Talk:Titanosaurus

Description of Titanosaurus indicus

For details of the Titanosaurus indicus material, see Lydekker (1877, 1893).

Lydekker, R. (1877): Notices of new and other Vertebrata from India and the Isle of Wight. Records of the Geological Survey of India 10: 30-43.

Lydekker, R. (1893): The dinosaurs of Patagonia. Anales del Museo de la Plata 2: 1-14. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.194.116.63 (talk) 15:18, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Appearance

There is not pic provided yet, but to me they do look like an intelligent dragon who con stand in two legs.

Stratogustav (talk) 12:17, 24 January 2010 (UTC)Gustavo Avilés

This article is about the real genus of sauropod dinosaur, not the fictional Japanese movie monster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinolover45 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

yo soy dalia I am dahlia soy but my spanish is not that good

fairly recent info

www.bbc.co.uk/.../latestnews/2016/attenborough-and-the-giant-dinosaur — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.95.200.170 (talk) 06:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit request: remove irrelevant information

The "Description" section contains information about a giant animal discovered in Argentina in 2012 and a large footprint found in Australia in 2017, verifiably sourced. However, there is a problem: checking the sources, I discovered they weren't actually about the genus Titanosaurus Lydekker, 1877, which this page is about, but rather to probably unrelated, unnamed titanosaurs (note the lack of the letter U), members of the larger group Titanosauria. Thus they should probably be on the Titanosauria page. I've tried removing that information, only to be reverted twice with stern warnings placed on my talk page. Can someone else remove it for me please? 49.144.206.93 (talk) 06:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like you're right. But I'll let some of the more titanosaur-savvy editors do the information move. FunkMonk (talk) 08:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I don’t have an issue with irrelevant material being removed, I had an issue with the way it was originally removed. People cannot just come in removing huge parts of articles because they believe it is incorrect, there needs to be a consensus reached, preferably backed up with cited sources. Coming to the talk page is the correct way to do it. I have limited knowledge of this topic, but bringing it to the talk page as you did, brings it to the attention of people who have knowledge in this subject. As you clearly have vast experience in this subject matter, it would be great if you could register yourself an account and contribute on this subject matter. You are of course welcome to continue editing as an IP address if you prefer. Hope you all have a great day. Equine-man (talk) 12:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think it could maybe have been explained in a clearer way. This article is about the genus Titanosaurus, which is part of the wider group Titanosauria. The common name for this group is "titanosaurs", which is often used in for example the kind of media reporting that was just removed, and it is understandable that many would think "titanosaur" synonymous with Titanosaurus. It is similar to the relation between the genus Tyrannosaurus and the family Tyrannosauridae (wherein the genus belongs, and which are also commonly referred to as "tyrannosaurs"), for example. FunkMonk (talk) 12:56, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just been reading up on it right now. In my line of work, I’ve normally been concentrating more on living genera than extinct, however I do think they are fascinating. Equine-man (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

There are certainly some fascinating extinct equines as well, it was very interesting to work on quagga, for example. And in that world, the relation between terms like Equinae, equine, Equus, Equidae, etc., can be equally confusing as here! FunkMonk (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I have just removed the irrelevant information, seeing we have a consensus here. Meekororum (talk) 13:13, 28 January 2021 (UTC)