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
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article contains the following quote: "Marsh named a more complete specimen as a new genus, Rhinosaurus ("nose lizard"), but this name soon proved to be preoccupied." What does that even mean? Does the author wish to indicate that the name was already in use for another species? If so, what species, and why does the redirect for Rhinosaurus come here? We could definitely use some rephrasing here to use something more appropriate than "preoccupied." Carychan ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Saltwater or freshwater? It doesn't say. 91.186.72.51 ( talk) 09:00, 4 February 2013 (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 Tylosaurus'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 "KC11":
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tylosaurus. 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) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
tylosaurus lived up to 66 or to some countries 65 MYA acording to fossilworks.Here the source [1]
References
Since there is a paper dated 2016 that considers Hainosaurus a synonym of Tylosaurus should we merge the Hainosaurus article with this article? - User:1morey June 6, 2020 3:18 AM (EST)
I've proposed a merger for Hainosaurus and Tylosaurus, as it seems that Hainosaurus is a junior synonym. -- TimTheDragonRider ( talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Macrophyseter. Paul's field guide has now been officially published (I think you'd also know this). For the most part, I think his mosasaur estimates are generally accurate and is within the consensus. His estimates are: T. proriger at 13 m long and 6.7 tonnes; T. nepaeolicus at 8.5 m and 1.8 tonnes; T. saskatchewanensis at 9 m and 2 tonnes; T. pembinensis and T. bernardi at 12 m and 5 tonnes. Since you're a mosasaur enthusiast, I think it would be better for you to consider whether these estimates are good enough and could be included in the article (like with Mosasaurus estimate last time). Also, I know it's not been a subject of debate yet, but is it OK to put an estimate of 15.8 m from an abstract which is still not part of an official study (despite the fact that it is from Mike Everhart)? Junsik1223 ( talk) 16:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
A new species Hainosaurus boubker (=Tylosaurus boubker) was described earlier today. The publisher is the predatory journal Scientific Research Publishing, so I caution against using the source out of reliability and ethical concerns unless there's an agreement that an exception is okay here. Macrophyseter | talk 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure who user: Hainosaurus_Boubker is, but please don't curse at people. THRempert ( talk) 19:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am posting this recommendation because I have a real problem with the introduction of this article. I know, this article isn't featured yet, but to see the introduction of such a well-known prehistoric animal as Tylosaurus reduced to two lines, I find it particularly ridiculous, especially compared to everything the article details. So, while waiting for the finalized version of the article, I hope that someone (notably Macrophyseter) can solve this problem. Without wanting to brag, even I try to expand introductions on articles about lesser known prehistoric animals, such as Nochnitsa, Inostrancevia or Taniwhasaurus. Cordially, Amirani1746 ( talk) 06:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
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
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
The article contains the following quote: "Marsh named a more complete specimen as a new genus, Rhinosaurus ("nose lizard"), but this name soon proved to be preoccupied." What does that even mean? Does the author wish to indicate that the name was already in use for another species? If so, what species, and why does the redirect for Rhinosaurus come here? We could definitely use some rephrasing here to use something more appropriate than "preoccupied." Carychan ( talk) 18:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Saltwater or freshwater? It doesn't say. 91.186.72.51 ( talk) 09:00, 4 February 2013 (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 Tylosaurus'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 "KC11":
{{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help){{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)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. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:09, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tylosaurus. 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) 03:29, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
tylosaurus lived up to 66 or to some countries 65 MYA acording to fossilworks.Here the source [1]
References
Since there is a paper dated 2016 that considers Hainosaurus a synonym of Tylosaurus should we merge the Hainosaurus article with this article? - User:1morey June 6, 2020 3:18 AM (EST)
I've proposed a merger for Hainosaurus and Tylosaurus, as it seems that Hainosaurus is a junior synonym. -- TimTheDragonRider ( talk) 14:32, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi Macrophyseter. Paul's field guide has now been officially published (I think you'd also know this). For the most part, I think his mosasaur estimates are generally accurate and is within the consensus. His estimates are: T. proriger at 13 m long and 6.7 tonnes; T. nepaeolicus at 8.5 m and 1.8 tonnes; T. saskatchewanensis at 9 m and 2 tonnes; T. pembinensis and T. bernardi at 12 m and 5 tonnes. Since you're a mosasaur enthusiast, I think it would be better for you to consider whether these estimates are good enough and could be included in the article (like with Mosasaurus estimate last time). Also, I know it's not been a subject of debate yet, but is it OK to put an estimate of 15.8 m from an abstract which is still not part of an official study (despite the fact that it is from Mike Everhart)? Junsik1223 ( talk) 16:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
A new species Hainosaurus boubker (=Tylosaurus boubker) was described earlier today. The publisher is the predatory journal Scientific Research Publishing, so I caution against using the source out of reliability and ethical concerns unless there's an agreement that an exception is okay here. Macrophyseter | talk 02:37, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. I'm not sure who user: Hainosaurus_Boubker is, but please don't curse at people. THRempert ( talk) 19:25, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I am posting this recommendation because I have a real problem with the introduction of this article. I know, this article isn't featured yet, but to see the introduction of such a well-known prehistoric animal as Tylosaurus reduced to two lines, I find it particularly ridiculous, especially compared to everything the article details. So, while waiting for the finalized version of the article, I hope that someone (notably Macrophyseter) can solve this problem. Without wanting to brag, even I try to expand introductions on articles about lesser known prehistoric animals, such as Nochnitsa, Inostrancevia or Taniwhasaurus. Cordially, Amirani1746 ( talk) 06:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)