Talk:Tupandactylus

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.

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Tupandactylus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile 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.

How big? Signed 211 z 14 August 201. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.21.249 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In popular culture

@Kevmin: I took a look at the Ornithocheirus page, its appearance in WWD (concurrent with that of T. imperator) is included with a citation from the companion book by Tim Haynes... could something similar be done here? Should we alternatively excise all mentions of Walking with Dinosaurs from the Wikipedia pages of the taxa that are included in it? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My general opinion is that we should treat the WWD series with caution since it didnt actually expand on the knowledge of the taxa it shown, and often made large leaps from fossils to behaviors. Also many of the taxa, such as this one were not actually named in the series, and thus entries like this one have no reference to back the assertion that a taxon in the show was x creature.--Kev min § 23:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Ingridia navigans"

This preprint uses Ingridia navigans instead of T. navigans. Might expect a full paper on this in the coming weeks. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an actual paper or just as an SVPCA abstract?[1] I assumed it was not necessarily to become a paper any time soon... FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From what I've seen myself, people tend to submit both PrePrint and Peer-Reviewed papers at the same time. PrePrints take a few days to be put up, Peer-Reviews take up to 27 days. IJReid ^discuss 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's taking some time? FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a number of PeerJ preprints that never end up as actually published papers, and I would assume this is the case here. I would ignore it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]