Talk:Mapusaurus

Minor screw up

Hi, I apologize for accidentally removing the size comparison image in the "description" category. Could someone fix that? I don't know how to upload images properly.

And I also think that I wrote the reference to the same paper twice (Canale et al 2014). May need a more experienced user to fix that. Sorry again, I'm new here. — Luigi Gaskell (talk) 07:27, 16 July 2015 (UTC) Luigi Gaskell (talk • contribs) 06:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:25, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Recent Edit

Some body deleted all the content and told people to troll at a forum. I reverted it but this guy is, err, well you now... Spinodontosaurus (talk) 20:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Age of the Huincul Formation

I've just finished reading the new paper on Siats, and I noticed that in figure 5, Mapusaurus is showed as been known from the Coniacian from 89-86 million years ago, this promt me to look in other papers, Carrano et al. (2012) lists it as Turonian-Santonian (so Coniacian too?), has there been some revision or something? Mike.BRZ (talk) 05:39, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I will add this tomorrow TheCarch (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Actually give me a source TheCarch (talk) 00:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Mapusaurus

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 Mapusaurus'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 "Holtz2008":

• From Tyrannotitan: Holtz, Thomas R. Jr. (2008) Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages Supplementary Information
• From Dinosaur size: Holtz, Thomas R. Jr. (2012) Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, Winter 2011 Appendix.
• From Dinosaur: Rey LV, Holtz, Jr TR (2007). Dinosaurs: the most complete, up-to-date encyclopedia for dinosaur lovers of all ages. New York: Random House. ISBN 0-375-82419-7.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• From Theropoda: Holtz, Thomas R. Jr. (2011) Dinosaurs: The Most Complete, Up-to-Date Encyclopedia for Dinosaur Lovers of All Ages, Winter 2011 Appendix.

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⚡ 07:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not 10.2m

10.2m estimate is not in Coria & Currie. We have to cite another source. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 23:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

The 10.2m estimate is in Coria & Currie. It's in the table for Appendix III on page 116. Dinoguy2 (talk) 14:35, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Link for 10.2m? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 01:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Scroll to page 116, see Length column, which lists the length estimate for every known specimen. 10.2m is the largest one.

You mean this?:

Specimen number Element Length Side of body MCF-PVPH-108.3 Dentary 5.5 Left MCF-PVPH-108.44 Femur 9.9 Left MCF-PVPH-108.203 Femur 10.2 Left MCF-PVPH-108.233 Femur 9.5 Right MCF-PVPH-108.58 Tibia 9.7 Left MCF-PVPH-108.67 Tibia 8.1 Right MCF-PVPH-108.68 Tibia 9.8 Left MCF-PVPH-108.132 Fibula 8.4 Left MCF-PVPH-108.189 Fibula 8.3 Left MCF-PVPH-108.202 Fibula 8.8 Right MCF-PVPH-108.33 Metatarsal II 7.2 Left MCF-PVPH-108.34 Metatarsal II 6.1 Right MCF-PVPH-108.38 Metatarsal II 6.6 Right MCF-PVPH-108.31 Metatarsal III 6.4 Left MCF-PVPH-108.32 Metatarsal III 6.0 Right MCF-PVPH-108.188 Metatarsal III 6.5 Left MCF-PVPH-108.201 Metatarsal III 6.3 Left MCF-PVPH-108.37 Metatarsal IV 7.3 Right

The lowest there is 5.5m, not 10.2m. Is the 5.5m Mapusaurus a juvenile? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Another question. Since the links are Link 1 and Link 2, why the PDF in the reference was this website? Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Those direct pdf links were probably not free at the time (and might not remain so for long!). The journal is not open access so the web site link is more stable (a doi would be better). And yes, presumably all of the individuals represent different growth stages and/or individual variation. Contrary to popular belief, not all adult dinosaurs of the same species were the exact same size, just as not all adult human males are the same height. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't find a doi but I can find the ISSN Dinosaur Fan (talk) 09:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I apologize for accidentally removing the size comparison image in the "description" category. Could someone fix that? I don't know how to upload images properly.

And I also think that I wrote the reference to the same paper twice (Canale et al 2014). May need a more experienced user to fix that. Sorry again, I'm new here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luigi Gaskell (talk • contribs) 06:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mapusaurus. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160930130941/http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0417_060417_large_dino.html to http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/04/0417_060417_large_dino.html

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).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:07, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox Image

The hands in the taxobox image are actually pronated, so should we switch the taxobox image to the skull image we currently have on the article? I think that accuracy matters more than showing an entire mount.BleachedRice (talk) 03:12, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Is it obvious from this angle that they are pronated? if not, is it a problem? FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about your definition of obvious, but it is pretty clear in the younger mount that the hand is pronated, and also noticeable in the adult image. As the arms are posed in that wimpy sort of fashion, the pronation is clear when being able to see the entire back of the hand. We probably need more opinions on this to make a decision.BleachedRice (talk) 03:32, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Originally I had actually placed a photo of their skulls in the infobox. But yeah, it is always good with a discussion. FunkMonk (talk) 16:14, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

"Undescribed Carcharodontosaurine" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Undescribed Carcharodontosaurine has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 27 § Undescribed Carcharodontosaurine until a consensus is reached. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:28, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

GA review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Mapusaurus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: Augustios Paleo (talk · contribs) 17:13, 2 July 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Jens Lallensack (talk · contribs) 14:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

Reviewing now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

• The first fossils of this taxon were discovered in 1995 by members of the Argentinian-Canadian Dinosaur Project[1] in an exposure of the Huincul Formation at Cañadón del Gato, a site 20 kilometres (12 mi) south of Plaza Huincul in Neuquén Province, Argentina.[2] – You cite the New York times article for the year "1995", but that is contradicting the first description which says "1997". The Times article reads The fossils were excavated over five years, beginning in 1995, before scientists realized they were dealing with a new species of giant carnivores …. This would also mean that the scientists did not realize they had a new species until 2000, but the conference abstract you cite that announces a new genus is from 1997. As so often, the news article seems to be quite unreliable and should be removed.
• however, later digs would find more fossils – can be removed as redundant; you state in the next sentence how much had been found.
• a new genus and species of giant carcharodontosaurid theropod. Based on this material, they named them Mapusaurus roseae. – Should be "a new genus and species of giant carcharodontosaurid theropod, which they named Mapusaurus roseae".
• and thus "Earth lizard". – lacks an "translates as" or something
• such as a carpometacarpus that American paleontologist Matthew Carrano and colleagues (2012) stated is a distal (away from body) humerus – I suggest "an supposed carpometacarpus" to make clear that the identification is outdated (same with the fibula), and "identified as the lower end of the humerus" (note that "distal" is unneeded, and "distal humerus" means that the entire humerus is away from the body, while you probably wanted to refer to the lower end only).
• In 2005, a right postorbital – postorbital could have a brief explanation
• Argentine paleontologist Matias Motta – red-link only if you are sure that the destination article would be notable. With living persons, this is often not the case.
• from a section of sandstone strata in Violante Farm in Río Negro Province – "at" Violante Farm? Also, you don't need the technical term "strata" at all here, just write "from sandstones at".
• posterior (back portion) mandible, incomplete cervical (neck vertebrae) series, fragments of dorsal (back) vertebrae – use glosses sparingly, as they also disrupt reading flow. "posterior" could be replaced by "the back portion of a mandible", and cervical, dorsal etc. you already glossed earlier, so no need to do that again.
• was unearthed along with the Taurovenator. – Along with which Taurovenator? Can't follow.
• In 2005, an associated skeleton (MPCA-Pv 803) including a partial skull and posterior (back portion) mandible, incomplete cervical (neck vertebrae) series, fragments of dorsal (back) vertebrae, several ribs, two partial forelimbs, a femur, a partial pes, gastralia and a caudal vertebra was unearthed along with the Taurovenator. – Confusing to only mention that here; I would combine it with the discovery of the postorbital.
• This specimen was regarded as belonging to an indeterminate carcharodontosaurid in the 2016 description of Taurovenator.[11][12] In 2024, this specimen was described and assigned to Taurovenator. – Chopped writing, and could be worded much more concisely. The entire Taurovenator paragraph could be more concise.
• In an analysis of the strata from which the holotype was discovered – But isn't the skeleton also from the same strata? Why just the holotype?
• Additionally, the holotype preserve features of the Giganotosaurini, further supporting its referral to Taurovenator. – Doesn't make any sense; Taurovenator is fixed to its holotype.
• Try to word the Taurovenator section more concisely
• with the former being based on a left dentary (MCF PVPH-108.3) and the latter being based on a left femur (MCF-PVPH-108.203) – where does "former" and "latter" refer to?
• Compared to many other carcharodontosaurids, Mapusaurus' skull is among the most completely understood – Awkward formulation
• More to follow. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

  Could I possibly withdrawal my nomination of this article? It no longer meets my standards for a new nomination and I believe it needs a lot of work. Thank you so much, I just would like to improve the article, wait, and/or prioritize another one of my articles I have nominated (I. E. Phorusrhacos, Aussiedraco). AFH (talk) 07:43, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  No problem, I will fail it then. It doesn't look too bad for me though; it's mostly language issues? But I can review one of your others next if you like. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  Yes I would really appreciate that. Phorusrhacos is one that I’ve put a lot of effort into so if you’d like to review that one next I would greatly appreciate it. AFH (talk) 13:46, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

  I may come back to Mapusaurus in time, but at the moment I am prioritizing my phorusrhacid articles. I'll still put in these suggestions for Mapusaurus though. AFH (talk) 17:40, 22 August 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.