Talk:Dreadnoughtus

Is redirection necessary?

I understand that GSA abstracts are not a great source, and that it does not count as actually being published, but the only reason Cathetosaurus does not currently redirect to Camarasaurus is because of a program abstract. Many of the pages about nomina nuda cite no published sources. Why should Dreadnoughtus be treated differently? Ashorocetus (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is a possible journal embargo. In this case, my guess is that the authors must have expected that the full description would have been published before the GSA abstracts got out (maybe they didn't expect the abstracts would be available this soon), and it is possible that they are publishing in a journal that has an embargo policy, which if violated could cause problems. This is clearly a big find (no pun intended), and could well be a cover article. J. Spencer (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I realize that the cat is out of the bag and high-tailing it to Mexico as we speak, but it feels like there's a functional difference between Internet chatter or the abstracts themselves, buried on the GSA website, which are like the cat traveling incognito, and an article on the English Wikipedia, which is like the cat traveling with a brass band. J. Spencer (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. Ashorocetus (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently an embargo on all information regarding Dreadnoughtus, which will be lifted at 9am EST on September 4th. Wikipedia content has already been prepared.Tharkibo (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, good. Thanks for clearing that up. Ashorocetus (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad about the comic macaronic name, when Nihiltimens is available.--Wetman (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sauropods are somewhat comical critters to begin with, eh? Ashorocetus (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research.

I'm finding lots of what appears to be original research in the article cited as if explicitly stated by Lacovara et al. (2014), things like body posture (as in the disparity between hind and fore limbs), the angle of the neck with respect to the body, the shoulder height, comparisons with Brachiosaurus regarding their long forelimbs, the precise lengths of the body and tail alone of 5.1m and 8.7m (which is 28.5ft not the 30ft mentioned in news articles) none of this appear neither in the description paper or the supplementary material. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But some of these features are in the news notes? if not, must be retired... --Rextron (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides the claim of the tail being 30ft long I don't remember seeing those other claims in the news stories. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of name

I don't think the statement in the first sentence, Dreadnoughtus (meaning "fearing nothing") , is correct in its current form. It got its name after the dreadnoughts (battleships) according to all the sources I've seen (eg. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/04/battleship-beast-colossal-dinosaur-skeleton-found-patagonia-argentina-dreadnoughtus-schrani). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.117.6 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The paper says "fearing nothing" and also mentions the battleships. What we have is pretty much exactly what is cited, so that's good. Ashorocetus (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's what "dreadnought" means, after all, it "dreads not."--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Pretty much"? It's nearly exactly what the paper says. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being bold, I've reversed the "type of warship" and the "fears nothing" meaning. As I understand it, the name came first based on the warships and only later was the word translated into modern English. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was my problem, thanks

Mass comparison table

The table under the "Mass" section lists Brachiosaurus with a mass of 56,255 kg. This is much larger than any number given in the Brachiosaurus article, and also is much larger than the number given in the image comparing Dreadnoughtus with a plane, other dinosaurs, and other animals. Is there a source for the 56,255 kg number (or for the rest of the table comparing sauropod masses, for that matter)? Is that 56,255 kg number considered an accurate estimate? If so, why isn't it mentioned in the Brachiosaurus article? Calathan (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a source for the 56,255 kg estimate; it comes from Benson et al. (2014) I just put it on the Brachiosaurus page. This page should probably cite that.. Ashorocetus (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]