Talk:Spinosaurus: Difference between revisions

Template:LOCErequest

Dinosaurs Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics 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.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software 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.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

	Spinosaurus has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 5, 2007 Good article nominee Listed

Archives

February 2006 - September 2006 October 2006 - December 2007

I've always thought that Spinosaurus weighed around 12-19 tons, yet the article seems to indicate otherwise. Are the weighs indicated by the article correct? Cunfuzzed —Preceding comment was added at 06:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's still some disagreement about the weight. Most people think 7-9 tons is a good estimate. At least one paper has estimated 12-20 tons, like you said. Which one is right is anybody's guess, though there's been some criticism of the 20t estimates online. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming it had similar body shape/proportions to suchomimus or baryonyx I'm inclined to believe the higher estimates are pretty accurate, just basing that off the simple math that comes with scaling something up. (If an animal's dimensions are doubled it's weight will increase 8 fold)DinoJones (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://palaeoblog.blogspot.com/2006/02/spinosaurus-snout.html I believe this is the same snout that Robert Gay took pictures of that I posted in the archives. Now that I see the snout in a more frontal view(I hope a full frontal view picture surfaces) it does look distinctly... crocodilian... And not in a gharial sense like baryonyx and suchomimus. Pretty good find I think.DinoJones (talk) 19:32, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'll try to fix the hands further. But is it only the left hand which is too pronated, or both? Funkynusayri (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, looks like you haven't fixed the pronation, you just de-flexed the fingers. The palms are still clearly facing backwards. The entire hand needs to be rotated so the palms fully face each other. The viewer should see a full view of the top of the hand in the foreground, rather than the side. If you open both images and flip between them (cool, it's like a little movie!), the animal was capable of that motion. It's just the entire hands are oriented in the wrong direction. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Basically it should look like it's holding a basketball (a really, really, really big basketball) between its hands. Sheep81 (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, I meant that it was the last fix I did, in relation to the original, not the "final" one, which is what I'll do next. So they could not turn the hands either? I'll just draw new hands for them then. Funkynusayri (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. The only way they can get the palms to face backwards is to point the elbows out laterally in a sprawling position. This is how modern reptiles get their hands to point mostly forward while walking. If they didn't sprawl, the hands would face sideways in a four-legged position. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated February 18, 2008;

Support:

1. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
2. 72.133.252.224 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3. Dropzink (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Seems like quite a comprehensive article, already a Natural Sciences Good Article, so it might not be far from FA status. Funkynusayri (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed, if its at GA why not bring it up to FA? 72.133.252.224 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Ditto, this one's pretty popular with the younger dino set as well. It would be good to have an authoritative stamp on there vouching for the facts presented. Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:53, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To-Do?

OK folks, can we get this to FAC do we think? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm no expert, but I read it, and it seems good to me. Maybe what's missing is just Wikipedia formalities? Funkynusayri (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any thing I can do to help? Although I think it is a very well writtan article, we might want to support the fatty sail theory better as it is not depicted this way nor are any other fatty sail referances made.Rynosaur (talk) 07:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.cjfossils.com/spinohomepage.html has a picture of a tooth over 8 cm long. Should we add it (the tooth length) to the article? 122.109.250.74 (talk) 08:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we can find that in a published source, I'd say. If the tooth hasn't been studied, whose to say it even comes from Spinosaurus? Dinoguy2 (talk) 09:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spinosaur (talk) 01:53, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, but it looks like you forgot to provide copyright info, which will lead to the photo being deleted. It would also be better for you to upload photos to [Commons], rather than directly to Wikipedia. Do you happen to have information on this specimen that could be added to its description, such as the specimen number or what collection it's housed in? Thanks! Dinoguy2 (talk) 04:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, very cool, but you should hurry with a license tag. I can upload it to Commons afterwards. Funkynusayri (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added the license tag (can't believe I forgot to do that :P) and I also added the specimen number. Spinosaur (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's now on Commons. Should I maybe crop it so there isn't so much of the background showing? Like this: [1] Funkynusayri (talk) 04:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah that would be good, thanks guys! Dinoguy2 (talk) 05:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]