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) <!-- Template:~ Luigi Gaskell

Largest meat-eating dinosaur?

 * Whitch is the largest meat-eating dinosaur: Mapusaurus of Spinosaurus?
 * Spinosaurus. Mapusaurus isn't even larger than Giganotosaurus, despite the errors of some news stories.Dinoguy2 23:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right about Spinosaurus being bigger than Mapusaurus. But Mapusaurus is bigger than either Giganotosaurus or Tyrannosaurus according to This Link. What do you make of It? I would suggest changing the article to explicitly say that Mapusaurus is bigger than Giganotosaurus. Cheers. Sincerely, --Johnny89 00:56, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That news artivle is much more certain on the issue than the actual paper. The largest Mapusaurus individual is represented by only a few bones, so deciding whether or not it was larger than Giganotosaurus is nearly impossible. The authors compare the largest femur length to the largest known femur of Gig, and it's a whopping 2 cm longer. If you were to assume all other proportions of both animals were the same, they'd be essentially the exact same size. Guessing beyond that is going too far, I think. Dinoguy2 06:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Dinoguy2. Dinosaur Fan (talk) 08:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for restoration
Hi - thanks & well done Spinosurus - I was about to ask why we had a deletion, here. Thanks for reverting. - Ballista 06:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mapusaurus2.jpg
Image:Mapusaurus2.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

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:  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.

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)