Talk:Bonapartesaurus

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Bonapartesauruslife.jpg

Not an actual saurolophine?
We know very little about Bonapartesaurus, it could turn out to be a new type of endemic hadrosaur or a more basal type of iguanodont, especially since North America and South America were completely separated by the vast ocean, and no other kind of North American dinosaurs are believed to have ventured into South America like tyrannosaurs and ceratopsians, so..... 162.40.241.62 (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Look, I appreciate the enthusiasm you're showing in wanting to incorporate new discoveries into Wikipedia, but as you've been told on the Allen Formation page, you need to provide conclusive evidence (preferrably from a scientific paper) to back up your claims when you change an article. Besides this, Bonapartesaurus is quite completely known, as can be read in the article. It wouldn't be in line with policy to add a speculation like the one you made above to the article. I hope you understand that. Cheers, --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.deviantart.com/lythronax-argestes/art/Bonapartesaurus-rionegrensis-676551408 this does not look like a complete fossil specimen of a dinosaur, there is no way to know what Bonapartesaurus really was just by looking at its extremely fragmentary fossils. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.241.62 (talk) 22:56, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "Extremely fragmentary" I'm sorry but that is a decently complete fossil featuring a decent amount of dorsal and caudal vertebrae as well as almost the entire pubic region alongside the hindlimbs. While scientists aren't infalible, it is rather condescending to handwave an entire research paper on an unsupported personal hunch. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of published information and science, not wild personal hypothesis based on a cursorial glance at a skeletal reconstruction.Armin Reindl (talk) 23:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * how can we tell if Bonapartesaurus is a saurolophine hadrosaurid if we do not have a preserved skull? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.241.62 (talk) 07:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The other bones? Dinosaurs (and other animals) are not just identifiable by their skulls. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 07:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * the bones of Bonapartesaurus that were recovered are not complete enough to tell what kind of iguanodont it was, the idea of a saurolophine hadrosaur swimming across the vast ocean to get to South America, based on fragmentary fossils, is just ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.40.241.62 (talk) 09:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would leave the identification of the bones up to the scientists, who have the proper qualifications to do so. If you have an alternative alignment ready for Bonapartesaurus, feel free to write a paper on it. If that gets published in a peer reviewed journal you can come back and back up your claim. For now, the scientific consensus is that Bonapartesaurus is infact a Saurolophine. --TimTheDragonRider (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)


 * On this note, I'm a bit confused by the classification sections of this and the Willinakaqe articles. We have these two variant restorations showing it either as a member of Saurolophini or Kritosaurini, which is correct? Can one be used for Willinakaqe? FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 26 April 2023 (UTC)