Talk:Dinosaur size/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Tyrannosaurus Size

Who keeps adding Tyrannosaurus as a 8 tonne 13 metre sized dinosaur the largest tyrannosaurus ever found was 12.8 metres and the heaviest estimate is 7.5 tonnes.

The largest Tyrannosaurus C.Rex it is 10% bigger than sue. I think it's 14 meters?

C-rex? Unpublished as of yet; a 2003 rough estimate puts it at 12.3 m. Sue is the current gold standard for rexes, but there is at least one book on tyrannosaurs coming out this spring (hopefully) (here are the chapters), which if nothing else should help our understanding of the variation in individual bones and make better estimates. For fun, here's a diagram of five well-known specimens, Sue being the largest. J. Spencer (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

(heres a better site) Sue is about 42 feet long and C-Rex is 10% bigger, it's at least 45 feet long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.70.102.126 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

But it's not published. There's no published studies saying it's 10% bigger. That's essentially a rumor right now. If it gets published, we can include it, but I gotta tell you, almost 100% of the time published size estimates end up being much smaller than initial unpublished reports. Just look at Rigby's Rex, Mapusaurus, etc. Dinoguy2 (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I moved Tyrannosaurus at 2nd largest because this (site) places Celeste or C-rex at 14.1 m

Celeste is un-studied (as your link says its size is based of horners estimate) so Carcharodontosaurus was bigger. http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/student_identifies_carcharodontosaurus_iguidensis_as_new_species_of_carnivorous_dinosaur Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:09, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Sue is only 12.3m and Celeste is un-studied. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:29, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

10.2 m Mapusaurus source

I clicked into the source of a 10.2m Mapusaurus website, but I can't check. How can I check?Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Which website was it? I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "check". Ashorocetus (talk) 17:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Coria & Currie 2006 Dinosaur Fan (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, I mean "coria&currie2006" Dinosaur Fan (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you mean by checking in this context, but that does seem like a valid published source liting a maximum length estimate of 10.2 meters. Ashorocetus (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

That's only largest estimate they could get based on complete selected limb bones, one fibula, a pubis shaft (explicitly mentioned by the authors as proof of it) and possible a maxilla fragment suggest some individuals at least as big as the type of Giganotosaurus. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Redirected genus

In the ornithopod section, they put the synonyms next to it in a bracket (). But shall we do that, because Diplodocus hallorum didn't have a bracket showing Seismosaurus? Or shall we remove the synonyms next to the ornithopods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk • contribs) 00:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think it'd be a good idea to put Seismosaurus in brackets also. Ashorocetus (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Heaviest Dinosaurs and Heaviest Sauropods

I know that there is another article on this matter but is the General records list more of a general list and is therefore less accurate and doesn't include less well known sauropods? The reason I ask is because several sauropods like Futalognkosaurus and Puertasaurus (there are a lot more) are 3rd place or 4th place on General records but 11th or 12th in Heaviest sauropods. Isn't that quite a drop? Also the weight ranges of several sauropods change between the two lists. One more thing is that some sauropods like Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum are included in only one list (Heaviest sauropods). This is why I asked whether the General records only feature more well known sauropods (not that any giant sauropod is known from good material). Is the Heaviest sauropods list a more accurate and in depth list of sauropods? Also is there any need for a General records section at all, since it's fairly obvious that the longest and largest dinosaurs were sauropods and that the shortest and lightest were theropods? 112.135.16.155 (talk) 14:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

We shall check the sources first. The source of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum in the Heaviest Sauropods list is accurate, so we would add it on the Heaviest Dinosaurs first. I'll do research on Futalognkosaurus and Puertasaurus and tell you later. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

And the general record list is there because Frutaidens is not a theropod. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:17, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

To 112.135.16.155 (talk), I found out that the page's old version of Futalognkosaurus and Puertasaurus is 50+. So shouldn't it be 50-88t? I'll search more later. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Or we shall put them 50+? I'm busy now, I'll be back on later. Sorry for my bad English. I am from China. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The smaller eatimate is from Gregory S. Paul. It seems more accurate but I have to click in first. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The large estimate is from Calvo JO1, Porfiri JD, González-Riga BJ, Kellner AW. Now which is more accurate? Ask other users. I am not an expert. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:37, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason why is because the general records come from only purely scientific sources, so that excludes Greg Paul's book. Also, sometime people update one of the lists and forget about the other. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashorocetus (talk • contribs) 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Shall we change any thing about it? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I think we should. I think it would be best to stick to just the info on one list. For dinosaurs like Futalognkosaurus the weight range should be placed at 30-80 tonnes. In other words the weight ranges of all the heaviest sauropods (for both lists) should be from the lowest published estimate to the highest. Example: Futalognkosaurus: 30-80 tonnes.112.134.203.176 (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Ceratopsians

Shouldn't Monoclonius and Centrosaurus be added on the ceratopsians lists? Sorry, I can only speak an intermediate level of English. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:26, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

And Bellusaurus should be added in the sauropod list(shortest). Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Monoclonius is a dubious genus and Centrosaurus, Holtz' book, for once, did not oversize it, agreeing with other publications at a length of 5-6m, so it's below the 7m threshold for inclusion in the list. Bellusaurus specimens are all juveniles so no it shouldn't be added to the list. Mike.BRZ (talk) 10:35, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex

Isn't giganotosaurus heavier than tyrannosaurus rex? Sorry I forgot where I heard about that. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

We go where the published literature tells us but personal answer, there's no reason to think that, see Hartman's GDI estimates. Mike.BRZ (talk) 15:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Not the largest

The image is incorrect! Shantungosaurus is not the largest. Huaxiaosaurus and Magnapaulia are the largest. For ceratopsians,Triceratops is heaviest but not longest. So it could either stay there or be replaced by Titanoceratops. And for thyreophorans, Cedarpelta and Dacentrurus were larger than Stegosaurus. Could any one change any thing about the image?

P.S. Also remember to read Talk:Dinosaur size#Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus rex. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have better than half a mind to request this article to be deleted. J. Spencer (talk) 02:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

J. Spencer I sympathise...yet it is a notable topic among many many schoolchildren and nerds alike.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

They can have it. J. Spencer (talk) 14:17, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Huaxiaosaurus is a junior synonym of Shantungosaurus and the 19m claims are unsubstantiated as all comparable measurements in the literature are not even 10% bigger in the Huaxiaosaurus specimen. The image is correct as far as the information we have. Ceratopsian weights and lengths are all over the place thanks to a certain publication slapping 7-8m and 9m to everything without regard to actual dimensions of the specimen but as the comments above remind you, length/size is a very unimportant topic in the grand scheme of things. I say let the image stay as it is, btw Longrich's own Titanoceratops reconstruction shows it both smaller (weight) and shorter than large (let alone largest) Triceratops specimens so the image is fine as it is. Cedarpelta and Dacentrurus lack reconstructions we can use and their size is uncertain, in the case of Dacentrurus is actually about the same size as the large Stegosaurus specimen YPM 1853, again, the image doesn't need changing. About the last request, I can't count with my hands how many have asked that already, I responded to you above. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Das Monster von Minden

Shall this theropod go in the article? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Please read the two sections before this section too. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 02:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

And shall Unnamed Argentinian Carcharodontosaurine go on the article? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 03:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the 'Das Monster von Minden' theropod, although it was originally believed to be 15 metres long, revised estimates place it around 7-8 metres, which isn't anywhere near long enough to go on the list. The early reports claimed that its ribs were 50% larger than those of Allosaurus, which greatly increased its size. The revised estimates were made by Michael Mortimer. 112.134.232.248 (talk) 06:11, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Unless it is published in the scientific literature don't even bother asking if it should be included. The "unnamed Argentinian Carcharodontosaurine" is Mapusaurus, read the details, look at the date, 3 years before the description was published, research the thing well enough before creating a page for it, please, we have to nominate that article for deletion. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Sue

Is Sue really up to 15-18.5t? But to me it is only 4.5-9.5 tonnes. Most sources says it was far less than 18.5 tonnes. But for Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, most sources places them over 10 tonnes and leaves tyrannosaurus at 9.5t or sometimes even 7-8t.

Source(s):

Sorry, there may be too many sources for you to read. P.S. I only found two sources listing Tyrannosaurus rex at 15 tonnes or 18.5 tonnes. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Also, users in this discussion doesn't even think t.rex reaches 12 tonnes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 05:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Responses

Henderson (1999) Doesn't estimate Giganotosaurus, estimates T. rex by volumetric methods (GDI) at 7.2-7.9 tonnes based on Paul's skeletal of AMNH 5027
Anderson et al (1985) Doesn't estimate Giganotosaurus, estimates T. rex by circumference equations at 4.5 tonnes based on measurements of CM 9380 (similar in size to AMNH 5027) but modern equations of this type like those of Campione et al (2014) estimate this same specimen at 6.7 tonnes.
Erickson et al. (2004) Only applies Anderson et al's equation to other specimens of T. rex and repeats Coria and Salgado (1995) unsubstantiated claims of the Giganotosaurus type having more robust femora than Sue (so it follows it was heavier), we now know this is not true, Giganotosaurus type femur is not even as robust as that of CM 9380, in fact Anderson et al (1985) equation has been applied to Giganotosaurus (See Currie and carpenter 2000) and resulted in a mass of 4.2 tonnes.
Link doesn't work
Seebacher (2001) Finally one that compares Giganotosaurus and Tyrannosaurus using the same method (GDI), the result? Giganotosaurus type at 6.6 tonnes, Tyrannosaurus CM 9380/AMNH 5027 at 6.7 tonnes.
Christiansen and Fariña (2004) Doesn't estimate Giganotosaurus, estimates CM 9380 at 6.3 tonnes based on several regression equations.
Hutchinson et al. (2011) Estimates trough digital volumetric methods 7.4-14.5 tonnes for CM 9380 and 9.5t-18.5 tonnes for Sue but recognize that their minimal estimates for them are much more plausible and describe the maximal ones as "ridiculously rotund" and mention other reasons why they should be viewed as less valid than the minimal ones and that even the minimal ones are high and the actual mass was probably lower but they are still plausible.
Therrien and Henderson (2007) utilizes a terribly thought out equation, see critisim in the DML, not ony has several miscitations but their sample size uses nothing but giant tyrannosaurs at the upper end and since it uses nothing but skull length to estimate mass it would basically misrepresent a theropod with a longer skull into an scaled up T. rex with an equivalent skull length (hence 20 tonnes for the longer snouted Spinosaurus).
Therrien and Henderson (2007) again
Scott Hartman (online) Utilizes his excellent skeletal reconstructions to estimate by GDI Sue at 8.4 tonnes and the Giganotosaurus type at 6.8 tonnes.

But for Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, most sources places them over 10 tonnes and leaves tyrannosaurus at 9.5t or sometimes even 7-8t. Are those "sources" scientific publications? or are they fan websites cherry picking estimates that they like best? as you can see above when both taxa are estimated with the same methods the Giganotosaurus type is comparable to slightly lighter than AMNH5027/CM9380, that is, ~4 tonnes with the old femur circumference equations and ~7 tonnes with the new ones and volumetric/GDI estimates (the most reliable method there is) while Sue turns up at ~6 and ~8+ tonnes respectively (the only exception is Therrien and Henderson's terrible equation) I do not think T. rex reached 12t, let alone 18t but is dishonest to keep the unarguably dumb 10t+ estimates for Giganotosaurus, Spinosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus but selectively choose to not include the ridiculous estimates for T. rex. Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:48, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Confusions and unnamed dinosaurs

Is there any point in putting an unnamed dinosaur on the list if it has no name? Also there seems to be a great deal of size swapping. Diplodocus has moved from 4th to 8th place, slightly understandable although some sources state it at 35 metres. Others like Puertasaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Antarctosaurus and even Arghentinosaurus are swapping places every week. Also Turiasarus seems to have shot up from no where. Paralititan has also grown about 20 tonnes. Are these accurate changes or just changes due to different opinions rather than fact, if there is any real fact to rely on for the sizes of these sauropods? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.96.107 (talk) 10:40, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

First off, about unnamed dinosaurs: If there's a scientifically published mass or length estimate, then they ought to go on the list (in my opinion, if anyone has a good reason not to, I'm all ears).

The others swap places as new mass or length estimates come out. It would seem that Puertasaurus, Futalognkosaurus, Antarctosaurus, and Argentinosaurus are all roughly the same size, and one should not take the ranking as a fact. I'm not sure what your talking about with Paralititan growing 20t. Turiasaurus shot up from no-where since there is a published length estimate (36-39m) that ranks it at second longest. You can always check the references to see where the numbers come from; to my knowledge, all the numbers up there are taken from published sources. They are of course based in opinion rather than fact (since we can't just go out there and weigh a dinosaur), but they're based on published opinions of scientists. By the way, which sources say Diplodocus is 35m? Ashorocetus (talk) 16:55, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I've got a question but that comes later. First Wikipedia says Seismosaurus could reach 35 metres, probably max like Supersaurus. Some sources say a max of 36 metres for Seismosaurus. If these are trues it's probably the maximum length of the largest individuals. Next, about Paralititan, it used to say 20-50 tonnes and now it says 60 tonnes, which is quite an increase. Also, in my opinion if a dinosaur that has a published size estimate but has no name then I don't see the point as to why it has to be listed. Also if your opinion is right then why isn't Trelewsaurus not on the list or has it not been published yet? My question is how do you calculate the weight of sauropods like Seismosaurus or Supersaurus using others like Diplodocus? I never really got the concept of it. 112.135.14.70 (talk) 11:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia's 35m estimate for Seismosaurus seems to come from a book which sites Gillette's description in 1991 for that length estimate, and Gillette's original reconstruction has since been revised to a somewhat shorter length (Gillette thought the preserved tail vertebrae were numbers 20-27 instead of 12-19). Again, which sources say 36m? If there is a scientific or semi-scientific source that says that, then this page should certainly include it. The upper size estimate for Paralititan has always been 59t (as far as I know); I removed the lower bound of 20t since I thought that a scientifically published mass estimate ought to supersede the estimate from Paul's "Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs". I can put it back if you like, it won't change the ranking because they're organized by maximum size.

Trelewsaurus is both undescribed and has no published size estimates (except for news reports, but those don't count), so it's not included. If a dinosaur has no name, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a real dinosaur, so I don't see why it shouldn't be on the list. Antarctosaurus giganteus is considered a nomen dubium (a status that is scientifically about the same as being unnamed) by some authors, but we still include it.

There's a couple methods of calculating weight of dinosaurs (like Seismosaurus or Supersaurus, in your example). The first is called isometry: If you know the length of Supersaurus (34m) and the length and mass of Diplodocus (26m and 15t), then you know Supersaurus is 34/26 = 1.31 times longer than Diplodocus, so it ought to weigh 1.31^3 = 2.24 times as much (33.6t in this example). Why? Since if it's 1.31 times as long, it's also 1.31 times as tall and 1.31 times as wide, and 1.31*1.31*1.31 = 1.31^3. The second is called allometry: If you know some dimension and the weight of several similar animals (so, for example, you know the femur length and body mass of several sauropods), you can draw a plot body mass verses femur length, and try to find a curve mass = a*(femur length)^b that fits the points. There's a lot of statistics and math involved to tell you what the best a and b are, but once you have the relationship, you can estimate mass given femur length. The third (and typically most accurate) method is call volumetry: You make an accurate model of the dinosaur in question. Then, find the volume of the model, which gives you mass if you know the density (in sauropods, density is probably about 0.8 grams per cubic centimeter). I hope this helps clarify, if not, feel free to ask more questions. Ashorocetus (talk) 17:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus weight

why the heaviest estimate for T.Rex is 9.5 tons?? I have heard estimates putting Tyrannosaurus from 9.5 to 18.4 tons, in the page, makovicky said that 9 tons was the minimum estimate, Can you change some things in this article?.--Dinoexpert (talk) 19:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with you, 18.4 tonnes come from a published source so we have to put it in the article. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Sauropod weight

Only for the General Records section, only peer-reviewed scientific sources, and that excludes Gregory S. Paul's book. But in the Heaviest Sauropod section, it did not said exclude peer-reviewed scientific sources so Puertasaurus and Futalognkosaurus should be up in the high ranks. I'll change it first, tell me if you reverted me. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 06:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

When did we agree to make the general records section only for peer-reviewed scientific publications? and if we do this, why should not do this for the rest of the article? btw Holtz' book is not a peer-reviewed scientific publication so if you are going to remove references to Paul's book there, Holtz' should go too. A suggestion, can you condense your edits? as in, make a big-ish edit to a section rather than several small ones, also provide a brief summary, otherwise is hard to keep track of the changes. Mike.BRZ (talk) 04:47, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not make the general records section only for peer-reviewed scientific sources. Ashorocetus says the general records section was only for peer-reviewed scientific sources here. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

And about shall we exclude peer-reviewed scientific sources for the whole page, please contact Ashorocetus. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I do not have time removing all the "Holtz2008" sources so some of them are still in the General Records. I'll do that soon. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

I did not suggest removing peer-reviwed scientific publications from the article, rather those that are not.Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Sauropod Weight

Sauropod Weight is assumed to be at 1.000 g ( current Earth Surface Gravity ) which is about 9.815 m/sec^2 measured at the average tilt angle of the Earth. We need to change from weight to Volumetric displacement in cubic meters of water displaced. With enough Data, the largest land animals in any time period will tell us what the surface gravity of the Earth is for each time period ( XXX Mya ). The farther back in time we go, up to a limit, the land animals become larger as the mass and surface gravity is reduced. For Dinosaurs, the time bracket is between 230 MYa, and 65 Mya.

To give an example from the Book: DYNAMICS OF DINOSAURS & OTHER EXTINCT GIANTS by R. McNeill Alexander, the volumetric displacement of Brachiosaurus Branchai is 46.6 cubic meters of water. In our gravity this would imply 46.6 Tonnes, but what was the animals weight in his time period? The answer comes from the ratio of the volume of the largest animals in the past to the largest animals in the present, by taking the inverse of the cube root of that ratio. The brachiosaurus displaced an equivalent of 8.55 African Elephant volumes of 5.45 m^3. The cube root of 8.55 is 2.0448. Taking the inverse gives a surface gravity of 0.489 g. This means that Brachiosaurus Brancai actually weighed about 0.489 g x 46.6 = 22.79 Tonnes rather than the reported weight of 46.6 Tonnes. Some where between 230 Mya, and 150 Mya we will eventually discover the absolute maximum sized animal, in a narrow time period, and that animals maximum volumetric displacement will be less than 12.8 x 5.45 <= 69.76 m^3. Mike Clark, Golden Colorado. 71.196.151.6 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that sauropod estimates for weight go in and out of fashion but wouldn't this be more accurate? Reasons for 4 and 5 are that they are comparable but slightly lighter than Argentinosaurus. I calculated Seismosaurus by scaling up from Apatosaurus weight ranges of 25-35 tonnes. The weight of Seismosaurus is actually based on Apatosaurus. Diplodocus was used only for length scaling. Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum is scaled down to a more plausible size judging that it was as long as Seismosaurus and Supersaurus. The others are the same except that Turiasaurus is mainly estimated 48 tonnes.

1) Amphicoelias 100-120 tonnes

2) Argentinosaurus 60-90 tonnes

3) Antarctosaurus 60-80 tonnes

4) Puertasarus 50-75 tonnes

5) Futalognkosaurus 50-75 tonnes

6) Dreadnoughtus 50-60 tonnes

7) Sauroposeidon 40-60 tonnes

8) Seismosaurus (Diplodocus hallorum) 40-60 tonnes

9) Parlititan 40-60 tonnes

10) Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum 40-60 tonnes

11) Turiasaurus 40-48 tonnes

Let me know what you think.112.135.190.98 (talk) 06:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You need to sign your comments with four tildes (~) at the end, I'm sorry but what you did is original research and therefore we can't use it here on Wikipedia, we need it to be able to be attributed to at least a book by a paleontologist but preferably a scientific publication. btw, Seismosaurus was only about 70% bigger than Diplodocus not 4-6 times bigger, it's femur is actually comparable to an Apatosaurus that has been estimated at ~20 tons with volumetric models. Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't original research count too since not all books are reliable? Some still place Seismosaurus at 52 metres or Argentinosaurus at 100 tonnes. And what do you think of Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum on the weight list? I think it would have weighed about 40-60 tonnes, maybe less but nowhere close to 70. What do you think?112.135.190.98 (talk) 06:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

No, original research shouldn't count: If I or anyone could just post our own information then wikipedia would devolve from an encyclopedia to a basis for arguing about size estimates (I could dispute many of your claims), since there's no guaranty of reliability if information does not come from a published source. The only reason why some still place D. hallorum at 52 meters is because they are not up-to-date on information, or they want it to be that big. As Mike.BRZ pointed out, it's femur is comparable to Apatosaurus, hardly what you'd expect from a 52 meter beast.

The bottom line is: if you think Wikipedia's mass estimates (which come from published sources) are inaccurate, you should get your own publication out there with your own more accurate mass estimates. Or maybe you should get a blog. But here on Wikipedia, the policy is verifiability, not truth Ashorocetus (talk) 15:30, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sources? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Theropods and Sauropods

First, Argentinosaurus. According to the page, Argentinosaurus could reach 39.4m. But is that not cited information again?

For Saurophaganax, there is a 14m estimate there by Chure, but is that just an old estimate or and oversized estimate?

For Supersaurus, I want to know that because Ultrasauros (Not Ultrasaurus) redirects to Supersaurus, so Supersaurus is 32-40.2t instead of 32-180t? Or the Ultrasauros 180t estimate was revised like "Seismosaurus"? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

And also for Turiasaurus, shouldn't it be placed 25-39 instead of 30-39? Shouldn't Argentinosaurus be placed 22-36.6 instead of 30-36.6, 19-33m for "Antarctosaurus"? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:42, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I found this saying Argentinosaurus 38m long. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:51, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I was going to fix the broken {{convert}}, but the recent edits need more attention. Please check Argentinosaurus huinculensis which is 30–38 m (98–125 ft) in one section, and 30–36.6 m (98–120 ft) in another. The first source did not seem to say "30 to 38", but that's not my department. Johnuniq (talk) 06:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

The Argentinosaurus estimates between 35-40 metres are all inaccurate and outdated. The most recent estimates range from 30-35 metres. As for Saurophaganax, the 14 metre estimate isn't too over sized. Most modern estimates range from 12-14 metres. However there aren't any good remains of Saurophaganax to accurately estimate its size. Ultrasauros doesn't exist. It was known from a mixture of Supersaurus and Brachiosaurus bones. The 180 tonne estimate is completely inaccurate. Not even the largest dinosaur (Amphicoelias) has been estimated at over 120 tonnes. Either way it doesn't change anything for Supersaurus' weight of 30-40 tonnes, since Ultrasauros wasn't real. 112.135.159.180 (talk) 07:18, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

To Johnuniq, the two sections are different because 36.6m comes from Holtz's book and it is not a peer-reviewed scientific source. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 11:44, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Argentinosaurus at 39.7m is cited to a recent scientific publication, is a digital measurement of the mount at the Carmen Funes Museum, a similar situation to the 12.3m for Sue, the difference is that Sue is mostly complete including most caudals so the length obtained from its mount is highly reliable, the Argentinosaurus mount in the other hand is based on a lot less material and is overall not very good, the limbs are downright terrible and it has too many dorsals but lacking another scientific publication explicitly calling 40m estimates into question it has to stay. Saurophaganax, this is what Chure actually says: The femoral length in a 12 m long Allosaurus (composite skeleton, J. Madsen pers. comm., 1994) is 825mm, and the femoral length in Saurophagus (OMNH 01708) suggests that Stovall's estimate (in Ray, 1941) of a length of 14m for Saurophagus is approximately correct. He judges an old estimate, he doesn't make one himself even then he is wrong about Stovall's estimate in Ray 1941 as it actually is 42ft or 12.8m not 14m. Not to mention that Madsen's 12m Allosaurus must have a mighty long tail as we now know that specimens with 825mm femora are actually around 8m so even if someone wants to argue that 14m is indeed Chure's estimate it is based on outdated reconstructions. Mike.BRZ (talk) 03:13, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yaverlandia

Why isn't it on Lightest theropods? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any weight estimates published for Yaverlandia. It would be very had to do one accurately based only on a fragment of skull bone! Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

UCMP 118742 t-rex

this trex specimen was around 15meters. you know anything about it? it should be #2 on the largest theropods. also along with the 16 mtr. MOR 008 . 66.169.14.16 (talk) 22:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The largets length estimate published for this specimen is not 15m, it's 13.6m (Paul 1988). Where did you read 15m? And even this has been cast into doubt, because it's based only on an incomplete jaw, which doesn't tell us much about total body length, if the proportional differences seen in other specimens are any indications (the specimen may just have a particularly robust lower jaw). MMartyniuk (talk) 02:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

What about MOR OO8? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.14.16 (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

"MOR 008 and UCMP 118742 have both been mentioned in reviews of Tyrannosaurus morphology- e.g. Molnar, 1991; Currie, 2003; Carr, 2005). The mounted skeleton of FMNH 2081 is 12.8 meters long, and less complete specimens are scaled to it on this website. MOR 008's skull is stated to be 1.5 m, compared to FMNH 2081's 1.394 m. If the skeleton were in proportion, it would be 13.8 meters long. However, the maxilla is only 84% as long, with a toothrow 90% as long. The dentary is 87% as long with a toothrow 90% as long. These measurements suggest a total length of 10.8-11.5 meters." [1] MMartyniuk (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Neither of these specimens have been thoroughly described, though. They've only been mentioned briefly in the lit. So further study could reveal either one to be a bit larger than Sue, but probably nowhere near 15-16m long. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:29, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

sorry, i read 15-16.8 meters on a blog, and i saw a video stating UCMP 118742 measuring 41 feet i think, and stilll had 3 more years to grow. this suggests a length 13-14 meters. as well as many other sites state the same thing. what about c-rex as well --66.169.14.16 (talk) 14:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.14.16 (talk) 14:36, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.14.16 (talk) 14:38, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

All the estimates of 15-16m are blogs, websites or unpublished sources. The largest estimate for UCMP 118742 was 13.6 by Paul and for MOR 008 is 12.3m from Mickey Mortimer. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:44, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Sauropelta species

Why does Sauropelta was called Sauropelta edwardsorum in Longest ankylosaurs but was called Sauropelta edwardsi in Heaviest Ankylosaurs. I thought the only species was Sauropelta edwardsorum. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

There's only one species but it was originally called S. edwardsi which is inaccurate grammar, it was later corrected to edwardsorum. The one who added them to the list (probably different people) must have made a mistake. Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Does that mean we shall correct it to edwardsorum? Or leave them alone? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 03:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

General Records

Does any one think we shall revise the general record's top 10 to top 5 because there are many missing tags? Dinosaur^Fan talk 03:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to let you know, Mamenchisaurus sinocanadorum is missing from the General Records section of Longest Dinosaurs, where it is in fourth place, with a length of 26-35 metres in the Longest Sauropods list. It is also missing from the General Records section of Heaviest Dinosaurs, where it is in fifth place, with a weight of 75 tonnes in the Heaviest Dinosaurs list. Apatosaurus is also missing from the General Records section of heaviest Dinosaurs while the Heaviest Sauropods list puts it in fourth place with a weight of 40-80 tonnes. 112.134.205.143 (talk) 16:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

They are missing because they are not peer-reviewed scientific sources. The General Section is different with the rest of the article. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Marginocephalia vs Ceratopsians & Pachycephalosaurs

Shall we combine ceratopsians and pachycephalosaurs? Ashorocetus mentioned it before and I agree. What do you think? Voting?

Combine:

Dinosaur Fan (talk) 07:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Separate:

I'd leave as separate as well defined groups for the readers...I'd also separate stegosaurs and ankylosaurs though too. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Although related they have different body plans, occupy different niches in the ecosystem and the public has separate interest in them, why should they be lumped together in a size list? besides, combining them will result in pachycephalosaurs completely disappearing from the article. Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
The only argument I see for combining them is that the pachycephalosaur section is short. I'd separate them, they look different and the general public probably separates them.Jinfengopteryx (talk) 13:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Reading the arguments, and about Thyreaphora being split, I think I'm changing sides here: My primary reason for wanting to merge Marginocephalia was for consistency, but since it looks like we're going to split Thyreaphora up, I think I'll vote to keep these separate.

Also, shall we put Theropod as Saurischia?

Saurischia:

~~Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)~~

Theropod:

Keep separate - sauropodomorphs are saurischians too. the contests for largest theropods and largest sauropodomorphs are both notable... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:53, 22 December 2014 (UTC) I changed my mind after reading Cas Liber's comment. Nobody would vote for Saurischia, I think. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Sauropods ain't much like theropods (ecologically, or in terms of size). Ashorocetus (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

If theropod turned into saurischia, ceratopsians and pachycephalosaurs combined, then all of them are orders. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

What is an order? only the remnants of the old linnean taxonomy, orders aren't even equivalent between themselves, the old dinosaurian orders are no equivalent with mammalian orders which aren't equivalent with each other.Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

~~Deadline:31st December, 2014~~ the deadline should not be this short - questions like these are usually left open for one month. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 08:34, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Add vote for Cas Liber:

Thyreophorans vs Stegosaurus & Ankylosaurs

Together:

Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:40, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Separate:

Cas Liber (talk)
This groups are not viewed as equivalent by the public, they have their own charisma and differing charactheristics, spiky things vs armored tanks.Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Consistency, again. If pachycephalosaurs and ceratopsians are separate, so should Ankylosaurs and Stegosaurs.

Add vote: Shall we add prosauropods in sauropods?

Yes, combine them:

Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

No, but prosauropod a section itself:

In response to Mike.BRZ's comment, pachycephalosaurs are also neither very large nor very big (they have a lot less size variation than in prosauropods). But prosauropods really aren't comperable to Sauropods on the size scale: a giant prosauropod would be smaller than all but the very smallest theropods. Ashorocetus (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

No, prosauropods shouldn't be in the article:

(The above unsigned comments are not mine)Prosauropods are not a popular group nor are the impressively big or small so I don't think we should add them to the article. Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Alright, ~~Deadline~~ Updated Deadline: 22/1/2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinosaur Fan (talk • contribs) 08:36, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Does anyone think we can separate thyreophorans now? Or we shall wait more? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Ooops, I put everything green. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Giganotosaurus and Tyrannotitan

That Giganotosaurus 14m and Tyrannotitan 13m seems a bit oversized to me, but I have to find published sources about that. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 22:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

The holotype of Giganotosaurus is 12.2–12.5 m (40–41 ft) and the largest specimen is 13.2 m (43 ft), not 14 m (46 ft). Dinosaur Fan (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Is Paul's estimate still accurate for the high estimates? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. If we're using Paul 2010 as a source, picking and choosing the ones we editors feel are "accurate" qualifies as OR. Therefore, if Paul lists an estimate within the range, we need to either use it or delete all of Paul's estimates. Dinoguy2 (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Holtz's book

Which source is better?

A. Holtz, Thomas R. Jr. (2012) Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, Winter 2011 Appendix.

B. Rey LV, Holtz, Jr TR (2007). Dinosaurs: the most complete, up-to-date encyclopedia for dinosaur lovers of all ages (PDF). New York: Random House. ISBN 0-375-82419-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Because Holtz's book is a book but there isn't the ISBN? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Greg Paul's book also shall include ISBN. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

They are the same thing but whoever added the original citation to the book didn't include Luis Rey as coauthor for some reason. There is website that serves as supplementary information to the book (and is from where the genus list comes from) but there's only a single edition of the book so it seems we have to replace all references to "holtz' book" with that one that has the year 2007. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Luis Rey. I think it shall include the ISBN because Holtz and Paul's references are books but not websites. For Holtz, it shall include both the PDF and the ISBN. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 00:37, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, we should include all the relevant information in the citations. Mike.BRZ (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

G.S.Paul2010

I read The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs and found out that a lot of Paul's estimates are not in the article especially small sauropods! Dinosaur Fan (talk) 10:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

For example Caenagnathasia martinsoni, Lourinhasaurus alenquerensis, Australodocus bohetii etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk • contribs) }

Prosauropods

Yes, combine them:

~~#Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)~~

No, but prosauropod a section itself:

In response to Mike.BRZ's comment, pachycephalosaurs are also neither very large nor very big (they have a lot less size variation than in prosauropods). But prosauropods really aren't comperable to Sauropods on the size scale: a giant prosauropod would be smaller than all but the very smallest theropods. Ashorocetus (talk) 21:50, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Although it would be informative to have a section dedicated to prosauropods, not many would pay much attention to it, since as pointed out above prosauropods are not a popular nor well known group. However, my opinion is that the lack of popularity for prosauropods is because of the lack of information that is presented about them, because people assume that others will find them uninteresting to read about. However, on the whole, I think Wikipedia should have a section devoted to prosauropod size, since Wikipedia's purpose is to be as informative as possible. 112.134.154.165 (talk) 10:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
After reading Ashorocetus and 112.134.154.165's comments, I had changed my mind. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, prosauropods shouldn't be in the article:

(The above unsigned comments are not mine)Prosauropods are not a popular group nor are the impressively big or small so I don't think we should add them to the article. Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
Dinoguy2 (talk) Messages::"Prosauropods" are an obsolete, paraphyletic group. We might as well have a section for "thecodonts" or "non-tyrannosaurid tyrannosauroids". Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC) and I was using that as an example of what not to do. Thecodonts and prosauropods are both examples of obsolete paraphyletic groups. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait more for a while, since it is a draw. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems that prosauropods are going to be a section. However, we have to wait until the twenty-second of January just in case some other Wikipedians want to vote. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 05:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

"Prosauropods" are an obsolete, paraphyletic group. We might as well have a section for "thecodonts" or "non-tyrannosaurid tyrannosauroids". Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

To Dinoguy2. I understand what you mean, but aren't prosauropods comparable to hypsilophodonts, in the way that both are the much smaller descendants of the sauropods and iguanodonts respectively? The ornithopod section includes hypsilophodonts, so shouldn't we at least merge the prosauropods with the sauropod section, if not give it its own list? This is just my opinion, though. If I got any facts wrong please correct me. 112.135.96.118 (talk) 13:32, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

"Thecodonts" are not dinosaurs. If we are having a list for it, we shall make the "Archosaur size" article. We did not agree to split theropod up so you may request to split theropod into several groups here if you like to do so. Also, which of the three above you agree with? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-avian dinosaurs is also a paraphyletic grouping... Ashorocetus (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I was using that as an example of what not to do. Thecodonts and prosauropods are both examples of obsolete paraphyletic groups. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I know. I'm saying non-avian theropods is also an obsolete, paraphyletic grouping, but that's a grouping we use, and no one is arguing for getting rid of it on this page. Ashorocetus (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

So, is anything going to happen? The reason I ask is because I thought the deadline was the 22 January. 112.135.165.27 (talk) 17:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, but I am quite busy. Could you add it? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Added some last night. It's still a working progress, but at least it's working. let me know what you think of it. 112.135.175.225 (talk) 05:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

It's okay, but no sources! Spinosaurus75 Dinosaur Fan

I got most of the length estimates from Wikipedia itself but the weight estimates are from other websites. Prosauropods aren't published as much as sauropods so there are fewer estimates out there. 112.134.120.38 (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Spinosaurus aegyptiacus

This is what Ibrahim et. al (2014) wrote: The digital model of the adult skeleton of Spinosaurus (Fig. 2A), when printed and mounted, measures over 15 m in length

I think 18m should be kept.

Ibrahim et. al said at least 15m, which may be more.
It didn't claim that 18m was wrong, yeah?

Spinosaurus75 Dinosaur Fan 08:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I assume that's why it says 15 m (49 ft)+ on the list. But you're absolutely right. Since the highest published estimate of Spinosaurus' length is 18 metres, it should indeed be kept. Also you many notice that the 20 tonne weight estimate is kept for Spinosaurus despite the 2014 reconstruction giving a more reliable weight of 7-9 tonnes. Also the Tyrannosaurus weight is listed at 18 tonnes, which is completely over-sized. However Wikipedia has kept that. The Spinosaurus length estimate of 18 metres is far more likely to be true than the 18 tonne weight for Tyrannosaurus. 112.134.235.47 (talk) 10:46, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

The reason the 18t estimate has been kept is because equally ridiculous estimates for Spinosaurus, Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus were kept, it really looked fanboy-ish to only single out the ridiculous ones for Tyrannosaurus. Ibrahim et al. (2014) did not give an weight estimate but through conversations with one of the authors, IIRC Andrea Cau was told that they estimated 6-7t for it and they will include it in their next publication but since is not published yet we can't use it. Is it possible that Spinosaurus could reach 18m? of course, if you give it 3m of extra tail, the head-body length is fairly constrained now and it can only go down as there's criticism that Ibrahim et al might have gotten the vertebral positions wrong. Mike.BRZ (talk) 16:11, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't see anything in the paper claiming the old estimates are wrong. In this article, other dinosaur's sources are from different years unless the source claimed that the older estimates are wrong. So if there is a source that said Spinosaurus was 18m long, it shall be added because Ibrahim et. al (2014) didn't claim that the older estimates were wrong. And when they publish their next publication the 20.9 estimate should be kept. It shall show as 6–20.9 metric tons (6.6–23.0 short tons) instead of 6–7 t (6.6–7.7 short tons). Spinosaurus75 Dinosaur Fan 23:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Why don't we remove all the ridiculous estimates for the theropods mentioned above? 112.134.138.247 (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

If you can quantify "ridiculous" or cite a source showing that the methodology was wrong, then they can be removed. Otherwise this is all fanwanking OR. The purpose of this page is to find the high and low error bars for measurements based on various estimation methods, not to identify the One True Size, which is not scientifically possible. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, since it was a published source we shouldn't mistrust them. Spinosaurus75 Dinosaur Fan

Astrodon

Please explain, with sources, how Astrodon, a 15 metre long, 9 metre tall Sauropod, is a mere half a tonne in mass, less than some cows. This estimate is preposterous for an animal larger than an elephant, opinion doesn't enter into it, only common sense! --Edaphosaurus (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Other websites claim it to be about 20-30 tonnes in weight, though they may not be from published sources. I'm not sure how an estimate of half a tonne came out but it must have been from a published source. There is the possibility of the estimate coming from the juvenile that was discovered. Maybe there just aren't any other published estimates out there. But you're completely right. An animal that size would have been the size of a large elephant, to say the least. However this is just my opinion and there are sauropods that were very light for their length, like Diplodocus carnegii, although half a tonne would be the most extreme case of being lightweight for a 15 metre animal. 112.135.253.185 (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. You are probably right, this is probably from an immature individual, I would imagine that Astrodon's bones alone weigh more than half a tonne. Unfortunately, if we don't have a published estimate I guess we cannot change it, but would it not be better just to remove it rather than leave it to confuse people. It would be like saying that while the Etruscan shrew is the lightest modern mammal, a baby mouse is even lighter! --Edaphosaurus (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes it would certainly be better to remove it, especially if that estimate comes from a juvenile. As you mentioned earlier it's plain common sense that an animal over 15 metres long would weigh at least as much as an elephant. A 12 metre Tyrannosaurus weighs about 6 tonnes. A dinosaur longer than it, especially a sauropod would obviously be heavier, regardless of lack of evidence. 112.134.200.252 (talk) 07:37, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

I am quite busy and I don't want to waste my time reading that source. But you can read the PDF by clicking here to see why did the source say Astrodon was 0.5t. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 00:01, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, I know that it was one of the synonyms of Astrodon, not exactly Astrodon. Probably that synonym was very lightweighed? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, bizarrely the word Astrodon doesn't seem to appear on the document at all, and Magyarosaurus, Europasaurus and Lirainosaurus are listed as the smallest sauropods. It is possible that whoever wrote Astrodon on the article in the first place got a bit confused, though I'm not sure how.Edaphosaurus (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

The word Astrodon doesn't appear there. Instead, it was called Pleurocoelus. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 23:03, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

It's for the species Pleurocoelus nanus, which is tiny. I'm not sure if its a juvenile or not, but I can do some research sometime.Ashorocetus (talk) 20:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Matt Wedel said that the lack of a neural arch on the centra of Pleurocoelus nanus meant that it was a Juvenile, as the neural arch would only fuse to it in maturity: http://svpow.com/2008/04/24/pleurocoelus-the-birth-of-excellence/ Edaphosaurus (talk) 10:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

doi for Brusatte & Sereno (2007)

Can anyone add a doi for this reference? Thanks. Spinosaurus75 Dinosaur Fan

Done it myself. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 07:32, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Diplodocus altus/fragillimus: The world's largest dinosaur?

Has Amphicoelias fragillimus not only been reclassified as a large Amphicoelias altus but also a species of Diplodocus? The Amphicoelias page says that John Foster stated that Amphicoelias altus was the senior synonym of Amphicoelias fragillimus. He further said that the sauropod could be referred to as Diplodocus altus. Is this true and if it is does that make Diplodocus the largest dinosaur in the world? Also shouldn't Amphicoelias, if it turns out be a Diplodocus, keep the name Amphicoelias, since Diplodocus was named later? 112.135.88.38 (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

If you read the article, he ALSO says that the large size estimates for Amphicoelias are probably based on a typo in the description. Foster argued that the name Amphicoelias should be ignored as a nomen oblitum. That's not how nomen oblitums work, but saying so is OR here. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Are there any more recent or revised estimates for Amphiocelias out there? 112.135.148.95 (talk) 07:19, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is any. The lowest estimate for Amphicoelias is 40m in Paul's book, but he said 40-60m. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 07:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The article is getting too big.

The article is currently 81kB in size, the guidelines recommend a maximum of 50kB, I think we should restrict the list to top 10s, maybe get rid of the general records section (is redundant, specially now that is only a top 5, it is obvious who is the largest and the smallest) and maybe extending the rules for it to the rest of the article (though that might not be necessary if we restrict it to top 10s), maybe merge sections, I don't know, I'm also not quite sure on the avian theropods being here but the article is definitely getting a little overwhelming. Mike.BRZ (talk) 14:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

A huge part of this has been the never-ending taxon bloat. We went from having theropods, sauropods, and ornithopods, to practically having a separate list for each family, including at least one paraphyletic grade. This is a bit ridiculous. I say we par this down to three sections: Sauropods, theropods, and ornithischians, and drop the longest and heaviest dinosaur sections (which will always be nearly identical to the sauropod sections) and smallest and shortest dinosaur sections (which will always be nearly identical to the theropod sections). Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:29, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree on that course of action. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I was bold and went ahead and did some trimming down to the top 10 largest. If anyone thinks I was too bold, feel free to revert. In doing so, I took out a few references which the reference rescue bot will have to put back in (if it doesn't, I'll put them back in manually myself). I don't know why the thyreophorans are broken out into three different sections. And sauropods and "prosauropods" could easily be combined into Sauropodomorpha (the smallest would be mostly "prosauropods" and the largest would be sauropods). Feel free to continue whittling/merging. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:08, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't we get rid of the general records like Mike said? We can just mention that Amphicoelias is the longest and heaviest dinosaur and Epidexipteryx and Parvicursor are the shortest and lightest. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 07:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I merged sauropods and prosauropods but I didn't add prosauropods. I returned the semi-technical dinosaur books to the library so I don't know any estimates yet. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 08:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Got rid of general records! Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 08:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Are we going to merge the ornithischians into a single section? or are we going to keep at least 3 subsections for them? after all we have saurischians divided in two. Mike.BRZ (talk) 18:28, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I just merged the thyreophorans together. I can't imagine why three different categories (Stegosaurians, Ankylosaurians, and primitive Thyreophorans) were needed here. I don't really like the idea of merging all the Ornithischians together, when Saurischians get two separate sections. Firsfron of Ronchester 03:53, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I agree, but i'd probably drop the pachycephalosaurids. They're all essentially the same size continuum (the largest and smallest are within 2m of each other). Merging them into marginocephalians would eliminate all of them, since there are larger and smaller ceratopsians. As a tiny group unremarkable for extremes in size, there's no reason for them to be there. I think for ornithischians we should simply have Ornithopods, Armored Dinosaurs (=thyreophorans), and Ceratopsians. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:13, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Having the three clades you suggest, and Sauropodomorphs and Theropods, would bring the article in line with the illustration at the top of the page, which shows five major groups. This would eliminate the Pachcephalosaurids and the Heterodontosaurids, so there should be an explanation of why they were omitted in the text. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:14, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Why should we merge stegosauria and ankylosauria together? Theropoda is a suborder, Sauropoda is a suborder, Ceratopsia is a suborder and Threophora is a clade! If we turn everything into Thyreophora's rank, Ceratopsia will be Marginocephalia but Theropoda and Sauropoda would turn into Eusaurischia. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

They're all clades, actually, whether it's Sauropodomorpha, Thyreophora, or Ceratop(s)ia. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I tried removing avian theropods but I was reverted. They are not even in the clade Dinosauria, right? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 07:02, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

??Why are they not in clade Dinosauria?? Editor abcdef (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

They are of course in clade Dinosauria. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:03, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

It should really just be Largest Theropods, Smallest Theropods, and Smallest Non-Avialan Theropods. I'm not sure why we should showcase Largest Avian Theropods any more than Largest Dromaeosaurid Theropods or Largest Ceratosaurian Theropods. Breaking up smallest Avian and Smallest Non-avialan makes sense because all the smallest theropods are extant birds. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

11th Heaviest Sauropod

Just out of curiosity, was it really necessary to include Puertasaurus as the 11th heaviest sauropod, when the other major lists stop at 10th place? 124.43.160.59 (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize we were limiting them by number since the intro says everything over 30t. I'll remove both.

Paul (2010)

Why Panphagia, Thecodontosaurus and Anchisaurus are not adults? If they are juveniles Paul would say No adult size confirmed. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I already explained that in the summaries for my edits, Panphagia is explicitely called immature by Martinez and Alcobar (2000), the supplementary material of Benson et al. (2014) says the Thecodontosaurus specimens are juveniles and the larger Ammosaurus is a junior synonym of Anchisaurus polyzelus according to Yates (2010) so estimates for this specimen are probably a better representation of an adult of its species, this last one is a less defensible edit from my part, another option could be to combine estimates for the small specimen and the large specimen. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:54, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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 "EC68":

From Dinosaur: Colbert, Edwin Harris (1971). Men and dinosaurs: the search in field and laboratory. Harmondsworth [Eng.]: Penguin. ISBN 0-14-021288-4.
From Iguanodon: Colbert, Edwin H. (1968). Men and Dinosaurs: The Search in Field and Laboratory. New York: Dutton & Company. ISBN 0-14-021288-4.

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 ⚡ 16:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The text was copied from Dinosaur so the reference must be from Dinosaur. Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 08:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)