![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Spinosauridae was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 4, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Australian Spinosaurid was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 April 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Spinosauridae. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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 article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Maronaut.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
is there any pic for spinosauridae? can we put reference from jurassic park 3 movie? i remember there's spinosaurus in that movie. HoneyBee 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this picture really the best choice? the one I'm viewing seems to be an artistic sculpt in some Asian museum, not an actual representation... the inaccuracies are appalling. Agwanier ( talk) 01:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be merged with spinosaurid (spinosauridae is the plural of spinosaurid)? 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I created a new section talking bout this new 2010 study Amiot, R., Buffetaut, E., Lécuyer, C., Wang, X., Boudad, L., Ding, Z., Fourel, F., Hutt, S.,Martineau, F., Medeiros, A., Mo, J., Simon, L., Suteethorn. 2010. Oxygen isotope evidence for semi-aquatic habits among spinosaurid theropods. Geology, 38, 139-142. http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/2/139 Spinosaurids were semiaquatic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Asiamericane is definitively not a spinosaurid. It's probably more closely related to Richardoestesia (whatever the latter is) Mortimer pinted it out with some nice papers that should be mentioned here, imo http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Dromaeosaurs.htm#Richardoestesiaasiatica —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
On another wiki page it states that their is a Spinosaurid fossil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maevarano_Formation#Dinosaurs. If it is true than we could extend the temporal range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 ( talk) 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the new Spinosaurus that's been published by Ibrahim et al., should the image of Spinosaurus here be changed to another image (e.g. another spinosaur, or Spinosaurus as it currently is on its own page)? Lythronaxargestes ( talk) 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The Sigilmassasaurus... So its well known subject now... Should we add the new spinosauroid to this page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ichthyovenator laosensis is listed in the classification diagram twice, in the subfamilies Baryonychinae and Spinosaurinae. I suppose only one of these can be correct. 92.29.248.209 ( talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have a class wikipedia assignment to edit this article. I'm adding a lot of stuff to a version of it in Word that I plan to post to the body of the article as soon as it's graded. Maronaut ( talk) 07:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.dinosaurhome.com/extending-the-temporal-range-of-the-spinosauridae-14490.html. I'm just going to add temporal range of possibly starting 170mya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.87.67 ( talk) 10:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spinosauridae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It appears User:Bubblesorg does not want to let go of the article he created even though there was a consensus on it being merged with Spinosauridae, he keeps recreating the page and has even gone as far as to revert some of my edits on this article as some sort of 'comeback' and has started an edit war. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 03:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to see you doing some nice article work. Lets work on this one together.
There seems to be a bit of an issue, I decided to start off by writing a more comprehensive Description section for the article, and I thought I'd begin with a paragraph on spinosaurid body size. I then realized after checking the articles for Spinosaurus, Suchomimus, and Baryonyx that the measurements in the size diagram are a bit shaky, the author of the original chart used before I made this one said the sizes were based off of Scott Hartman's skeletals. But they seem inconsistent with those mentioned in their respective articles, Baryonyx has estimates from 7.5 to 10m, in the diagram it is 10m. Suchomimus was initially estimated from 10.3 to 11m and then 9.5m in 2010 by Gregory S. Paul, the diagram once again goes with the more extreme of 11m. Also, which one should we choose for Spinosaurus? it varies from 12 to 18m but from what I've seen 15m is the most agreed upon length, whereas in the chart it's 14.5m. You guys can look at all this and tell me what you think, preferably we should go with the most reliable estimates, and if it isn't clear then maybe use an averaged out length as we do in those cases? (eg. if example estimate is between 4-6m we should go with 5 for the chart.) Overall, I'm not sure. Irritator looks fine though. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 02:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Archiving now, with approval of the author who needs a lot more time. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is not Baryonychinae mentioned in the taxobox? Is it no longer a valid taxon? I preferred not to add it and ask it since the article is under review. Super Ψ Dro 20:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The Taxonomy section contained the following passage:
'The first cladistic definition of Spinosauridae was provided by Paul Sereno in 1998 (as "All spinosaurids closer to Spinosaurus than to Torvosaurus").'
I saw this and initially noticed how the definition didn't make any sense; the group being defined (spinosaurids) was included in the definition, and Torvosaurus was implied to be a spinosaurid. So I changed 'all spinosaurids' to 'all spinosauroids', which makes sense. However, upon reading the actual article that was cited (Sereno et al., 1998), I noticed that not only was the sentence quoted here not present in the text, but that there was no cladistic definition of Spinosauridae present in the entire article.
I am therefore wondering if anyone can point out something that I've been blind to, or if perhaps this section needs altering further. Zigongosaurus1138 ( talk) 16:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The article states that juvenile spinosaurids are "exceedingly rare", but it might be worth mentioning that according to some sources they are locally common in the Kem Kem beds? 209.136.39.130 ( talk) 14:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There aren't enough spinosaurids to justify creating articles for minor subclades, as such, I propose the redirection of Ceratosuchopsini to Spinosauridae. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
"However, the results of the Templeton test (discussed below; see also SI) and poor nodal support reveal that the relationships of the spinosaurid in-group remain elusive and are hindered by the incompleteness of the sampled OTUs".This clade could easily be shown to be erroneous in later studies, as the remains it is based on are substantially incomplete. I am happy for Baryonychinae and Spinosaurinae, as these have a long history and have been discussed by numerous studies. Hemiauchenia ( talk)
Well, in that case, anyone willing to assume the task of writing articles for Baryonychinae and/or Spinosaurinae? Hiroizmeh ( talk) 00:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Here, I'll put them in draft namespace below, for whoever wants to help work on them:
Hiroizmeh ( talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia, Sauriazoicillus, MWAK, FunkMonk, LittleLazyLass, and Jens Lallensack: After a few days of work and solving some namespace issues, the article Baryonychinae is finally up. The discussion for the proposed merge can be concluded there. Pinging all people above involved. Hiroizmeh ( talk) 23:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Spinosaurinae is currently in the process of getting created and well, as for Ceratosuchopsini=merge into Baryonychinae, we'll think of that another time. Magnatyrannus ( talk) 00:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
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 Spinosauridae'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 "buffetaut2007":
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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Spinosauridae was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (June 4, 2018). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | Australian Spinosaurid was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 19 April 2018 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Spinosauridae. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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 article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Maronaut.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 10:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
is there any pic for spinosauridae? can we put reference from jurassic park 3 movie? i remember there's spinosaurus in that movie. HoneyBee 22:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Is this picture really the best choice? the one I'm viewing seems to be an artistic sculpt in some Asian museum, not an actual representation... the inaccuracies are appalling. Agwanier ( talk) 01:01, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't this be merged with spinosaurid (spinosauridae is the plural of spinosaurid)? 20:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I created a new section talking bout this new 2010 study Amiot, R., Buffetaut, E., Lécuyer, C., Wang, X., Boudad, L., Ding, Z., Fourel, F., Hutt, S.,Martineau, F., Medeiros, A., Mo, J., Simon, L., Suteethorn. 2010. Oxygen isotope evidence for semi-aquatic habits among spinosaurid theropods. Geology, 38, 139-142. http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/38/2/139 Spinosaurids were semiaquatic —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio ( talk • contribs) 20:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Asiamericane is definitively not a spinosaurid. It's probably more closely related to Richardoestesia (whatever the latter is) Mortimer pinted it out with some nice papers that should be mentioned here, imo http://home.comcast.net/~eoraptor/Dromaeosaurs.htm#Richardoestesiaasiatica —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brisio ( talk • contribs) 16:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
On another wiki page it states that their is a Spinosaurid fossil ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maevarano_Formation#Dinosaurs. If it is true than we could extend the temporal range. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.105.47 ( talk) 04:16, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Given the new Spinosaurus that's been published by Ibrahim et al., should the image of Spinosaurus here be changed to another image (e.g. another spinosaur, or Spinosaurus as it currently is on its own page)? Lythronaxargestes ( talk) 05:37, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
The Sigilmassasaurus... So its well known subject now... Should we add the new spinosauroid to this page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann ( talk • contribs) 22:58, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Ichthyovenator laosensis is listed in the classification diagram twice, in the subfamilies Baryonychinae and Spinosaurinae. I suppose only one of these can be correct. 92.29.248.209 ( talk) 16:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have a class wikipedia assignment to edit this article. I'm adding a lot of stuff to a version of it in Word that I plan to post to the body of the article as soon as it's graded. Maronaut ( talk) 07:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
http://www.dinosaurhome.com/extending-the-temporal-range-of-the-spinosauridae-14490.html. I'm just going to add temporal range of possibly starting 170mya. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.87.67 ( talk) 10:55, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Spinosauridae. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
It appears User:Bubblesorg does not want to let go of the article he created even though there was a consensus on it being merged with Spinosauridae, he keeps recreating the page and has even gone as far as to revert some of my edits on this article as some sort of 'comeback' and has started an edit war. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 03:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Jens Lallensack ( talk · contribs) 14:42, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm happy to see you doing some nice article work. Lets work on this one together.
There seems to be a bit of an issue, I decided to start off by writing a more comprehensive Description section for the article, and I thought I'd begin with a paragraph on spinosaurid body size. I then realized after checking the articles for Spinosaurus, Suchomimus, and Baryonyx that the measurements in the size diagram are a bit shaky, the author of the original chart used before I made this one said the sizes were based off of Scott Hartman's skeletals. But they seem inconsistent with those mentioned in their respective articles, Baryonyx has estimates from 7.5 to 10m, in the diagram it is 10m. Suchomimus was initially estimated from 10.3 to 11m and then 9.5m in 2010 by Gregory S. Paul, the diagram once again goes with the more extreme of 11m. Also, which one should we choose for Spinosaurus? it varies from 12 to 18m but from what I've seen 15m is the most agreed upon length, whereas in the chart it's 14.5m. You guys can look at all this and tell me what you think, preferably we should go with the most reliable estimates, and if it isn't clear then maybe use an averaged out length as we do in those cases? (eg. if example estimate is between 4-6m we should go with 5 for the chart.) Overall, I'm not sure. Irritator looks fine though. ▼PσlєοGєєк ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 02:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Archiving now, with approval of the author who needs a lot more time. -- Jens Lallensack ( talk) 17:31, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Why is not Baryonychinae mentioned in the taxobox? Is it no longer a valid taxon? I preferred not to add it and ask it since the article is under review. Super Ψ Dro 20:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
The Taxonomy section contained the following passage:
'The first cladistic definition of Spinosauridae was provided by Paul Sereno in 1998 (as "All spinosaurids closer to Spinosaurus than to Torvosaurus").'
I saw this and initially noticed how the definition didn't make any sense; the group being defined (spinosaurids) was included in the definition, and Torvosaurus was implied to be a spinosaurid. So I changed 'all spinosaurids' to 'all spinosauroids', which makes sense. However, upon reading the actual article that was cited (Sereno et al., 1998), I noticed that not only was the sentence quoted here not present in the text, but that there was no cladistic definition of Spinosauridae present in the entire article.
I am therefore wondering if anyone can point out something that I've been blind to, or if perhaps this section needs altering further. Zigongosaurus1138 ( talk) 16:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
The article states that juvenile spinosaurids are "exceedingly rare", but it might be worth mentioning that according to some sources they are locally common in the Kem Kem beds? 209.136.39.130 ( talk) 14:23, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
There aren't enough spinosaurids to justify creating articles for minor subclades, as such, I propose the redirection of Ceratosuchopsini to Spinosauridae. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:11, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
"However, the results of the Templeton test (discussed below; see also SI) and poor nodal support reveal that the relationships of the spinosaurid in-group remain elusive and are hindered by the incompleteness of the sampled OTUs".This clade could easily be shown to be erroneous in later studies, as the remains it is based on are substantially incomplete. I am happy for Baryonychinae and Spinosaurinae, as these have a long history and have been discussed by numerous studies. Hemiauchenia ( talk)
Well, in that case, anyone willing to assume the task of writing articles for Baryonychinae and/or Spinosaurinae? Hiroizmeh ( talk) 00:00, 5 October 2021 (UTC) Here, I'll put them in draft namespace below, for whoever wants to help work on them:
Hiroizmeh ( talk) 00:15, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
@ Hemiauchenia, Sauriazoicillus, MWAK, FunkMonk, LittleLazyLass, and Jens Lallensack: After a few days of work and solving some namespace issues, the article Baryonychinae is finally up. The discussion for the proposed merge can be concluded there. Pinging all people above involved. Hiroizmeh ( talk) 23:18, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Spinosaurinae is currently in the process of getting created and well, as for Ceratosuchopsini=merge into Baryonychinae, we'll think of that another time. Magnatyrannus ( talk) 00:13, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
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 Spinosauridae'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 "buffetaut2007":
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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 20:43, 27 April 2023 (UTC)