Talk:Carnotaurus/Archive 1

Image
The side on image of the Carnotaurus must have its lower legs and ankles really stretched; they can't be that long and that thin. It needs to be removed or fixed up. 122.109.250.74 (talk) 11:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a cite? I can't find proper skeletals, but from what I've seen the proportions look about right and they wold look rather thin in profile. Dinosaurs generally don't have much meat on their lower legs, it's all bone and tendon. Just look at a chicken. Dinoguy2 (talk) 13:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a cite but compare them to the pictures of the other Albisaurids and you will see what I mean. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You can even compare it to the other pictures on the page. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Without a source, how can you tell which pictures are correct and which aren't? And you can't necessarily go by other abelisaurids. They're not Carnotaurus. Without a source or skeletal I'm hesitant to remove this, as it looks within range of what's known. It does look a little odd to me, probably because of how straight the ankle is. I'm not sure if that was possible or not. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:15, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * This is Pauls Carnotorus They compare very well proportionally. If we asume pauls is 100% correct then the one in the articale would need a longer tail. As for the legs they are probably just a bit straight, all they need is hacking up and reposing. I would hate to see that image go. I'll try and fix it. Steveoc 86 (talk) 11:50, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the proportions seem right, but I also noticed the thing with the leg, the metatarsals seem to be turned back to the maximum before actually turning backwards, but well, I don't know about the biomechanics down there... But take a look at these images, Bogdanov might have used an image of a skeleton posed like one of these as reference, the leg seems to be in the same position:Funkynusayri (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * By the way, anyone know if all those Todd Marshall drawings Benosaurus has uploaded have correct copyright information? It seems dubious to me, and there are no sources... Funkynusayri (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd check up on that--IIRC he got permission to use them but I'm not sure if the right procedures were followed, or if Marshall was aware of the free commercial use requirement. Dinoguy2 (talk) 07:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point Dinoguy2. I just assumed that was the incorrect one because it differed form the others. 122.105.220.129 (talk) 06:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On images, I have long thought our taxobox photo was pretty inadequate; it is foreshortened, only shows one horn, has a very busy background, and shows a huge gap between the coracoids. Sadly, it seems to be better than anything else available on Commons: I found two other contenders on Flickr, though. This photo from the Los Angeles Museum shows the front part of the skeleton well, but leaves out most of the legs and tail, but these parts aren't known anyway. Then there is this photo of the same mount, which shows more of the skeleton, but also has a busier background (much of it could be cropped). Any thoughts, (who brought the article to FA)? FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I will try to upload what I have later! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:08, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I prefer the current ones to those flickr photos, the current one has a busy background but it's mostly white so the mount pops against it clearly. It shows the body is relative clarity.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 19:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Jens appears to have some better photos. But in any case, the current photo has very incorrect coracoid placement, which we should avoid when possible. Also, the body is so foreshortened that the anatomy is barely visible anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 19:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I now uploaded those I have, please have a look if it includes anything useful. Thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * This one maybe? FunkMonk (talk) 16:07, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

chameleon?
Is it possible? Please think about the 3rd trap on Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.--210.153.95.1 (talk) 02:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's possible, but is so far unsupported by fossil evidence, and thus should remain listed as a fictional characteristic. Just like the similar case with Jurassic Park's poison-spitting Dilophosaurus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

It's possible but highly unlikely as Carnotaurus displays no features indicative of an ambush predator. Also Chameleon's don't use their color changing abilities for camoflauge, its actually to communicate how they are feeling. And inferring from modern birds, Dinosaurs probably had many other ways to communicate that were more efficient.--50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:34, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Hands
Why the hell are it's hands facing palms-out?

The abelisaurids may have been an exception to this rule. Their arms were so laughably short and nearly unable to move at all that such a position wouldn't be as big of a deal for them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Skull anatomy and behaviors
This helps and therefore should be cited http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1671/039.029.0313 Brisio (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is it going by the Type Specimens length?
The Type Specimen is only a Juvenile, an adult Carnotaurus could grow to be 33-35 feet long. my source is this http://www.rareresource.com/carnotaurus.htm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.195.51.9 (talk) 16:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)


 * We go by actual specimens, not speculation. In this case, only one specimen has been described, so that's all there is to go on. J. Spencer (talk) 23:34, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Good Article?
with Jens' recent additions and Funk's addition of the illustrations, this article may be close to GA status. It just needs a few cites in Paleoecology. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:51, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Be good to get some concerted work happening on some of these again.. :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would be very cool. It already was a very accurate and well sourced article, so it's fun to build on it. We would need more about classification and discovery, though. I plan to do that. I was also able to find a few good sources about cultural depiction. If you don't mind, I will try a "in popular culture" section next week (when I have my books back). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:19, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I look forward to the additions. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:27, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

flapped
Ok, "flapped" is not the best word. But what to write instead?

Here is the sentence in question: ''Also, the anterior part of the lower jaw would have been able to flap up- and downwards. When flapped downwards, the teeth would have projected forwards, allowing to spike small prey items; when flapped upwards, the now backward projecting teeth would have hindered the caught prey animal from escaping.''

The paper actually says: ''Moreover, the rotatory movements of the upper and lower jaws change the orientation of the tooth tips with respect to the prey. Possibly, when the jaws struck the food, the teeth were projected forward to impale the prey, and as the muzzle was rotated downward and at the same time the anterior portion of the mandible was rotated upward, the tooth tips were turned caudally to restrict escape movements of the prey.'' (Mazzetta et al. 1998).

--Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm still trying to think of a better word, here. In English, 'flapping the jaw' is informal speech for 'talking too much', so the term should be avoided. I'll come up with something, if one of our intrepid fellow editors hasn't already found a fix. Firsfron of Ronchester  19:51, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So it's more like "teeth curl backwards and inwards as the jaw opens widely"? Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:12, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * While we're at it, the sentence, "The hyposphene-hypantrum articulations between the dorsal vertebrae are well developed, reducing lateral mobility of the dorsal vertebral column." seems too technical for a general audience. Cas, any suggestions here? Firsfron of Ronchester  20:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Right. I've reworked some of the phrasing a bit. I note you've removed the overly-technical sentence. I wonder if the remaining portions needing citations couldn't be sourced to The Dinosauria 2nd; it wouldn't be difficult for me to check. I realize you don't have your books and that the popular culture section will need to wait a week, but the article has otherwise really shaped up nicely. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:20, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it's perfect now :-) The difficult part in the paleoecology section that has to be sourced would be the part about plants. I have found this, thats about the fossil fruits; perhaps there is something about the remaining vegetation in there. And I still haven't done the additions to the classification section … Unfortunately, I will not have time the next three days. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Paleoecology section is ready now. If somebody need access to sources cited in the article, just let me know, that is absolutely no problem. Thanks to all for your great work! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 01:12, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've barely started the new Massospondylus papers... I can't keep up! Firsfron of Ronchester  19:59, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

what next?
I'm through now with the additions. Do you have any suggestions how to improve it further? I think we may should leave out the popular culture section … I've just added some bits of that stuff to the discovery section, and I do not have much more. By the way, happy new year. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Happy new year to you as well! I'm surprised you are editing instead of doing Molybdomancy.
 * The article looks to be in great shape, but the WP:LEDE of the article is probably still too short; it should summarize the rest of the article. Also, someone with fresh eyes should look for issues of overly jargonistic phrases. Other than these concerns, I think it would make a great Good Article. Thanks for all your work... in a language you're not even all that familiar with! Firsfron of Ronchester  18:35, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was also thinking longer intro, which summarises more of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 00:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if it would be a problem, but you put citations at the end of a sentence most places, but in the following, you put them within: "The use of these horns is not entirely clear; most interpretations have revolved around use in fighting conspecifics,[11][44][7][43][O] though a use in display[43] or in killing prey[7] also has been suggested." Sometimes, reviewers ask for consistency in citations. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it; that's exactly how I cite when the source only verifies that part of the phrase. For example, if source 44 only talks about fighting conspecifics, it's actually a mistake to reference at the end of the sentence. This is pretty standard, on en.wp IMO. Or it should be. Firsfron of Ronchester  01:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I tried to expand the lede. Would be great if someone could look for readability issues such as jargonistic phrases! Please feel free to remove information to gain a better readability when necessary. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've made the following changes to the article. Please revert as needed. I'm at a loss of what to do with "low-motion shuffling with the skull's upper sides" (I don't really know what is meant there), "high fresh water input through the rivers." (doesn't this just mean flooding?) and "The paleoflora was known for its aquatic components, Paleoazolla and Regnellidium.[42] However, recent paleobotanical discoveries have revealed the presence of a more diverse range of plants associated with these water bodies, including pteridophytes, gymnosperms, and various angiosperms." (the mention of aquatic plants, or rather, only discussion of aquatic flora, seems discordant with the discussion of a land-based predator). Firsfron of Ronchester  20:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

@Firs: Thank you for all these corrections and very helpful comments. I hope its more understandable now. I've removed the water plants and the overly geology-technical sentence with the water input (it dosn't necessarily mean flooding), it dosn't really matters in this article. @Funk: Thanks for making useful by fixing the ultralarge eyes, good work :-) --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Heh, I think the eye is still a bit too large, actually. And I even had to remove claws from all the fingers, I don't understand how a scientific paper can have such obvious errors in their illustrations! FunkMonk (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I couldn't find anything else left to nitpick. Considering the corresponding Carnotaurus article is already an Excellent article, I don't think there's any barrier to GA. Who wants to submit it? Firsfron of Ronchester  06:57, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, I have submitted it now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)


 * There's a new paper coming out on Carnotaurus, the accepted manuscript is available here: http://app.pan.pl/article/item/app20110129.html FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see it's already implemented! That's fast. And by the way, now Acta Polonica uses a free CC license too, so we can use all their images and text. Pretty crazy, anyone know when this happened? FunkMonk (talk) 02:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * That is really good news! Must had happened in 2012. Are only the newer articles that contain the CC-license note are free? We may can not use the skull-and-neck-reconstruction image published in the new Carnotaurus paper, because the skull images are just taken from other, non-free papers, or am I mistaken? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It is a general copyright note on their site. But I doubt it works retroactively, I have sent them a mail about this... I think all future papers would be free. As for "borrowed" images from other papers, the manuscript versions don't seem to have proper image descriptions, so it's hard to say... FunkMonk (talk) 14:42, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I already got an answer: "Thanks for your inquiry. Free CC licence was officially implemented by our journal relatively recently (2012). Nonetheless, basically the same practical use of copyrighted material published in APP worked for long time, allowing people to use, distribute, and reproduce materials published in Acta Palaeontologica Polonica provided the original author and source are credited. It it the Institute of Paleobiology who held the copyrights and since we transformed this into open CC licence my guess is that there should be no problem to use also archival issues (available online for free) using the same CC licence.


 * I am cc: this message to the Director of the Institute of Paleobiology (publisher of the journal) just to let him comment if my explanation needs additional clarification." FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'll just place this new free paper on ceratosaur palaeobiology here, so that we don't forget it, it has stuff that would be relevant for both this and the Ceratosaurus FA. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Popular culture
User:Pteranadons kindly contributed a new popular culture section. I have some information about the quite accurate Carnotaurus reconstruction in the motion picture film Dinosaur Valley girls that could be added to that section. But it would still be a incomplete list of popular depictions; imho we can not list some depictions while being silent about all the others. Any ideas? Would it be better to remove that section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:15, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * J. Spencer removed the section entirely, which I'm ok with, but it seems to me that this is one of those few dinosaurs that could have a worthwhile pop culture section: there's sourceable commentary on the Disney depictions (both the film and the attraction); if you have sourceable commentary about other depictions, we could actually have a robust pop culture section which, ideally, would educate readers or say something about how the genus has been depicted in the media. I've removed the source to Metacritic, which did not verify the content it was supposed to source (no mention of Carnotaurus on that page). Firsfron of Ronchester  20:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Hm, I have an article about this dinosaur valley girls stop-motion film, discussing how the Carnotaurus model was made, but it is nothing really special in there … I also wasn't able to find a source for the Chameleon-Carnotaurus in Crichtons "The Lost World" novel. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

copyright issue?
The photo File:Carnotaurus Sastrei.JPG was submitted as "my own work" but appears to be that person's photo of someone else's sculpture. Is that clearly free of copyright issues? I'm no expert on these matters - was just surprised that the provenance was so informal. -- Scray (talk) 21:41, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It isn't necessarily always a problem, but I can see there is no freedom of panorama for sculptures in Argentina where the photo is from: This means the image will have to be deleted. I'll replace it. FunkMonk (talk) 21:45, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Skull width
The descriptions in this article emphasize the depth and robustness of the skull, but it's still quite unclear in the article how "wide" this animal's skull actually was. In the Kenosha Dinosaur Museum, the skull (and mandible) appears quite narrow from side-to-side. However, other images of the skull turned up by Google appear to show a much broader skull, which is more what I would expect from the descriptive text of both the skull and the neck. Is the Kenosha photo distorted, or maybe at a poorly representative angle? Are the wide-skull restorations mistaken? Is the condition of the single known skull such that people simply are restoring it in different ways? --170.145.0.100 (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The skull is laterally compressed during fossilisation, most notably in its anterior portion. This compression was big enough to displace several bones; e.g., the maxillae and premaxillae are shifted closer to the midline of the skull. I think this makes it difficult to reconstruct its width. In such cases, paleontologists will need to examine skulls of closely related species that are not as badly crused to reconstruct the width. Complete skulls of Carnotaurus relatives are only known since a few years, so newer reconstructions would be more likely to be correct than older ones. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response (I'm the OP, at a different IP at the moment). Are you familiar with the anterior-view illustration of Carnotaurus in All Yesterdays, the 2012 book by Naish, Conway, and Kosemen? I just saw it a couple days ago, was surprised at how narrow it appeared in both the skull and the pelvis, and it reminded me of the "narrow skull" photo in this article. Is the reconstructed width of these features still fairly arbitrary for this genus (within reason), and any others that are known from few individuals that were significantly compressed during preservation? --2602:304:AF8E:3C29:21C:B3FF:FEBF:8611 (talk) 16:09, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not an expert, I don't know. You could ask Scott Hartman (http://skeletaldrawing.com/), he should know that. You may wish to read the description section of the Deinonychus article; this is another genus where the skull reconstruction is controversial, showing how difficult it could be to reconstruct the exact proportions. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


 * This is an issue addressed in Méndez, A.H. 2014. "The cervical vertebrae of the Late Cretaceous abelisaurid dinosaur Carnotaurus sastrei". Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 59(3): 569–579. The skull as a whole of Carnotaurus was clearly more narrow than that of Majungasaurus and the snout was narrower still. Paul (2010) shows a reconstruction trying to compensate for deformation. Although this makes the snout quite broad in top view it is still essentially elongated as with most theropods, not "frog-like". However, the Kenosha mount seems not to be based on a high quality cast.--MWAK (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

On the hands...
Should we reconstruct the hands of Carnotaurus like how we have them in the article now or should we use the "flesh mitten"-style? I don't know if there's a consensus on how to reconstruct the hands, so maybe we should determine one? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there's little use for us to determine anything if scientists haven't. Unless some kind of mummified hand is found, we'll never know. FunkMonk (talk) 20:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Carnotaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://dinosauria.com/dml/dmlf.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 21:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Carnotaurus. 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/20120309082056/http://www.proyectodino.com.ar/pdfs/900-0083.pdf to http://www.proyectodino.com.ar/pdfs/900-0083.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130403165615/http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app57/app20110129_acc.pdf to http://www.app.pan.pl/archive/published/app57/app20110129_acc.pdf
 * Added tag to http://141.213.232.243/bitstream/2027.42/41259/2/C31-1.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR
Looking at this early version, the article appears to have been written in British English. Was there a reason it was changed? --John (talk) 06:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. If nobody objects, I intend to restore UK English per MOS:RETAIN in a few hours before this goes TFA. --John (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2017 (UTC)


 * The version you linked seems to contain a mixture between British and American English. British English seems to appear only in the "Popular culture" section (which has been removed serveral versions later)? I do not see that British English is prevalent. For example, there are American spellings like "characterized" or "paleobiology". But why is this important in the first place? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:05, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, after your edit, we now have a mixture, since there are many American spellings left. Are you going to improve on that, or can we just head back to American English? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not make any edit that changed the variety of spelling without checking here. In the version I linked, there is also "metre". "Characterized" and "paleobiology" exist in British English as well. It's important that Wikipedia respects different spelling dialects. It's summed up in MOS:RETAIN. --John (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The current article is a very different one from that ancient stub. You could argue that since the animal is from a Spanish-speaking country, but most English language articles about it are with American spelling and published in American journals (including the original description), there is better reason to keep it American than British. In any case, as mentioned above, British English does not use "paleo", but "palaeo", so there is no indication the original article was even written with one variety in mind, by any single person (rather just a hodgepodge of spellings accumuating over time). The only clear UK spelling in that version seems to be "colour"; "metre" is simply the spelling used by the conversion template, and not actually spelled out in the plain text. FunkMonk (talk) 01:29, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The version linked to wasn't a stub. MoS compliance is a FA criterion. This should have been picked up way before TFA. --John (talk) 09:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to spend time on providing evidence that the article was originally written in British English (I am not convinced yet) and, if there is any such evidence, on consistently changing all spellings in the article, then I have no objections to that. I would like to spend my time on more important things, however. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * As stated above, there is a single UK spelling (colour) and one US spelling (paleo), so no convincing case has been made that the linked version was supposed to be in UK English. It was a chimaera to begin with, so a choice had to be made, which Jens did when he started using US English. But yes, it should be made consistent now in any case. The trivial pop culture section where "colour" appeared has been entirely nuked, though, so that problem doesn't exist anymore. FunkMonk (talk) 00:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Victory!
This is now an featured article! Carnotaurus, theropod, and Dinosauria fans rejoice!208.114.45.44 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Sorry if this sounds silly)208.114.45.44 (talk) 01:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * It has been a featured article since 2014. It is only now that it is on the mainpage, though. FunkMonk (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * D...like them both comments, wikilove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.88.211.139 (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2017 (UTC)


 * New paper that could be cited: FunkMonk (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carnotaurus. 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/20120516073426/http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=73 to http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=73
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120516073408/http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=74 to http://www.taxonsearch.org/dev/taxon_edit.php?Action=View&tax_id=74

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Stoa
Does anybody no about something called the stoa. Its some kind of Nonsense cryptid aka a (stupid living Carnotaurus). This would be something we could put in the cryptid list or here somewhere in like a fiction section. I might disagree with the last one.

Broken reference link
The link to a pdf in Reference #2 simply leads to a 404. 152.7.255.196 (talk) 13:59, 14 October 2019 (UTC)