Talk:Elasmosaurus

Untitled
OK. I was creating an Elasmosur link from the trivia part of the Giganotosaurus page (to do with Transformers), and I tried to edit the page by getting rid of a picture of a bird that was there for some strange reason. Now the paleobox seems to have disappeared and no matter what I do it won't come back. It wasn't my intention to vandalise anything but I have completely screwe up the page and have no idea how to fix it. Help, anyone? SMegatron 09:03, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

weren't there elasmosaruses in Ape escape? they gave you rides over the water in the prehistoric stages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.229.32.150 (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Copy/Paste?
The caption for the appears to be copy/pasted from http://www.oceansofkansas.com/Eplatyurus.html MikeyMoose (talk) 13:16, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Then just re-word it. FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: italic title added by. No further action required (non-admin housekeeping closure). Jenks24 (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Elasmosaurus → Elasmosaurus – Please italicize the title of this article so it is consistant with other article on genera. LittleJerry (talk) 15:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That is not done by moving, but by adding Italic title FunkMonk (talk) 15:56, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Wrong title
Cryptoclidus weights about 4 elasmosaurus. Cryptoclidus should be the largest plesiosaur, while elasmosaurus is the longest. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:21, 7 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Please cite your sources. However, on the subject of size, I have removed the mention in the text regarding the precise size and weight of Elasmosaurus, on account of the source being unreliable. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Towards promotion
I've been kind of struggling to write a description section that would make sense to most readers, but kindly pointed me to one of his publications which describe elasmosaurs in more general terms. Therefore, I think the description can be finished quite soon, so the main problem left for the article is the scant history and classification sections, but  has expressed interest in working on those. As for the rest of the article, I think it looks good,, though I think we could also incorporate recent info about how plesiosaurs swam from for example these papers: FunkMonk (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll try to get to them later this week. LittleJerry (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could go ahead on History of discovery. I'm sure those two new papers will go a long way. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, strange coincidence they would be published right now when they are needed the most, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 03:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * A clarity issue I ran into is that it may be confusing that we say "elasmosaurs" rather than "elasmosaurids" throughout the article, as readers may confuse the former with Elasmosaurus itself. That would of course be misleading, since most of this info does not apply to this genus in particular, but the group as a whole. It was especially confusing in the description section, where I frequently had to go from describing the genus itself, and then to features not known from it, but from relatives. I changed all occurrences of "elasmosaurs" to "elasmosaurids" accordingly, any thoughts on this? FunkMonk (talk) 14:07, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think that's a good move. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , I'm hesitant to treat Elasmosaurus like a representative of plesiosaurs in general, given how diverse the group is. I think we should treat it more like it represents elasmosaurids, the specific group it gives its name to. LittleJerry (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what I've done here is to fill out the gaps in our knowledge about Elasmosaurus itself with what's known to be true for elasmosaurids in general. Otherwise we can only describe the neck and snout of the animal... That paper I cited for the description is about elasmosaurs in general, but it describes the flippers as general for plesiosaurs. Or are we talking past each other? FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the plesiosaur flipper movement articles. They don't appear to discuss elasmosaurids in particular nor do they use elasmosaurid specimens in their studies. Of course I have access to only one. LittleJerry (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, but the one that is free at least specifically states how it is about plesiosaurs in general. They chose a specimen with a moderate neck length so it could be representative of the group as a whole: "In addition, Meyerasaurus possesses a generalized morphotype among plesiosaurs, with a moderately long neck, so it can be considered representative of the clade Plesiosauria as a whole, which contains long- and short-necked morphotypes". The flippers seem to be pretty uniform across plesiosauria. FunkMonk (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, but I feel that information is too general for Elasmosaurus. The Everhart book gave information that could apply to plesiosauria but he relates them to the elasmosaurids. LittleJerry (talk) 19:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Both papers cite articles about elasmosaurid anatomy, so it at least seems it has been taken into account. It doesn't warrant a section, but I think at least a sentence or two under paleobiology might do. FunkMonk (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I'm slowly working my way through all the Cope-related stuff of the history section. Were you interested in writing about referred species that were later split off to their own genera, ? Because I'm thinking of leaving that for the end of the section, structure-wise, so that the first part is only about the type species (and maybe E. orientalis). And the swimming stuff looks good, ! FunkMonk (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can do that as soon as I finish up Mierasaurus and Zhuchengtitan. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:13, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, will still take me some time to finish the type species part anyway... And by the way, the Mierasaurus paper has free images, I was wondering why no one uploaded them in yet... FunkMonk (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that each of the images has a copyright in the caption.... so we don't know what's going on there... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 19:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, sheesh, even the images in the supplementary material has them. What's the point of publishing in such a journal then? FunkMonk (talk) 19:23, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've uploaded them all anyways, because their copyrightedness is questionable. Talking with Jim Kirkland on twitter he implied that all the images could be uploaded here, and the useage of the copyright symbol doesn't seem to be uniform in the paper, it seems to be in place of an @ sign. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 22:28, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * May be an issue with Commons' "precautionary principle, but I'm certainly not going to bring that up there. Speaking of images, I added some new ones to this article, both Cope's original and corrected skeletal reconstructions in full, for historical context. I think isolating them frpm the rest of the figure would be a bit manipulative in this here article, because there are also other, minor differences between them. I also added his drawings of fossils that have since been lost. FunkMonk (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , it turns out gastroliths that may have belonged to the holotype individual itself have been found, see Everthart 2005, so perhaps the feeding section should be amended accordingly? It also mentions possible stomach contents. But then there is this dissenting view, of course: Even then, one gastrolith appears to be wedged in a vertebra of the type specimen, so at least one is known. I am almost done with the discovery section, but there is an image in Cope's description that could be nice to add: The problem is, I can't see what they're identified as in the text, though they look like dorsal vertebrae. Anyone able to find reference to that place in the text, maybe ? FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Page 48: "Four anterior dorsals are in one mass (figured in plate 3)"... so yes. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:49, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Strangely, the block isn't figured in any newer papers, but perhaps it's because they have been separated since, and therefore hard tom recognise... FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure how you were able find the mention so quickly,, but I have the same issue with the images here: I assume they are neck and tail vertebrae, but can't find the figures mentioned in the text... Apart from proof-reading, I think the discovery section is done now, so I'll do a summary of the E. orientalis situation, and then perhaps the intro... FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Struggled with this one because Cope's figure labels are completely messed up, but here it is:
 * "Fig. 15. [actually 11] Cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae of Cimoliasaurus magnus (Mus. Academy Nat. Sciences) compared with, Fig. 16. [actually 12] Posterior cervical and anterior dorsal vertebrae of Elasmosaurus platyurus; the transverse processes of the former incurved by pressure."
 * Also, I'm done with my sauropod articles, so I can probably get started on Classification soon. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A minor issue - our discussion of split species is, ahem, "split" across two different sections. Do we want to keep that in Discovery and naming, or Classification? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 05:23, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Weird... As for the classification section, I think it has remained untouched from before we started working on it, so you can just ignore its current structure... I'd imagine formerly referred species t be dealt with strictly under history. FunkMonk (talk) 11:39, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, sounds good. I'll get started, but did you want to finish writing about E. orientalis? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I probably won't get to it soon, so feel free to begin. The reason I want to write about it is because there are some interesting things to say about that old restoration in the section, which supposedly shows an inaccurate orientalis... FunkMonk (talk) 16:51, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Looking very good, ! I only wish there were more free images of those specimens to illustrate the section... I'll have a look. If you want to write about the description of orientalis, feel free to do so, because I'll probably focus on what's written about it in the "boneheaded mistakes" paper, I don't really know which papers to look for as to its current status... Another thing, I'm pretty sure species names should not be bolded outside the lead section (or be used in the prose of the article body in general). We should probably make redirects for all those referred species as well... I think we should be able to nominate it for GA very soon at this rate, next week perhaps. FunkMonk (talk) 07:42, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hm, my thinking is that it would be hard to navigate the section otherwise. Any alternative suggestions? A bulleted list perhaps? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 07:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Lists within articles are also discouraged (WP:Embedded lists, especially since it is already written as prose here), but I wonder whether we could maybe divide the section into two sections; one about species that are now simply regarded as indeterminate, and are therefore still "de facto" assigned to Elasmosaurus (such as orientalis), and then another section for species that were moved to other/new genera (such as snowii)... Otherwise we can just wait and see what reviewers say, but it does look a bit "aberrant" with bolding there in the context of the rest of the article. FunkMonk (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Another option would be to have something like Species of Elasmosaurus (as we do already have for some dinosaurs). --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * That would mainly be if the article grew too large, though (100.000 kb or more, whereas we are currently at 67.000 kb). The only such article we have left is species of Allosaurus, which certainly wouldn't fit in the Allosaurus article, but species of Psittacosaurus was merged back into the Psittacosaurus after it was nominated for demotion from FA... FunkMonk (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A note on images: Williston (1906) figures a few of his specimens. I don't think we can get any for the Russian species, though... Also, just a heads-up: assuming I've done my research correctly, we're looking at 2-3 more paragraphs for the "referred species" section. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:16, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Debolded the species names. Looks alright, not too shabby. Should be done soon with the (chronologically) last of the referred species. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 01:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * it's fine with a long section I think, especially since so much space is devoted to the single type specimen anyway. Maybe there could be some kind of section breaks, maybe based on description date or geography (or as suggested above, current status), not sure. But I do think we should devote less space to species that are currently in other genera, since they should be covered in detail there, whereas we should devote more space to species that are still de facto in Elasmosaurus, since they will not be covered anywhere else. So maybe the section can be shortened that way. FunkMonk (talk) 15:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm probably not a good judge of what can be trimmed, haha..... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:24, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I can maybe make a suggestion in an edit at some point, othwerwise I'd say that for example with species that were moved to other genera, I don't think we need to know much about the circumstances of their discovery or exactly what elements they consist of, more like "A partial elasmosaurid skeleton was discovered in X and described by X in year X as E. xii, but was moved to the new genus X in X by X". Of course an oversimplification... FunkMonk (talk) 18:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Did some cutting. Let me know if you think more is necessary. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 20:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's ok for now. I'll give it a more detailed look when I proof read the article... Some kinds of section breaks would still be nice. FunkMonk (talk) 21:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Just realised I had glossed over the fact that Cope named a new order of reptiles (Streptosauria) based on his wrong orientation of the vertebrae in Elasmosaurus, and that Leidy tried to synonymise Elasmosaurus with Discosaurus, so I've added some preliminary text about this, but it has to be expanded quite a bit... I also forgot the classification section isn't finished, so nominating for GAN this week may be too optimistic. FunkMonk (talk) 16:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, I had forgotten about classification, and went off to do other articles..... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:35, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Now I've added the missing information, including some stuff about Streptosauria to the classification section, . When classification is done, I'll try to write an intro, and to make a diagram of plesiosaur neck movement which talked about. Then we should be good to go. After having looked a bit closer at the "referred species" section (I snipped "other", as everything apart from the type species is "other" per definition), I think it would make sense to have an additional "Species moved to other genera" subsection. FunkMonk (talk) 16:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll get started on classification shortly. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:00, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, I'll list the article for copy edit soon too, since the wait is usually at least a month... And by the way, have any of you seen a weight estimate of Elasmosaurus? Could be nice to add, but I have seen nothing of the sort. Also, there may be alternate length estimates, but I have seen none, apart from one stating the length of a mounted replica skeleton... FunkMonk (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * A quick look through the lit indicates a lot of estimates for other elasmosaurids, but none for Elasmosaurus itself. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * This seems to contain a discussion of the classification of Elasmosauridae, but it doesn't seem like all pages are being displayed. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:06, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I've managed to get it page-by-page. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:12, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Which pages are missing? Sometimes I've also had problems with some pages on archive.org/BDL not loading, but it is usually just temporary. But I've also tried that the pages simply weren't there... I've asked Dinosven about weight and length estimates, by the way... FunkMonk (talk) 04:34, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It was a connection thing. I've done some work on Classification, but I don't know how much of it ought to go into the Elasmosauridae article. One could argue that Elasmosaurus more or less is Elasmosauridae in early taxonomies. Also, regarding the Referred species split, I'm not sure if that would work, it may break the flow......... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 03:50, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It could probably be condensed, but yeah, as the first known member and the type genus of the group, it shouldn't be glossed over. I have also worked on some family name-giving genera for FAC, such as Ankylosaurus (with LittleJerry), Heterodontosaurus and Istiodactylus, but as you can see, the history there is heavily summarised. But these names also have a much shorter history, of course. But you could maybe look at their structures; >I don't think every revision done to the group needs a detailed mention, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * , looking again at that neck-posture diagram in Zammit 2007 (fig. 1), it seems we now have almost all these poses represented as images in the article, especially after I added that 1914 drawing with the swan-posture, so the digaram would seem a bit redundant now? On this note, there is one "correct-necked" restoration on Commons left that could be added somewhere, I can modify it to make it more correct (tail and flippers, ?), or do people think it's too crude? FunkMonk (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't think the diagram would be redundant. The paintings of the neck postures are all fantastical. The snake-like painting is certainly not well representative, as it shows the neck as coiling, which the authors do not support. We need a scientifically based diagram, showing what the neck was likely capable of. LittleJerry (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems to me, though, that the diagram is not meant to show mechanically possible neck-movements, but simply movements that have been proposed historically, including inaccurate swan and snake poses (which those old restorations represent). The text says "The functional significance of this exceedingly long neck, and its role in prey capture and feeding, has been the subject of much speculation (see Fig. 1)". So it is just a list of historical hypotheses which are not necessarily accurate. FunkMonk (talk) 15:35, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * As the article currently states The researchers concluded that lateral and vertical arches and shallow S-shaped curves were feasible in contrast to the "swan-like" S-shape neck postures which required more than 360° of vertical flexion. A shallow S-shaped curve is very different from a coiled snake neck as the painting depicts. LittleJerry (talk) 17:39, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, in that case, maybe it would be nice to only show the biomechanically possible versions in the diagram? FunkMonk (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. LittleJerry (talk) 17:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Any idea if some of the other options shown are inaccurate as well? FunkMonk (talk) 14:09, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Probably anything not within the flexing ranges. LittleJerry (talk) 23:01, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the image could do with a bit of sharpening at its borders as well. Is it just me, or do the teeth feel too short? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:44, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the teeth don't seem partciularly fang-like, so I can fix that... Could be room for it in the classification section. Also, I've wondered whether the neck in our main restoration is too short: Or maybe it can be explained by foreshortening? I did lengthen it a bit from the original version anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * How's it going with classification, ? Once it is done, and I have written the third paragraph of the lead, we should be ready for GA... I'll make that neck diagram later. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Working on a draft of Welles through Carpenter. I think I'll cover 2000s research in maybe a single paragraph, not much to say about it. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:31, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now added a third paragraph to the intro and mentioned the possible German specimen mentioned by Sven. He also mentioned that Everhart's book may state the length of the neck itself, do you see it anywhere, ? FunkMonk (talk) 02:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I will check. LittleJerry (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The length of the body is mentioned but not the neck. LittleJerry (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Other than that and the diagram, I think we're ready for GA once classification is done (maybe Elasmosaurinae could get some coverage here?). But I just noticed we have a problem with measurements; we use US English, yet we have metres and kilometres... Note I have also listed the article for copy-edit, which will probably happen soon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The "Elasmosaurinae" is a strange little mess... either way, Classification is good to go. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:30, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Great, now we only have to wait until copy-edit is done (thanks, ), and then each of us can maybe proof-read the article. I've read all of it apart from the species and classification sections yet. If anyone sees stuff missing in sections they didn't write, feel free to add. Then we go for GA, and hopefully we will have the first plesiosaur FA afterwards... A concern could be article size, but it is presently smaller than that of passenger pigeon, which was promoted last year. FunkMonk (talk) 08:59, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I've now read the species and classification sections, looks good,, and I have two questions. In species, you have a few paragraphs about Willistons research, then you go into Russian and Scandinavian finds for some paragraphs, and then back to Williston again. Is there any reason why the Williston stuff is broken up like that? Also, you mention a figure of E. serpentinus, which I assume is this one. What is the status of that specimen today? I think it would be more interesting to show than for example that Styxosaurus pelvic girdle, especially if it hasn't definitely been referred to anything else... FunkMonk (talk) 10:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't go back to Williston, do I? But there's a paragraph about Welles and Libonectes. serpentinus is discussed in paragraph 5, it is Styxosaurus now. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 15:20, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, got confused by the Ws. Doesn't it make more sense before? FunkMonk (talk) 15:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's supposed to be chronological. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 16:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, chronological as to species description date (guess the various revisions of later dates of each species also confused me)? And anything on that Williston figure? FunkMonk (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, that is the intention. As for the E. serpentinus specimen, I mention it, but it has undergone a bit more revision since then (which I will add). Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:48, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. But seems we could show it here then? On this note, I think maybe some of the info about species/specimens that ended up in other genera could be summarised/shortened further (cut info could be moved to the respective genus articles), since they already have articles where this should be explained in detail. Personally, I'd cover them all in a single paragraph here, with links to the genus articles for further info, but that's of course the other extreme... FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it could be showed. About cutting - are there any specific places in the text you have in mind? Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 22:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the main "problem" is the three paragraphs about Williston specimens that all ended up in Styxosaurus. I'm not sure we need to list every revision of their status and other details, that's for the Styxosaurus article I think, and the three paragraphs could probably be shortened and merged into one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've cut it down. I'm not sure how much more I can cut without compromising the flow of the narrative. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:45, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's good, and the copy-edit is also done. Should we send this to GAN now, and ? FunkMonk (talk) 20:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure. However my focus is currently on a few articles I never got around to... Eichstaettisaurus, Moabosaurus, Europatitan, Albertavenator, Razanandrongobe, Parasuminia...... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 21:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No problem, it'll probably take a while for anyone to pick it up anyway. But of course, you're the best one to respond to comments about the species and classification sections... I'll be working on other articles at the same time too, mainly updating Ankylosaurus before its main page appearance next month, and LittleJerry currently has bat at FAC... FunkMonk (talk) 22:01, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi,, since I'm not sure when will show up, I'll try to fix the remaining issues you listed. I think maybe the classification section could be cut by one third, but I've moved the full text to the Elasmosauridae page to preserve it. Before nominating for FAC, I'm also wondering whether a more updated length estimate could be found since our most recent one is apparently from 1952? What does the Oceans of Kansas book say, ? And Jens, I'm a bit unsure about how appropriate it is to have any of Cope's size estimations in the description section, given how wrong even his updated skeletal reconstruction was? The tail and skull are way too long, for example. FunkMonk (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Please feel free to move/remove the stuff accordingly. My thoughts here are: Since it is a published size estimate, it is relevant for this article, and the reasoning for including the 1952 estimate but not that of Cope does not appear that conclusive to me. I mean, such estimates, especially when an unknown number of vertebrae might be missing, are subjective interpretations, and because of this, it is hard to discard them. So moving the stuff into the history section? As a reader, I would generally prefer to have all size estimates in one place. I would consider splitting only if there is a source stating that Copes estimates are inaccurate, otherwise this split would be difficult to justify. Is there such a source? According to Sachs, there are 18 tail vertebrae preserved, and Cope estimated the original total number of tail vertebrae at 21. This difference does not seem that dramatic to me, actually. Even if the inaccuracy of Copes estimates can be demonstrated with sources, we could think about retaining it in the description section; all we have to do is marking it as an early, inaccurate estimate and give the reason why this is, followed by the more recent size estimates. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:22, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Everhart gives a length for "elasmosaurs" (14m) but not Elasmosaurus in particular. LittleJerry (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Awww, "elasmosaurs" is too unspecific... And Jens, I was mainly thinking of things like Cope's skull and tail estimates, which seem pulled out of thin air. I think his overall length estimate could be mentioned, but the most recent one should be probably be mentioned first, just to make it clear for the reader what is more correct. Too bad we don't have an estimate newer than 1952, though... We had another source for that length before, but I guess it just cited Welles? Also note that Everhart mentions that one reconstructed mount is 12.8 meters long, but I don't know if we can use that as an estimate for the animal itself... FunkMonk (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2018 (UTC)


 * I placed the history section first, as would seem to make sense generally, and is closer to how other animal articles are written. I left the former species section close to classification, though, as it may be very long and complicated that early in the article, and it does have more to do with classification, so perhaps good they are grouped closely. FunkMonk (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Centra
I am in the middle of copy-editing the article. I know I should probably leave the question of links to the writers or, later, the reviewers, but I do notice words that may puzzle non-experts, so I try to link them. Since this relates to an important article, Vertebra, I'm going to ping  for his input. In the section Elasmosaurus I saw the word "centra". I thought I'd try to find an article, or section of an article, to which I could link this word. I entered "centra" in the search bar, and it led to Centra, an article about a convenience store chain in Ireland. At the top of the article it said, "For other uses, see Centra (disambiguation)". So I clicked on that, and it led to a list of a few things. I clicked on Centra (anatomy), and it led to Vertebra. I did a "find" search for the word "centra", and it appears nowhere in the article. The only word that does appear is "central". I'm wondering:

(a) should the word "centra" appear somewhere in the article Vertebra, and, if not,

(b) should "centra" appear at all in the dinosaur article? FunkMonk, is "centra" a word that used exclusively in paleontology? or

(c) should I not worry about linking "centra" at all?

Besides that, I see that the word "body" (and, later, "bodies") is defined and used often in Vertabra, so I think it would make sense to link the word "bodies" to Vertebra. I also wonder why "bodies" needs to be in quotation marks. – Corinne (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Centra is the plural of centrum, which is in the section Vertebra. As for why "body" is in quotes, it's just an approximate layman term, because the technical definition of a vertebral body includes more than just the centrum. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 17:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, centra is centrum, like fora and forum, and "body" is a common name for this. It is the main part of a vertebra. FunkMonk (talk) 18:01, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Elasmoraurus discovered in 1988, Courtenay, British Columbia, Canada
This article suggests only one elasmosaur fossil exists. I do not see the Courtenay, Canada Elasmosaur mentioned.

See e.g. this news article

https://vancouverisland.ctvnews.ca/courtenay-curator-pushes-elasmosaur-for-b-c-s-first-ever-provincial-fossil-1.4179405

Can someone add this to the article?


 * "Elasmosaur" usually refers to the larger grouping (Elasmosauridae), it is not clear if Elasmosaurus itself is meant. We would need to wait for a scientific paper anyways, as news articles on paleontological topics are often not reliable. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I did look for info on this back when we wrote the article, that specimen is an unnamed elasmosaur (nicknamed the Puntledge River elasmosaur, you can Google for more info), not necessarily Elasmosaurus itself. We have a Commons picture of a cast here and the fossil skull: FunkMonk (talk) 05:54, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I've been to courtenay and seen the fossil, its okay, and I believe its currently being described, and I don't think it will end up being Elasmosaurus itself. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 23:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Weight estimate
Pinging for discussion: I remain unconvinced by the estimate of a 2.8 MT body weight, which is ultimately sourced to Everhart (2000). Everhart applied the result to a 9 m elasmosaurid in 2000, and then to a 10 m elasmosaurid in 2001, but either way these are not specific estimates for Elasmosaurus and only for indeterminate elasmosaurids from the Pierre Shale. Yes, Elasmosaurus is from the Pierre Shale, but so is Styxosaurus. Hence, I don't think that these estimates can be used. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 06:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well I am convinced of your rebut, so I’ll just remove that information, since I do understand that it may not be reliable. Junsik1223 (talk) 06:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)