Talk:Saichania

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.
	This article is supported by The Ankylosauria Task Force (assessed as High-importance).

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.

Length

It does say 7 m in the Dinosauria II, but there must have been a typo somewhere along the way. I've seen and been photographed next to a mount of Saichania, and it was a heck of a lot closer to 7 ft than 7 m. J. Spencer (talk) 22:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure it wasnt a juvenile? The only places ive heard of Saichania from are here and a game, both put it at 7m.Spinodontosaurus (talk) 18:26, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maryańska in 1977 estimated the length of the holotype individual at seven metres, but this was probably based on the assumption that the tail with dinosaurs doubles the length. Ankylosaurid tails are in fact relatively short. Gregory S. Paul reduced the length to 5.2 metres. On the other hand, ZPAL MgD I/113, previously referred to Tarchia gigantea, might conceivably represent the hind of Saichania — there is no overlapping material — and this is a gigantic individual, perhaps around nine metres in length. The small Saichania mount seen, likely was a model of MPC 100/1305, which Arbour recently identified as a possible Pinacosaurus skeleton. More about that below.

Incorrect image

Another mix-up untangled by Arbour: as stated above, MPC 100/1305 is not Saichania, though the mounts are completed with casts of the skull of the holotype of Saichania. The authors of the redescription of 2011 were also misled by this. So the taxobox image is problematic: only the skull is correct. Better to show the picture of the skull cast alone. There is a cast of the holotype on exhibition in the Warsaw Museum of Evolution, in the Palace of Culture and Science. So I call upon all Poles of good palaeontological will: surely you must once have noticed this odd structure in the heart of your capital. Step inside and make a picture of the Saichania holotype cast. It's the one stretched out on a platform just above the floor. Then upload it at WikiCommons. Z góry dziekuję.--MWAK (talk) 14:58, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This photo focuses mainly on the skull:[1] What does the skeleton belong to? FunkMonk (talk) 15:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I presume this is MPC 100/1305, thus likely Pinacosaurus. We could of course put the holotype skull cast in the taxobox.--MWAK (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Carpenter still does not believe 100/1305 is Pinacosaurus but may indeed be Saichania, so... another mix-up untangled by Arbour, but two more created. On a related note, is it legit to add images or figures from articles that are open access?Azul iguana (talk) 05:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only open access, they need a licence that makes them free to use commercially and free to modify. FunkMonk (talk) 07:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Saichania. 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:

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) 02:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Needs updating

Omg, there are more images of Tarchia here than of Saichania. That's very confusing. It would be enough to show one image of PIN 3142/250 and note that it has been referred both to Saichania (in 2014, by Arbour et al) and back to Tarchia (in 2017 by Penkalski & Tumanova). Actually it was referred for many decades to Tarchia, then briefly to Saichania, and now back to Tarchia. In fact, it is now the holotype of a new Tarchia species, T. teresae. Therefore it is inappropriate and confusing to emphasize it here. Arbour has never defended her referral of it to Saichania, presumably because that turned out to be incorrect.Azul iguana (talk) 01:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's mainly because we don't have that many other images, have a look at the Commons category:[2] But feel free to prune. FunkMonk (talk) 07:52, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]