This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Plesiosaur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Plesiosauria from es.wikipedia. |
Supplemented with text from Spanish Wikipedia
Could perhaps ad a line clarifying whether they filter oxygen from the water or breath with lungs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.130.88 ( talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes Asocos ( talk) 01:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Following the recent changes by MWAK I would like to point out that Mary Annings discovery was not of the partial skeleton discovered in 1821 but of the near complete skeleton discovered in 1823. A record of which is present in the form of a letter from Mary Annings dated 26th Dec 1826 [ here]. I am obviously not a expert in reading old letter and i cannot make out anything it says. Can someone look at this and restore the details about discovery of Mary Annings in the article if it is legitimate. Ray Lightyear ( talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a very well written and researched article, particularly in the sections on phylogeny and history, but the Contemporary Culture section is a hopeless mess informed primarily by a willful desire to argue for the continued existence of plesiosaurs. The first paragraph, for instance, acknowledges scientific doubt, but then uses the existence of "living fossils" to argue scientific fallibility. Note that the writer is arguing fallibility, using unrelated information, and entirely without citations. I'm afraid the rest of this section is probably a result of that mindset: it's a muddle of pseudoscience and cryptozoology, neither of which have a valid place in an encyclopedia article except with the caveat "Some people believe ..." and many, many citations.
Can anyone revamp this section, or trim it substantially? I'll take a second look when I have more time.
This section on the 4 groups is a mess; it really needs attention from someone who has a good knowledge on the subject. [My 'source' is the Paleobiology database]
Now the same image is used twice. How about a nice fossil for the taxobox? FunkMonk ( talk) 21:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The article on the Loch Ness Monster states that a reason against it being a plesiosaur is that they were "probably cold-blooded", yet this article states that they were "probably warm-blooded". Clearly the two articles contradict each other, but which one needs to be altered? (I'm inclined to suspect that the Plesiosaur article is correct, as it seems less likely that the mistake could have slipped through on its own article.)
EDIT - although I've just noticed that the Popular Culture section of this article also refers to the plesiosaur as "presumed cold-blooded", meaning that this article also contradicts itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.62.184 ( talk) 10:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
A 2018 paper concludes that they were likely warm-blooded (endothermic):: Quantitative histological models suggest endothermy in plesiosaurs. Looks reasonable to me, but I'll let someone more familiar with the article add the new research. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article, the group Cryptoclididae went extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but all the groups mentioned in the article went extinct in the Jurassic. Which mean that some of the info is incorrect. 84.210.27.245 ( talk) 12:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering whether or not http://plesiosaur.com/ is considered reputable or not User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 17:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
From January to February of this year, User:PaleoPrefect made several edits to this page. All the additions cite unpublished material by novelist Max Hawthorne (either preprints or social media posts, both of which probably shouldn't be used as reference material for an article like this). From the summary of this image (and how he seems to drop Hawthorne's name at every opportunity), I'm pretty certain PaleoPrefect is Hawthorne himself. This violates WP:OR and WP:SELFPUB and should be deleted, no? Shuvuuia ( talk) 06:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It says that Termatosaurus is a possible plesiosaur, but in its own article it says that Termatosaurus is a dubious archosaur. Magnatyrannus ( talk) 22:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Probably not Asocos ( talk) 01:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: mover per request. Favonian ( talk) 17:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Plesiosauria → Plesiosaur – Having the article just named "plesiosaur" would make more sense as it is the common name and would be more in line with dinosaur, pterosaur, ichthyosaur and mosasaur. Maykii ( talk) 17:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Maykii ( talk) 17:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In the article it's said that the largest Plesiosaurs rivalled the size of the largest ichthyosaurs with a length of 15 meters. however S. sikanniensis, A Triassic Ichthyosaur reached lengths of 21 meters. Unless it's size has become dubious in recent years this seems like a mistake. Noxious gas ( talk) 20:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Oldest creature on the continent? The article says 150 million years, which is 30 million years younger than Cryolophosaurus 2600:1700:6801:C10:4D59:2A5C:395C:4278 ( talk) 07:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Plesiosaur article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) 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. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article contains a translation of Plesiosauria from es.wikipedia. |
Supplemented with text from Spanish Wikipedia
Could perhaps ad a line clarifying whether they filter oxygen from the water or breath with lungs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.83.130.88 ( talk) 00:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes Asocos ( talk) 01:57, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Following the recent changes by MWAK I would like to point out that Mary Annings discovery was not of the partial skeleton discovered in 1821 but of the near complete skeleton discovered in 1823. A record of which is present in the form of a letter from Mary Annings dated 26th Dec 1826 [ here]. I am obviously not a expert in reading old letter and i cannot make out anything it says. Can someone look at this and restore the details about discovery of Mary Annings in the article if it is legitimate. Ray Lightyear ( talk) 10:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
This is a very well written and researched article, particularly in the sections on phylogeny and history, but the Contemporary Culture section is a hopeless mess informed primarily by a willful desire to argue for the continued existence of plesiosaurs. The first paragraph, for instance, acknowledges scientific doubt, but then uses the existence of "living fossils" to argue scientific fallibility. Note that the writer is arguing fallibility, using unrelated information, and entirely without citations. I'm afraid the rest of this section is probably a result of that mindset: it's a muddle of pseudoscience and cryptozoology, neither of which have a valid place in an encyclopedia article except with the caveat "Some people believe ..." and many, many citations.
Can anyone revamp this section, or trim it substantially? I'll take a second look when I have more time.
This section on the 4 groups is a mess; it really needs attention from someone who has a good knowledge on the subject. [My 'source' is the Paleobiology database]
Now the same image is used twice. How about a nice fossil for the taxobox? FunkMonk ( talk) 21:55, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The article on the Loch Ness Monster states that a reason against it being a plesiosaur is that they were "probably cold-blooded", yet this article states that they were "probably warm-blooded". Clearly the two articles contradict each other, but which one needs to be altered? (I'm inclined to suspect that the Plesiosaur article is correct, as it seems less likely that the mistake could have slipped through on its own article.)
EDIT - although I've just noticed that the Popular Culture section of this article also refers to the plesiosaur as "presumed cold-blooded", meaning that this article also contradicts itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.62.184 ( talk) 10:00, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
A 2018 paper concludes that they were likely warm-blooded (endothermic):: Quantitative histological models suggest endothermy in plesiosaurs. Looks reasonable to me, but I'll let someone more familiar with the article add the new research. -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 22:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article, the group Cryptoclididae went extinct in the Late Cretaceous, but all the groups mentioned in the article went extinct in the Jurassic. Which mean that some of the info is incorrect. 84.210.27.245 ( talk) 12:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering whether or not http://plesiosaur.com/ is considered reputable or not User:Dunkleosteus77 | push to talk 17:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
From January to February of this year, User:PaleoPrefect made several edits to this page. All the additions cite unpublished material by novelist Max Hawthorne (either preprints or social media posts, both of which probably shouldn't be used as reference material for an article like this). From the summary of this image (and how he seems to drop Hawthorne's name at every opportunity), I'm pretty certain PaleoPrefect is Hawthorne himself. This violates WP:OR and WP:SELFPUB and should be deleted, no? Shuvuuia ( talk) 06:30, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
It says that Termatosaurus is a possible plesiosaur, but in its own article it says that Termatosaurus is a dubious archosaur. Magnatyrannus ( talk) 22:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Probably not Asocos ( talk) 01:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: mover per request. Favonian ( talk) 17:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Plesiosauria → Plesiosaur – Having the article just named "plesiosaur" would make more sense as it is the common name and would be more in line with dinosaur, pterosaur, ichthyosaur and mosasaur. Maykii ( talk) 17:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Maykii ( talk) 17:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In the article it's said that the largest Plesiosaurs rivalled the size of the largest ichthyosaurs with a length of 15 meters. however S. sikanniensis, A Triassic Ichthyosaur reached lengths of 21 meters. Unless it's size has become dubious in recent years this seems like a mistake. Noxious gas ( talk) 20:06, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Oldest creature on the continent? The article says 150 million years, which is 30 million years younger than Cryolophosaurus 2600:1700:6801:C10:4D59:2A5C:395C:4278 ( talk) 07:43, 27 May 2023 (UTC)