Talk:Patagotitan

Argentina Low‑importance

	Argentina portal This article is part of WikiProject Argentina, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Argentina. If you would like to participate, you can improve Patagotitan, or sign up and contribute to a wider array of articles like those on our to do list.ArgentinaWikipedia:WikiProject ArgentinaTemplate:WikiProject ArgentinaArgentine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Too generic name[edit]

There are several unnamed titanosaurs, we need a more specific title. FunkMonk (talk) 17:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new one, so the old name should just redirect to titanosaur. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it was somewhat generic. thanks for the capitalization correction: i didnt notice that "titanosaur" is not the actual genus name, which is Titanosauria. so much for my high school bio class sticking with me.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It still is very generic. There are numerous unnamed titanosaurs from Patagonia. I don't know if we even need this page.Ashorocetus (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, just as suggestions, what about something like "Giant titanosaur of Chubut" or "Unnamed titanosaur from Trelew"?--Rextron (talk) 00:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it now has a name: http://www.cnet.com/news/supermassive-dinosaur-found-in-argentina-meet-dreadnoughtus/ and http://www.nature.com/srep/2014/140904/srep06196/full/srep06196.html --Gamerk2 (talk) 15:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dreadnoughtus is not the same dinosaur... it comes from the Santa Cruz Province, is housed in the Museo Padre Molina and the team of paleontologists involved in its publication are not the same. This unnamed titanosaur is from the Chubut province, is in the Museo Egidio Feruglio and is examined by Diego Pol. Also, it seems that Dreadnoughtus comes from layers from the Campanian to Maastrichtian, more recent that which comes the unnamed titanosaur.--Rextron (talk) 17:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of unnamed titanosaurs, I'm still waiting for the Cretaceous Argentine titanosaur skull shown in a National Geographic issue back in the late '90s to be described. J. Spencer (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are you refering to this skull?: [1] --Rextron (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that's the guy. If we take all of the rumored and undescribed sauropods from Argentina and put them together, we can probably get a complete skeleton out of it. J. Spencer (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What was the point of moving this to a year? Yes, there were many unnamed titanosaurs, but the title also specifies a region. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tallest dinosaur[edit]

Mentioned? (anon comment)

It really isn't. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Name the farm laborer who found the dinosaur?[edit]

It would be nice to credit by name the farm laborer who found the dinosaur specimen. Replacing "by a farm laborer" with "by farm laborer [first name] [paternal surname] [maternal surname]" would be appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.232.81 (talk) 18:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The farm laborer is Aurelio Hernández, who worked in the lands belonging to the brothers Alba and Óscar Mayo. If you need, there is more details in the Spanish version of this article.--Rextron (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That being said, if this detail was not specified in the paper or any news source, Wikipedia has no obligation to go digging for it. That would fall under original research, which is inadvisable. For instance, at the Jianianhualong article, the finder of the type specimen is not specified because the information is not given anywhere. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And we all know why ;o). (Very nice article BTW). Of course, digging for secondary sources is allowed.--MWAK (talk) 15:03, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we don't have to rely solely on peer-reviewed papers when it comes to uncontroversial, circumstantial information. For example, I had to rely on a commercial page to cite the fact that the Deinocheirus holotype has been touring the world for years, and a tourist page to cite where the Giganotosaurus holotype is currently located. FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The finder is named here, by no less than National Geographic, so should suffice: http://www.nationalgeographic.com.es/ciencia/actualidad/patagotitan-mayorum-mayor-dinosaurio-historia_11830/6 FunkMonk (talk) 23:52, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mass[edit]

According to Live Science ( https://www.livescience.com/60080-largest-titanosaur-dinosaur-on-record.html ), Patagotitan mass was "69 tons (62 metric tons)" but according to Phys.org ( https://phys.org/news/2017-08-patagotitan-mayorum-biggest-dinosaur.html ) its mass was "76 tons (69 metric tons)". I checked the original paper by Carballido, Pol et al and there it stated Patagotitan mass was 69 tonnes, which I understand as metric tons, as 1 tonne = 1,000 kg. Please clarify this issue in this article. MathKnight-at-TAU (talk) 12:47, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a hard fix. Only one number needs to be changed (63 tonnes -> 69 tonnes). Lythronaxargestes (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

according to this article here, http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-27441156, the original on site estimates by the team that they told the documentary team were 77 tonnes and 40m, making it bigger than Argentinosaur.

Weight[edit]

The article currently says 69.1 tonnes for Patagotitan based on the supplementary material of the paper. I believe that's a too precise figure for two reasons: fisrt, even the paper itself rounds it to 69 tonnes other than the supplementary material, and second, more than 2 significant figures at such sizes (>50 tonnes) are ridiculous. I believe WolfmanSF would gladly explain that. Gigafan0731 (talk) 21:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculous is your opinion. Plus, you're a sockpuppeteer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:44, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, you didn't read that: Talk:Giganotosaurus#Time range Gigafan0731 (talk) 21:48, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Which no longer applies because I added a source. You're not making a very strong case for yourself. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:55, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The third digit really is excessive, given that the uncertainty in mass estimates is usually > 10% and the round-off is < 0.2%. Paleontologists often add extra non-significant digits to mass estimates as a way of making explicit how they obtained the estimates, but that rationale for adding extra digits doesn't apply here. That said, whether one digit is worth fighting over on a single case basis is debatable. It would be nice if a general recognition could be attained that two digits are all that are normally appropriate for mass estimates. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will fix, since we got an opinion not from the sockpuppeteer. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You're being overly aggressive and biased over this and your other editing wars with him. I don't care who he is, if the the better information should stay, regardless of who added it. Lusotitan 00:33, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect to yourself, Lythronax and I have been constantly battling Gigafan and other "misinformed editors" for weeks now. I've had enough of WelcomeToJurassicPark and all his plentiful sockpuppets. Block evasion is block evasion, and anything from his will be reverted first, and discussed second. Pointless edit wars all across the map, only because admins haven't taken to blocking him yet again. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone block this guy on the Wiki Commons as well, he's up to the same B.S. there.Steveoc 86 (talk) 09:55, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He's blocked. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:30, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The 55 tonne estimate exists, I have proof for it, and it needs to be included in the article[edit]

Proof: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/VXaCPlx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.77.130.248 (talk) 13:46, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.225.204.229 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody watches the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.132.18.84 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Display[edit]

Why is "Display" a subsection of "Discovery"? The two topics seem unrelated, The edit summary for the change was "Move to subsection so that article follows standard project structure", which does not seem valid - we are not bound by any "standard project structure". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:17, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They are very related. The text has just talked about the specimens of Patagotitan that exist, and then Display immediately talks about a mount being assembled from those specimens. That was my intention in writing the text that way. If you disagree, the wording can be revised. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]