Talk:Oxalaia

Publication
Is there any evidence that this paper has been published yet? It's still listed under future issues on the official web site and an ISSN search for the provided number (ISSN 0001-3765) doesn't return it. This looks like it might still be a nomen nudum. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:36, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * On this note, I just realised this is the most recently named genus of dinosaur to be nominated for FA,, if you hadn't noticed. I think it will hold that distinction for a while... FunkMonk (talk) 00:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well-spotted! I had not noticed that, indeed most of the other FA dinosaurs were named before the 21st century. Also, funny thing: when I saw that a "Publication" section on this article's talk page had been updated, I thought it meant new material from the dinosaur had been found/described. Heh, got really excited there for a second. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  00:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, aww, sorry to disappoint you! If more spinosaurid material is found in the formation, it'll probably be another part of the skeleton, and we'll have the Irritator/Angaturama situation all over again... FunkMonk (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, it makes sense that newer dinosaurs rarely get FAs, there's no enough literature to support it a lot of the time. Microraptor and Anchiornis are prime candidates, but neither is more recent than this.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 02:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * This article is probably also more stable than those of other recently named genera because so little of it is known, and therefore little research can be done on it. Add to that it was probably also lost in the Brazil Museum fire, and there will probably be few possible updates to make here. I noticed this was the most recent genus to become an FA because I was considering which troodont article to expand (we have no troodont FAs), and the contender I found most likely, Xixiasaurus (mainly due to the many free images and lack of controversy in the literature) is from 2010, so still older... FunkMonk (talk) 02:16, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Valid genus?
Hmm, let's see, 5.5 to 7 tons in weight, 39 to 46 feet in length, sound pretty similar in size to Spinosaurus. In fact, couldn't these fossils represent simply a smaller Brazilian species of this genus? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Size is a pretty flimsy basis for synonymisation. And just because one bone of a skeleton is similar, this says absolutely nothing about the rest of the skeleton. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 7 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Also, the concept "genus" has no operational definition, so the notion of "simply being another species of a genus" is scientifically meaningless.--MWAK (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Size
As apparently this theropod reaches the size of 12-14 meters in length, it would not only be the largest theropod of Brazil but it's even in the top 3 of the largest known theropods (surpassing icons like Carcharodontosaurus and Tyrannosaurus). Should we emphasize this aspect in the article (because currently we have the impression that it's a random dinosaur)? --Ellicrum (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Only if the source does, and it appears it doesn't. FunkMonk (talk) 15:58, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Scale chart caption
I changed the caption on my scale chart from:
 * "Size compared to a human, with big caveats based on the paucity of remains to work with"

to:
 * "Size compared to a human, with a hypothetical silhouette due to the small amount of known material"

because even as a native English speaker, I had to look up what those words meant. I think that this makes more sense ("hypothetical silhouette" as opposed to "big caveats"), but I am willing to listen to input on this. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 17:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * The former sentence was also unnecessarily convoluted. FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Casliber suggested that sentence in the peer review. I thought it was a bit too elaborate as well, don't know why I didn't change it. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed the caption again, since it was supposed to warn of the speculative nature of the size estimate, not the shape of the silhouette. ▼PσlєοGєєк  ƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼  18:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Art
The art is does not look very accurate, the legs don't look like they'll be able to support the body weight and looks straight up cartoonish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.151.205.200 (talk) 16:26, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * You might want to catch up on Spinosaurus' make over (which this was based on). Since it is very speculative, I wonder if the fossil image (or diagram) should have been used on the front page instead, though. FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

El oxalaia y el sigilmasaurus no son validos
El oxalaia y el sigilmasaurus no son validos y son mismo que el spinosaurus 190.38.133.96 (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)