 12:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

The Therrien and Henderson (2007) study has already been criticized by Thomas Carr and Mickey Mortimer as it has been demonstrated that the method used is flawed and creates biases towards short-tailed theropod clades.

What do you mean they have not been formally declared wrong? The exact same paper that gives 18 tons is the same one that says it's implausible. If this is too much to fix, I suggest putting a disclaimer in the article along the lines of "The highest and lowest estimates given for a species are derived from different methods that have yielded different results. The following ranges of body mass given are those obtained from various methods, and some likely represent implausible ranges of body mass for the animals, but remain listed here as they have been published in scientific literature and have not been contradicted by subsequent publications." Luigi Gaskell (talk) 03:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

They have not been criticized in the literature, that's what I mean. What Hutchinson et al. (2011) said about the upper estimate, I used that same line of thought to keep it out of the article but it eventually got included again as we shouldn't cherry pick, I mean yes they say it is implausible but they still included it in their publication. About the disclaimer, isn't this enough? "Rebuilding a complete skeleton by comparing the size and morphology of bones to those of similar, better-known species is an inexact art, and reconstructing the muscles and other organs of the living animal is, at best, a process of educated guesswork.[2] Weight estimates for dinosaurs are much more variable than length estimates, because estimating length for extinct animals is much more easily done from a skeleton than estimating weight." Do you think it needs to be more explicit? btw new sections in the talk page are supposed to go at the bottom. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

     : Yes, I think being more explicit about the error bars of mass estimates should fix it. I think we should particularly highlight the upper estimates as being derived from different methods. Luigi Gaskell (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Amphicoelias fragillimimus

I reverted a user's edit because Amphicoelias fragillimimus was suggested it was over-sized and it may be typographical error. Did I do anything wrong? Please tell me before you revert my edit. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 13:24, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

A. fragillimus is generally problematic. Since it's discussed in detail in the paragraphs before the list, I think it's appropriate to leave it off the list. The conjecture that it was a typographical error is basically a speculation (since we don't have the specimen to prove either way), and I think the article ought to be more explicit on that point, but that's a different issue. Ashorocetus (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Birds?

Please help me understand how a bird can be considered a dinosaur. I know there is a theory that birds evolved from dinosaurs, but when did that make a bird a dinosaur? A bird is a bird and a dinosaur is a dinosaur. Matt Beaupre (talk) 06:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Help me understand how birds aren't dinosaurs. Dinosauria, even without birds, is a very diverse group ranging from giant quadrupeds to bird-like bipeds. The latter, including the popular tyrannosaurs, are much more related to birds than to the former group:

"Coelurosauria is the clade containing all theropod dinosaurs more closely related to birds than to carnosaurs. Coelurosauria is a subgroup of theropod dinosaurs that includes compsognathids, tyrannosaurs, ornithomimosaurs, and maniraptorans;" - Coelurosauria

See this? Dinosaur as a group wouldn't even be accurate without birds. And please, birds evolving from dinosaurs is not "a theory", this tone makes it seem like it's one of many accepted, it isn't. It's the main theory, also known as a fact, that is accepted by the vast majority of paleobiologists that involves dinosaurs. Editor abcdef (talk) 08:16, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Birds are evolved from dinosaurs, so they must be counted as a member of that group, cladistically speaking. In taxonomy, a grouping (like dinosauria) includes all the descendents of a single species, so if one group evolved from another, it must be considered a subgroup of it. Also, even without considering the evidence that birds evolved from dinosaurs, birds are morphologically really similar to a lot of dinosaurs, especially the Maniraptorans. Ashorocetus (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Bahariasaurus comparable to carcharodontosaurus/t.rex

This source says Bahariasaurus is comparable to Carcharodontosaurus and T. rex. Smith, J.B.; Lamanna, M.C.; Lacovara, K.J.; Dodson, P.; Smith, J.R.; Poole, J.C.; Giegengack, R.; Attia, Y. (2001). "A Giant sauropod dinosaur from an Upper Cretaceous mangrove deposit in Egypt". Science. 292 (5522): 1704–1706. doi:10.1126/science.1060561. PMID 11387472. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 09:54, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Top 10

Aren't these lists supposed to be top tens? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 23:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Notocolossus

To User:Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) and User:WelcometoJurassicPark: It seems you guys have not reached a consensus on whether to put the 95% prediction intervals on Notocolossus's mass estimate or not. It doesn't matter to me whether we decide to go with the interval or with the mean value, but it would be good to make a decision and not continually change the estimate back and forth. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 16:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand but we'll have to get Welcome here. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 23:09, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

True. I'll drop a message on his talk page and see if he responds. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 23:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Diplodocus hallorum Weight

I know that estimates of Seismosaurus are within the 35 tonne range. However, and this is my opinion, aren't these a little light? The weight of Seismosaurus was based on a 20 tonne Apatosaurus, not Diplodocus. Using the square cube law and taking a 20 tonne Apatosaurus as 25 metres long, a 34 metre Seismosaurus would weigh about 50 tonnes. I realize though that mass estimates have also been made using Diplodocus. Using a 26 metre, 16 tonne Diplodocus would result in a weight range of 35-40 tonnes. Which is correct? 112.134.171.57 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, from my experience, the fundamental law of estimating sauropod size is that we really don't have a good way to tell how much they weighed. For one thing, the square-cube law doesn't apply very well to sauropods, especially regarding total length, since neck-length and tail-length are pretty variable, but don't contribute a lot to the mass. I'd be more inclined to trust an estimate for the seize of D. hallorum based on D. carnegii than on any Apatosaurus species, but the truth is we can't say any number for sure at all. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 23:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Diplodocus is much more lightly built and slender than Apatosaurus, despite being longer (the extra length is all in the neck and tail), so if anything I think 35 t is too high for D. hallorum. Many size estimates in sauropods have been based on simple volume equations not taking into account pneumaticity that made them basically giant balloons full of air. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hummingbird?

For the purposes of this article, is it appropriate to nominate hummingbirds as the smallest member of the dinosaur family, as per the opening section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ldshield (talk • contribs) 22:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

They are listed in the record sizes as being the smallest, and the lists of lightest and shortest theropods are all tiny birds like hummingbirds. Ashorocetus (talk | contribs) 23:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dinosaur size. 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/20110706204350/http://www.technosaurs.ca/tag/default.aspx?id=114 to http://www.technosaurs.ca/tag/default.aspx?id=114
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080920233732/http://sauroposeidon.net/Wedel-Cifelli_2005_native-giant.pdf to http://sauroposeidon.net/Wedel-Cifelli_2005_native-giant.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326062832/http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/7653_g06n1a4.pdf to http://www.mnhn.fr/museum/front/medias/publication/7653_g06n1a4.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.audubonbirds.org/species/Birds/Bumblebee-Hummingbird.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 11:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is Saurophaganax listed at 14 meters?

I think using the 14 meter length estimate from Chure's description wasn't the best idea since not only was this paper from a time where it was common to overestimate the body size of dinosaurs, but he also gives 14 meters for Tyrannosaurus which confirms that Chure gave overestimations in that paper. If there is one taxon that should be listed at 14 meters, it should be either Carcharodontosaurus or Mapusaurus since Hendrickx et al. (2015) briefly gave 14 meters for those two. Hendrickx et al. (2015) simply said in one sentence that the largest carcharodontosaurids could reach 14 meters. I doubt they were including Giganontosaurus since one of the authors of the paper is Scott Hartman who has expressed/stated on more than one occasion that he doesn't think there are any ~14 meter long Giganotosaurus specimens. That just leaves either Carcharodontosaurus or Mapusaurus. They might have been referring to Carcharodontosaurus specimen SGM-DIN 1 since there are published lengths for that skull over ~1.60 meters which makes it about 15% bigger than the skull on the holotype specimen of Giganotosaurus (using the skull length of 1.54 provided by Scott Hartman). Or Hendrickx et al. (2015) could have been talking about Mapusaurus as well since it was explicitly stated by Coria and Currie in the description paper that one Mapusaurus specimen is 10% larger than the corresponding body part on the holtoype Giganotosaurus. Although something tells me that Hendrickx et al. (2015) were talking about the over 50% complete Carcharodontosaurus skull and not the fragmentary Mapusaurus pubis. Luigi Gaskell (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

It's in a published paper so its mentioned here, unless another scientific publication explicitly refutes it, it's going to stay, it's only fair even if we have very strong reasons to think it's inaccurate, also, if we are going for original research, the skull of SGM-DIN 1 is 1) heavily reconstructed and 2) clearly longer snouted than that of Giganotosaurus, the cranium is smaller in SGM-DIN 1 than in the G. carolinii holotype, so the skull being a couple of centimeters longer is not a solid argument for a larger body. On another note, that Scott Hartman was a coauthor in Hendrickx et al. (2015) doesn't mean he had input in the sizes mentioned in the text, Hendrickx et al. (2015) also says Tyrannosaurids got up to 13m, Abelisaurids up to 9m and Ceratosaurids up to 8m when Hartman's Sue is properly rounded to 12m, his Carnotaurus is 8m and his Ceratosaurus is less than 7m. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:57, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dinosaur size. 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/20111118111422/http://www.birdingguide.com/bird_families/bananaquits.htm to http://www.birdingguide.com/bird_families/bananaquits.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://eco.nefu.edu.cn/person/ljz/aticle/Seed%20dispersal%20by%20wind%2C%20birds%2C%20and%20bats%20between%20Philippine%20montane%20rainforest%20and%20successional%20vegetation.pdf

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 00:08, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Benson et al. 2018

Some new estimates if anyone cares to add them: [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:08, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Problematic is the fact that our current estimates are a range... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Problematic Sauropod Estimates

This[2] has been on Skeletal Drawing for quite some time, so you may have seen it, but I thought that I should point it out. It seems to say that 2012-2013 estimates are the oldest acceptable revision dates. Many of the estimates for sauropods here are much older, some even pre-2010. Just thought that it would be good to bring it up. --Slate Weasel (talk) 17:13, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I think most, if not all, of us realize that this page is a mess. It's just that nobody wants to update it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:29, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll work on fixing some bits of it, but I am aware of the controversy surounding this topic. Here is a list of sauropod lengths that I could find:

Sauropods reaching 30 meters or more:

1. Argentinosaurus huinculensis (27 to 40 meters)
2. Patagotitan mayorum (37 meters)
3. Supersaurus vivianae (32 to 35 meters)
4. Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum (25 to 35 meters)
5. Xinjiangtitan shanshanensis (30 to 32 meters)
6. Diplodocus longus (29 to 32 meters)
7. "Antarctosaurus" giganteus (30+ meters)
8. Ruyangosaurus giganteus (30 meters)
9. Alamosaurus sanjuanensis (28 to 30 meters)
10. Puertasaurus reulli (27 to 30 meters)
11. Futalognkosaurus dukei (~26 to 30 meters)
12. Turiasaurus riodevensis (25 to 30 meters)

PUERTASUAURS needs to be added to the list of heaviest sauropods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.197.219.90 (talk) 03:33, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

"PUERTASUAURS" doesn't exist. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

But Puertasaurus does exist. He just spelled it wrongly.

References

Did I miss anything? --Slate Weasel (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure that "D." longus is generally considered non-diagnostic. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:14, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

In this case I was referring to D. hallorum based on proposed synonymy. --Slate Weasel (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Updating Ceratopsians

In the spirit of keeping up to date the references in this article, in the ceratopsian section I will keep only the most recent estimates, which means most estimates will come from Paul (2016) unless there is something newer, this will also result in the removing of most of the references to Holtz (2007), if not because a significant portion of estimates from that book fly in the face of fossil evidence at least because it's older. I will be bold and do it now but if someone disagrees lets discuss it and I will revert or change accordingly. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

To further clarify, I propose that we should discriminate sources on the bases of age (newer better), reliability (peer-review better than not) and methodology (explains how estimate came to be better than just giving a number). For example, I removed the estimate of Micropachycephalosaurus of 50cm from Holtz (2007/2012) in favor of 100cm from Buttler and Zhao (2009) because it is newer (most estimates in Holtz's book have not been updated since 2007, when it was published), peer-reviewed and explains the estimate. Under this scenario more than one reference for a taxon would only be necessary if the they differ in methodology, like if one uses models (either mathematical or physical) to estimate body weight and the other uses scaling equations. I think this will help us better organize this article. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this page is in chaos. I'm wondering if we should just try to completely redo it. IPs often vandalize or add questionable things, especially Amphicoelias. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and that's mainly on the theropod and sauropodomorph section, I noticed no pushback or alterations to my ceratopsian changes haha but I have the feeling it will be different if I apply those rules to the aforementioned sections, perhaps I will apply it to the other ornithischians and see what happens. As for completely redo it, maybe combine length and weight listings, other size articles don't have them separate, that way we can reduce the size of the article to something within the recommended wiki guidelines of 50KB. I don't think there's much we can do about vandalism, there are some very persistent vandals, I remember one that impersonated me and several other editors and every time he was IP blocked he will come back within days with another IP making the same edits, this lasted for months and he might still be doing it. The article is not a super important subject either so I don't think we can request age/posting locks on it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 12:48, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi protect, maybe?

This page is getting numerous edits recently by IPs and users making disruptive edits who are changing the numbers without changing the source. I had to revert about 26 edits (maybe more). Good edits have been made in between vandalism, making it hard to judge when the last accurately sourced, 'stable' version was. I think this page needs protecting. Steveoc 86 (talk) 23:19, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

I've been considering suggesting scrapping the page altogether, or that it be made to be about the study of dinosaur size, its biomechanics, and its evolution, rather than just a list of records. Due to the uncertainty and often changing nature of the numbers in addition to the constant vandalism, I see little value at all in a page with this concept. But yes, at least for now giving it semi-protection seems warranted. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:28, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I also doubt the value of the page. I think an improved concept of the page would have the information in table format. Having authors listed on the top, the dinosaurs going down in alphabetical order, and their estimates in the relevant boxes. It would be the most honest version of the information without the slightly subjective number ordering which really triggers dino fans. The other issue is not all estimates are created equal and use different techniques making some comparisons potentially misleading; for example, comparing theropods that have been estimated using Therrien & Hendersons super high mass estimates to other theropods that haven't. A table format would help solve this problem as it would be much more explicit as to who produced the estimate and which dinosaurs they studied. This would be a big job though. Steveoc 86 (talk) 00:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that I'd even support WP:BLOWITUP for this page. The lists for the sauropods aren't even in order anymore, the decision to split Marginocephalia into two sections but lump Thyreophora into one doesn't make sense. I've seen some users make lists like what has been mentioned above in their sandboxes. Almost every user I've ever had a conversation with on this talk page has agreed that the page is a mess. I could create a sandbox page for a rewrite, if anyone thinks that it's even worth the effort. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 18:03, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Again, I feel the ordered list approach is flawed, unsustainable, and rather useless. A page on the subject of dinosaur size has potential but as a written article on biomechanics, size estimation, evolution, and the like, with a paragraph form section on some of the biggest and smallest from various groups unordered. Of course, someone would need to write this page, so I would also agree to just WP:BLOWITUP for now and if people are interested in a new take that could be made down the road. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:57, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of me thinks, as a concept the, text side of the article is sensible, just discussing records and issues with estimation etc; but then I read 'The tallest was the 18-metre-tall (59 ft) Brachiosaurus.(citation needed)' and I'm tempted to WP:BLOWITUP. Regardless of how well written and sourced the article is, it will be a target for disruptive edits and will be difficult to police. I think the least we should do is erase the ordered lists, but even that would require a lot of work to be put into the text. Steveoc 86 (talk) 21:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

People keep changing the numbers without changing the sources, and I have no clue what the original longest theropods section looked like >_<. I'm going to add a notice about this discussion to WT:DINO. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 15:00, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Steve's suggestion of a table would work well. Additionally, tables can be toggled to be sortable to people could, of their own choosing, resort the lists based on the various authors of estimated. I wouldn't recommend full deletion like BLOWITUP suggests, but instead perhaps same some time on a sandbox or talk page to lay out the entire new format, which can then be slowly filled up with information by a *reliable* editor. And then I would strongly recommend semi-protection. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:05, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I have created a table following concepts mentioned above: User:Slate Weasel/sandbox#Dinosaur Size WIP. Comments? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 12:52, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that looks good. What do you reckon the cut off point should be? At the moment it is mostly top 10; that, however, will not mean anything if we go into an author-specific table format (top 10 according to whom?). Taking sauropods as an example; should we include sauropods that have been estimated over 50 tons? or for length sauropods that have been estimated over 30m? Steveoc 86 (talk) 10:08, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

• While we're on the subject, what do we think about including estimates that are only published in news articles (looking at Patagotitan and Scotty)? I'm not fond of either of their estimates, because neither seem to be very well researched, but they are the only estimates that exist that are currently considered to be citeable. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 11:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

I think it'll be much better if we restrict the sources to peer-reviewed publications only, this is something I have advocated for years. A table is much better yes but I don't think we should have columns for each individual publication that might mention a taxon but rather a column for different types of measuring instead, a similar arrangement to the tables in the tallest skyscrapers articles, so we'll have taxon, volumetric mass, equation-based mass (as seen in Campione et al. 2014 table 3), length and "notes" giving brief details about the estimates. As for how discriminate between different sources for the same measure, I think the newer one should be preferred. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:15, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Since some taxa contain multiple specimens, should we always default to the largest (i.e. Shantungosaurus)? For some such as Argentinosaurus, distinction between specimens is rarely made, so how should we go about them? What about animals like Tyrannosaurus, where the longest (Sue) and the heaviest (Scotty) specimens are different? What about Spinosaurus, where the largest specimen sometimes resides in Sigilmassasaurus? Also, should we use mass estimates from Paul, when he doesn't specify what methods were used? --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 22:50, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I think we could 'play it by ear' per taxon and per source. I think a lot of dinosaur fans know there are several famous specimens of T.rex so maybe we could do specimen-specific. Most peer-reviewed publications make those distinctions. Specimen-specific would help with T.rex considering most the largest mass estimates in recent years have been Sue, not mentioning Scotty in Persons 2019 would mislead the reader.

A specimen-specific breakdown seems more suited to the pages of the individual taxa. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:08, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Regarding Pauls estimates; In several publications, he states that he creates models based on his skeletal drawings and submerges them in water. I'm not aware if he ever shows these models. In his field guide, he states that the masses and lengths 'are a general figure for the size of the largest known adults of the species and do not necessarily apply to the value estimated for specific specimens...' he then links to his specimen-specific online mass estimate table [3] For more incomplete taxa he 'extrapolated from those of relatives', which seems reasonable but it can create problems. For example, Andesaurus is estimated at 7 tons in both editions of his field guide which seems too light considering it's a titanosaur what appears to be in the 15 - 20m range, but WP:TRUTH etc. Steveoc 86 (talk) 13:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

• I don't think deleting the page makes much sense, it is probably what regular people are most interested in when it comes to dinosaurs. But yes, tables with sources would probably help. FunkMonk (talk) 16:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

And it misleads those people that are interested in it Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Not if we do as suggested above, and make the individual estimates tied to individual publications by citing them in-text in the tables. That will keep the drive-by size queens from muddling it up. FunkMonk (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

The Sizes of Dinosaur Footprints, and the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the Soil

The Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the Soil is generally considered by Engineers to be approximately 2500 Lbs per square foot. The Maximum surface area of one rear Sauropod footprint is just less than 16 square foot of foot bottom surface area. So the Ultimate weight of the largest Sauropod is thus less than 2 X 16 X 2500 = 80,000 Lbs. So the heftiest Sauropod actually weighed less than 80,000 Lbs, Less than 40 short tons.

Does this make sense in light that Volumetric displacement of Sauropods wants to make us believe they weighed a lot more. The Volumetric displacement of Sauropods could exceed 85 Cubic Meters of water displacement. In our surface gravity, we would assume they weighed 85 X 2200 = 187,000 lbs, but the largest footprints tell us they only weighed less than 80,000 lbs. So, 80,000 lbs , 187,000 Lbs = 0.4278075 of the current surface gravity. This is actually a bit high for the maximum sized sauropod. The lowest gravity occurred when the largest sauropod occurred around 176 million years ago. The surface gravity at the time was about 0.405 480 g. This is a 15.0 Male African Elephant Volume Sauropod reaching a weight of 15.0 ^ (2/3) Weight = 6.0822 02 Male African Elephant Weight. Gravity = Weight / Volume = 6.082202/15.0 = 0.405 480 g.

At the Maximum Sized Weight, and Volume, the largest Sauropod footprint can be covered by a 4 foot X 5 foot piece of plywood, in their surface gravity of 0.405 480 g. However, if they were possible in our surface gravity, it would take a special sheet of plywood 6 foot X 8 foot to cover one footprint. In stead of being just under 16 square foot, it would be just under 37.7 square foot per one rear footprint.

The Answer to dinosaur size, and weight is in the size of the footprints, and, the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the soil. A Darwin Process of elimination would make feet just the right size to not get stuck n the mud, and, not be the slowest animal in the group with the largest feet. In either condition, the Sauropod gets eaten before it can reproduce. So the Sauropod feet are just right for the animal in its time period, surface gravity, and the Ultimate Bearing Capacity of the Soil. 98.245.216.62 (talk) 23:18, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Well, they had four limbs and could have moved just one limb at a time. Sauropods with a 1.2 metre foot length would have weighed about fifty tonnes. You are aware that the old volumetric measurements of Brachiosaurus were greatly overestimating its size? Due to airsacs and pneumatisation, their density would have been considerably lower than water. Also, a sauropod is not a building. Shear failure and settlement effects that would cause a skyscraper to collapse might provide sufficient reaction force for a dynamic system such as an animal to move around. Indeed, the peculiar form of the sauropod foot might have evolved to optimise this. But it's an interesting subject, not nearly modelled enough.--MWAK (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-avialan theropods

The section about the shortest/lightest non-avialan theropods seems problematic. There are many small dinosaurs that may or may not be avialan, including Epidexipteryx and Yi (the former is listed as the second shortest/lightest and the latter is listed as the seventh lightest). Archaeopteryx and the "anchiornithids" are probably outside Avialae.[4][5][6][7][8] Considering how troublesome it is to know what should and what souldn't be considered non-avialan (and how arbitrary it is to used a branch-based clade such as Avialae), wouldn't it make more sense to change these lists to "shortest/lightest non-avebrevicaudan dinosaurs" or "non-ornithothoracine dinosaurs"? Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

This whole page needs to get the axe, the model of an ordered list just does not work with the uncertainties involved in dinosaur size estimation. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 16:34, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

So what exactly should we do? I agree that it is not realistic to attempt to have those lists (they are inevitably going to accumulate a lot of outdated information), but what is going to replace them? Or maybe this page could be deleted and the useful part moved to Dinosaur#Size... Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:25, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Deinocheirus Size

Is the 15.7m length and 15 ton weight accurate for Deinocheirus as i cant seem to find any other sources except for the one stated. thanks for any help mike--Dinomike123 (talk) 08:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Outdated stats

Guys, don't mean to be rude but Spinosaurus is barely 2 tonnes now- all large specimens are Siggilmassosaurus, and Tyranosaurus is the heaviest theropod. The longest theropods are Siggilmassosaurus at 15.2m, and then Tyranosaurus, at 12.3m, then Giga at 12.1 and Mapu at 12.1 i think, with Carch only barely over 12. Just trying to be helpfulPNSMurthy (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Look, nobody can even agree on whether the holotype of Sigilmassasaurus is a separate genus or even species from Spinosaurus aegyptiacus. Let's not even talk about MSNM v4047. For all we know it's an indeterminate spinosaurine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

Also, Tyrannosaurus, Giganotosaurus, Mapusaurus, and Carcharodontosaurus are all way too close in length for us to form an exact ordered list. Tyrannosaurus also has the advantage of having multiple good specimens, whereas Giganotosaurus has one, Mapusaurus has a big bonebed, and Carcharodontosaurus doesn't really have any (the best specimens of it are still woefully incomplete). The latest papers have sunk Sigilmassasaurus into Spinosaurus, although as Lythronax said, that's a poor indication of what everyone thinks and even of what the published opinions a year from now will be. I don't doubt that many of the estimates on this page are outdated, though. I think that we once considered doing away with the order lists in favor of sortable tables, but never got around to implementing this. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 10:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

I just had a look at User:Slate Weasel/sandbox#Dinosaur Size WIP This table format looks great in my opinion. Although, if we did implement something like that there wouldn't be space to show every paper/book that ever estimated a dinosaur, so what would the criteria for inclusion be? Steveoc 86 (talk) 17:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad that you like it, I've got to credit IJReid for inspiring the format, though. The cutoff for the different studies is indeed troubling, perhaps we should only include studies that are less than 10 years old? The My Theropod's Bigger study is definitely showing age, looking at the humongous estimates for Spinosaurus, Carcharodontosaurus, and Giganotosaurus compared to the other studies. Mass has been somewhat tricky, as length's always been more of my strong area. Looking at the current state of the page, some lists have 9 taxa, some 10, some 11, some different numbers, the numbered ranking of ceratopsids is bordering on being totally ludicrous considering how similar at least four species are in size, some sizes are cited to news reports, and the "Deinocheirus" sp. from the Theropod Encyclopedia is listed as if it's a bona fide theropod, even though it's considered to possibly (if not probably) be a misidentified Shantungosaurus. This page also is a vandal magnet, and we even seriously considered to WP:BLOWITUP not too long ago... so I think that an overhaul's definitely in order ;) --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The number ranking should be removed. With extinct animals estimation methods vary, sometimes wildly, with different assumptions and techniques, the results can overlap. I think 10 years is reasonable but there might need to be other clauses, hypothetically what if some of the more incomplete dinos might get ignored for 10years? Let's say Paul never updates his field guide but it's a useful source for an article like this because it covers so many dinos. I guess that's what the 'other' collum can be used for? Hopefully, table formats would help reduce vandalism. Maybe with controversial taxa, like "Deinocheirus" sp, we could discuss them in the text rather than list them? Maybe preceding each table there is a brief 'discussion' section if needed? Steveoc 86 (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Another thing to consider is taxa like Deinocheirus and Spinosaurus, which were insufficiently known until within the decade. An intro to each table sounds good. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Very true. If I remember, a few trackmakers in Kimmerdigian, Asturias touched 12m. Mostly Megalosaurids and Ceratosaurs. Could you add them as a footnote?PNSMurthy (talk) 01:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Tracks don't count. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

AlrightPNSMurthy (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, just a question, how can any theropod reach 20 tonnes. And, if t-rex is so heavy it must be wrong. I really don't think the tyranosaurus specimens we have are over 9 tonnes, and only 6.8 for spinosaurus. Then agian, I might be wrong but how can theropods get so heavy?PNSMurthy (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

It's a peer-reviewed estimate, so it stays. But it is an estimate nevertheless. Different methods for estimating weight give different results. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

SurePNSMurthy (talk) 08:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Is there a reason to not add trackmakers? Most of the theropods/sauropods present in this are all fragmentary. Many of them are dubious and might not be species. To add to that, hardly 1% of all living creatures are fossilised, especially in this time, judging by the abundance of predators and scavengers. This article would just be a compilation of 'some' of the species with the distinction of largest/smallest, rather than all of them. Also, could we increase the size of some of these entries, because, even if we don't go full-scale list size, it would be unfair to only include some megatheropods and megasauropods, when they are already rare. Could we please expand these placements to 20? Thanks!PNSMurthy (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Hard pass. Fragmentary fossils are bad, but tracks are even worse because they can vastly inflate size and cannot yield any reliable estimates without accounting for soft tissue. But you should not expect this article to last long in its current state. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The size of a track can be vastly distorted by the substrate that it's made in. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I think Siggilmassosaurus and S.Morraconis are now considered to be the same species as S. Aegipticus.PNSMurthy (talk) 09:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

I've told you before that the taxonomy of African spinosaurs is unsettled. That was less than a month ago. Literally nothing has changed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, sizing from tracks and fragmentary fossils is unreliable. Tracks can be expanded by time and/or the pressing of one's foot (try for yourself on sand). I think I also read a paper stating that the 19IGR trackmaker's real track wasn't actually that big (after a revised scaling). I also believe other estimates state that it was just a 9 metre Torvosaur with a large foot (as Megalosaurids are known to.) And you are right, this list will probably either be nominated for deletion (or made semi or fully protected for revision), but, since this is (assuming), a significantly famous article, it might not. By the way, isn't Sauroniops meant to be between 9-14 metres long? Though I guess this goes against everything I just said because of it's fragmentary fossil.PNSMurthy (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

At the moment I think that we're waiting to see if it gets sunk into Carcharodontosaurus. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Oculudentavis

New dinosaur Ysku (talk) 21:05, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

It's almost certainly not a dinosaur. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 06:11, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Isn't it a bird-like dinosaur? If you ask me, if a hummingbird can be considered a dinosaur, so can this thing, whatever it is.PNSMurthy (talk) 09:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

It's probably a lizard. It has a pineal foramen, palatal teeth, open ventral margin of the lateral temporal fenestra, and countless other characteristics that you wouldn't find in any dinosaur. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

Note that the original authors published a rebuttal calling some of these misinterpretations or preservational artefacts, although I remain skeptical... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

No dinosaur specimen has certain parameters and/or classification. There are too many inconstancies and unknowns, but who are we to classify something as a dinosaur/non-dinosuar?PNSMurthy (talk) 08:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

That's an irresponsible statement. Why can anyone classify anything? Why aren't humans arthropods?

If a specimen has lots of universal squamate characters, is it still plausible to assume that it is a bird without any testing of possible alternatives? That's irresponsible too.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, and is with high probability descended from the common ancestor of all ducks, can it be a chicken? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Certainly, if that is the definition of a chicken. What I’ve been meaning to say is that for specimens such as this, whose fossils are fragmentary, it’s out for debate whether or not it’s anything at all. Humans could be Arthropoda, if we decide to call us that, but then what will Arthropoda be, humans? Let’s not get into any naming controversy.PNSMurthy (talk) 23:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not talking about clade definitions or names, though. I'm talking about how to classify individual taxa given established definitions. You verify the presence of the distinguishing characteristics of some clade in a taxon, or find the taxon to be part of that clade in a phylogenetic analysis.

Oculudentavis is hardly fragmentary, it's an entire head preserved intact in amber with some soft tissue attached. But the problem here is that it has strange features for a bird that run completely counter to avian, dinosaurian, or even archosaurian characteristics, which are best explained by it being a squamate. Obviously its identification is not settled yet, as demonstrated by the ongoing rebuttals, but there are real, convincing reasons why Oculudentavis may not be a bird or even a dinosaur.

The point of my last comment is that you are expressing a needlessly defeatist point of view. Why make classifications in the face of uncertainty? Taxonomy provides a rigorous (if flawed) framework for talking about the relationships between organisms, and the language of hypotheses and probabilities formalizes this uncertainty so that we can make the most plausible inferences. Scientific inferences can absolutely be incorrect, but it does not mean we should stop attempting to understand the world through them. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

That's a good point.PMurthy1011 (talk) 08:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Possible edit request and reliable sourcing

Hi guys,

I would like to know it this cite is a reliable source and if the dinosaurs on it can be added. Could someone please chew I the source to see if it is reliable or not, because I do not want to add dubious information.PNSMurthy (talk) 09:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I can't actually view the source, but we generally only cite the blogs of active paleontologists considered experts in their field (i.e. SV-POW), so I am pretty sure that this does not count as a reliable source. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I recognize the source. I am strongly against the use of this source because it is authored by an amateur who has strong POVs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Which are? PNSMurthy (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Ideas about anatomy and phylogeny. You can check out various examples of criticisms of the work done by the blog's author on this preprint: [9] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Anyway, it doesn't matter, even the blog states possible discrepancy. I just thought that there are so many sauropods there, it would be biased to leave them all out.PNSMurthy (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Cleanup tag

For those who know much more than I about our dinosaur brothers and sisters, just wondering if the requests of the cleanup tag placed on the page by Slate Weasel in March, 2019, have been met. If so, would be nice to take it off. If not, what is still incomplete? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

It still doesn't. The numbered lists are highly problematic, as they give the false impression of a definitive order of definitive sizes, when in fact the size ranges of certain species are generally quite controversial. There are also highly dubious estimates for controversial specimens, and many sources that are probably quite bogus. This page is also difficult to maintain as it is frequently vandalized as well. A table format's been proposed, and a few people (including me) have occasionally prepared such a thing, although it has yet to be included on this page or completed. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, its probably staying. And, refs sometimes over exaggerate sizes. I hold a grudge against Saurophaganax, Epanterias and the three carcharadontosaurs. I really don't think specimens show Carcharadontosaurus reaching 14 metres, and for Giganotosaurus, its just part of the jaw. These are just my opinions, but I am working on finding sources that support my claims. (I'm wondering if a post by Franoys on DeviantArt will do?) - but I'm not sure where that one disappeared.PNSMurthy (talk) 05:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Posts on DeviantArt are NEVER reliable sources for our purposes here. The only things we really can cite should be the published literature and certain books like Paul's Field Guide and Holtz's Encyclopedia/Appendix (basically, books that have been cited by the literature). The 14m Carcharodontosaurus doesn't seem to be backed up by the sources (together they provide a range of 12-13.28 m). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Really? Franoys seems to have some pretty accurate skeletals (atleast most of the time, I disagree with hi T.Bataar). And, it seems many theropods have still been amped up notches. May I change Saurophaganax, Epanterias and all the other junior synonyms of Allosaurus simply to 'Allosaurus Maximus' and 'Allosaurus Ampleuxus'? Anyway, I think the two Allosaur synonyms are basically now 10 metres long (I think I might have a source for that one). And, back to Franoys, he does seem to sight his skeletals. If I can find his post, and if the journals satisfy the criteria (atleast the ones I have learnt from discussing this page), I will add them.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

DeviantArt is not a peer-reviewed academic journal, so no matter how good his skeletals are, we cannot cite them in the article text. As for Saurophaganax, the latest word on it is from Chure & Lowen (2020), who treat it as a separate genus, so we cannot call it a junior synonym of Allosaurus. Likewise, Epanterias was apparently considered to be generically distinct by Carpenter (2019). The sources for Epanterias' length currently are either inadequate (DML) or downright bogus (news sources). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

And, what about G. Carollini? THe upper estimate comes a fragmentary jaw specimen (as mentione above). Jaw size varies, doesn't it? Sot this is prone to be inaccurate. Then, why are we using that size, if we refrain from using trackmakers? They are one and the same.PNSMurthy (talk) 00:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's a very shaky methodology, but it is better than tracks for determining size (12.4-14m is a much better range than 10-17m). Since there are peer-reviewed published estimates regarding this jaw, we have to include them unless there is a paper declaring them to be wrong. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Ok then, yes, I have seen the two papers you’ve mentioned. I am a little doubtful, though, about the sizes of S.Maximus and E.Ampleuxus. I’m going to start searching for peer reviewed journals on that topic. PNSMurthy (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I saw your sandbox. How about Vetereupristosaurus Milneri (I think I spelt that name wrong) Suchomimus, and Yangchuanosaurus? They're also relatively big theropods (I wouldn't call them megatheropods because they might not be).PNSMurthy (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I've mainly been including theropods that fit the body size regarded by Madsen (1976) as very large (11-15m TL, unfortunately I can't find an equivalent category for mass). Veterupristisaurus falls just short of the mark, but Suchomimus and Yangchuanosaurus definitely could be included. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Great, and what about Torvosaurus? Heard there was a specimen nicknamed 'Edmarka Rex' that cut that mark (I'm not considering it as a seperate species because it probably isn't).

And an equivelant category for mass is any theropod above 5 tonnes (any theropod that usually satisfies these terms are considered a 'mega-theropod').

By the way, I calculated V. Milneri to be 11.8 metres (Using the Tendigru Allosaur as the largest specimen), how is it below the mark? Anyway, I do like the way your sandbox is going. Good on you!

PNSMurthy (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Rauhut (2011) provided a range of 8.5–10 m (28–33 ft) for Veterupristisaurus, while Holtz gave an estimate of 10.5 m (34 ft). Torvosaurus definitely reaches sufficient mass, even without semi-legendary specimens like "Edmarka", I'll get around to including it eventually. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 13:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

SurePNSMurthy (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

As for vandalism. I'm thinking, that if there's an admin who edits this page, could he romp up the protection to the semi-protected level, and maybe even to full protection level if needed. (This is what happened with the article List of largest stars, which I also tend to edit).PNSMurthy (talk) 05:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)