Talk:Titanoboa

Comments

Don't delete this. I am making it bigger. On edit: Sorry I forgot to sign it. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

In the future, it would be a good idea to write the page before creating it. Most editors seem to prefer personal pages/sandboxes for this purpose. It will help keep you from running into the problem of a delete/recreate war, which can get you into trouble. Also, please remember to sign your talk page comments. -HamatoKameko (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I like to start an article, and then make a bunch of edits immediately afterward. You tagged it for deletion right after I created it, and then you erased it immediately. But I created it again. And now it's on the wikipedia main page as a news item! Apparently, other people didn't agree with your deletion! Grundle2600 (talk) 23:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Then you might want to use the {{Underconstruction}} template next time. --BorgQueen (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, thats useful, thanks. I didn't know this one, yet. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Please use metric measurements per WP:UNITS. Thanks. 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Yarovit (talk)

I used the units that were in the source. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:53, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah but thats a secondary source. They use whatever is common in their country. I'll change it... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps both units of measurement could be cited in the article - the metric first, with the non-metric in parenthesis afterward. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:01, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Grundle2600 (talk) 19:29, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I also created the Titanoboa cerrejonensis species article too. Is there a rule about which one should redirect to the other? Grundle2600 (talk) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

There probably is but I am not familiar with those. Also, this species found (Titanoboa cerrejonensis) is probably the only member of the genus (Titanoboa). Personally I like short article names, so I'd suggest to redirect from Titanoboa cerrejonensis to here. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I just see you created an entire new article. I think thats overkill. I doubt they will find any other species of that genus any time soon. Therefore I'd have only one article and redirect the other one. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:11, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. What you say makes sense. I just redirected the species article to the genus article. If we're wrong, or if another species has been or is discovered, the direction can always be undone. Thanks. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to edit this article, but Jason Bourque's name is misspelled in the citation. Jnestler (talk) 19:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)jnestler

Family for the taxobox

If anyone knows the family please add it to the taxobox. Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 22:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Added familia and subfamilia to the taxobox. (David Bricker (2009-02-04). "At 2,500 pounds and 43 feet, prehistoric snake is the largest on record". EurekaAlert!. Bloomington, Indiana. Retrieved 2009-02-05. The scientists classify Titanoboa as a boine snake, a type of non-venomous constrictor that includes anacondas and boas. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dateformat= ignored (help)) hornoir (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:31, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

watchlist

• the 'grundle' vandal has sturck again. i would aplease be requesitng that people ad this page to their watchlists so that we can keep him off for as slong as this page remains accessible via the Main Page. Vandalism on such visible arriticles needs to be prvevented. Thank you for yout ime. Smith Jones (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? I'm the person who created this article and wrote most of it. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• please reread my post. i am not alkign about User:Grundle2600. i was referriung to the grundle vandal, a nonreggie who created this edits here and kept trying to implciate you in vandalism by blanking this page and relacing it with the word "grundle" ove rand over. no slight was against you but against the user who once used your name as a vandalismo tool. Smith Jones (talk) 01:07, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK. Thank you for explaining that. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

• no problem. i should have ben clearlier intially since at first it does seem as if you were being eccused of vandalisticism. Smith Jones (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's OK. Although my userpage explains that my handle is a video game reference, some people have told me that it also refers to something else, which I'd rather not explain on this talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Snake's width

I was looking for the origin of the information that the snake's body is 1 m / 3 feet wide and couldn't find it in the NatureNews article, neither in the original publication. Am I missing something? However the width is mentioned in this article which has been a previous ref, now removed. I don't want to put it back in because its secondary literature. Is there another source for the three feet or shall we remove that bit? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 00:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one who put the width in the article, and I cited this source. Since then, someone else has removed that source. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. The question is what do we do about it now. I can't find the 3 feet width in the original publication or any of the other refs currently listed. I wonder where the Independent got it from. They explicitly mention the 3 feet only in their article's lead. Later they quote one of the authors At its greatest width, the snake would have come up to about your hips.. So if the independent estimated your hips to be at a height of 3 feet, then thats not a good source for us. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 02:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good point. I usually take sources like that at their word, which is fine most of the time. I'm just an amateur when it comes to science, and I'll trust a consensus of the better informed people here to make decisions about those kinds of edits to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that a creature that's 13 meters long will be 1 meter thick. That would look like a giant cigar, not a snake. I think that they probably meant 1 meter in circumference, which'll give it a diameter of about 31 cm.--Cuyaya (talk) 17:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it probably was something like a meter thick. The diameter of the backbones found is 20 cm alone - just the backbone. Check the size comparison with a python backbone here (3rd pic). Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Interwiki link

Please, put in the article this inter-wiki link: [[sr:Titanoboa cerrejonensis]]. Thank you!—94.189.201.234 (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't exist yet. --BorgQueen (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, check in about 10 minutes and then put it in.—94.189.201.234 (talk) 00:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes it does. I created both articles at the same time, and I later redirected the species article to the genus article. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you aware that we are talking about this version of Wikipedia? That's why the anon's link starts with "sr". --BorgQueen (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I didn't know that. That's like an alternate universe over there. Does Stephen Hawking know about it? Grundle2600 (talk) 15:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Article is written, check here. Please, put in an inter-wiki link ([[sr:Titanoboa cerrejonensis]]).—Johniah (talk) 10:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Done. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh wow! In the past hour, this was the #1 most read article!

link

Latest most popular Articles

  1. Titanoboa (6,444 hits last hour)
  2. Wiki (6,323 hits last hour)
  3. Aribert Heim (6,158 hits last hour)
  4. Josef Mengele (4,026 hits last hour)
  5. The Beatles (3,779 hits last hour)
  6. YouTube (3,261 hits last hour)
  7. Barack Obama (2,946 hits last hour)
  8. Search (2,909 hits last hour)
  9. Estradiol (2,755 hits last hour)
 10. Christian Bale (2,730 hits last hour)
 11. Placenta (2,708 hits last hour)
 12. Thyrotropin-releasing hormone (2,692 hits last hour)
 13. Tim Duncan (2,394 hits last hour)
 14. The Cramps (2,354 hits last hour)
 15. Scrubs (TV series) (2,333 hits last hour)

This snake is more popular than Jesus.

And Obama.

And the Beatles.

It's also bigger than all of them.

Put together.

Grundle2600 (talk) 14:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

ROFL --BorgQueen (talk) 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Where do you find that info? --86.140.193.5 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

On the left side of the article page is a link that says "What links here." That page has a list of all the pages that link to the article, including Wikipedia:Popular pages. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Picture

Why isn't there one? 86.140.193.5 (talk) 14:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

So far, the only pictures of this animal are under copyright. Grundle2600 (talk) 14:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

What about fair use? 98.221.85.188 (talk) 16:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

It is better if someone here could produce a free graphic image based on the picture of the vertebrae fossil, along with the size comparison. --BorgQueen (talk) 18:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Titanoboa: Possible links with local mythology

Its only speculation, considering how long ago this creature was around. And i'm sure as hel not going to claim i'm an expert on this. But what if the scientists eventually discover that it managed to survive to (at least) early human history? Not inconcevable since I read that it managed to survive the K/T event that took the dinosaurs out of the equation.

Now take a look at the local myths that have sprung up in (roughly) that same area that it's fossilised remains were discovered - basically South America. Specifically, look at the old South American myth of the so called 'Cobra-Grande'. That of a massive snake that would have dwarfed even the largest conventional snake & that would attack anyone unfortunate enough to have found themselves near one.

Like I say, its only a speculation, not an assumption. But if it ever turns out that this beastie managed to stick around long enough to about the point of early humans inhabiting its area, then we'd have to take a second look at the old myth about the Cobra Grande & consider that its not quite as 'mythical' as us modern humans first thought.

We would then have to ask; Could Titanoboa & ancient people's encounters with it, have formed the basis for the myth of the Cobra Grande?

Just thought this kind of thinking would make a fun discussion, if nothing else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Extreme1000 (talk • contribs) 18:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

No, that's beyond ridiculous. This particular species did *not* survive the KT event, but evolved afterwards, and the possibility of such a huge snake surviving undetected for 60 million years is preposterous. Remember, snakes like to bask, and if this thing behaved even remotely like a modern boa or anaconda, they'd be hanging off the trees (when small) and sunning along the riverbanks. It'd be like finding a needle in a haystack, if the needle were 17 miles long and glowing bright pink. Mokele (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, nobody EVER finds new presumably-extinct species! </sarcasm> And anyway it would only need to have survived to relatively recent history undetected by Europeans. That's easy. It happens all the time. Remember the elephant birds? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.208.21 (talk) 21:15, 5 February 2009 (UTC)