User talk:SlvrHwk/Archive 1

Ways to improve Sierraceratops
Hello, SlvrHwk,

Thank you for creating Sierraceratops.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Dear SlvrHwk, I've reviewed your new article on Sierraceratops. I think it is an acceptable start for an article, so I'm marking it as reviewed.  But you only have one reference cited. The cited reference is a good one, and I realize the discovery is so new that there may not be any other available references to cite.   But it would be good to add additional references when they become available if you can.   Otherwise someone might contest the subject's notability."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with. Remember to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

PopePompus (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Kem Kem group dinosaurs
It is a crime against humanity that there are no organized expeditions to Morocco to find more about what dinosaurs existed in the Kem Kem group. 98.18.209.136 (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Maehary, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Type locality. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Iyuku
How did you know Iyuku is the Kirkwood dryosaurid? Do you have access to its description? If so, can you add the etymology and a cladogram if possible? Atlantis536 (talk) 16:21, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi ! I do have the describing paper. I'll add the etymology in a moment. There actually isn't a cladogram in the paper. It seems like it would be very similar to the one in Poole (2015), though. I've contacted the lead author about it. Hope this helps. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Apparently a more detailed analysis is in preparation, so there currently is no cladogram. For now, maybe this could be used (from Poole, 2015)?


 * -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Will add. Thanks! Atlantis536 (talk) 00:33, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Iyuku tibia
Hi, I noticed that you edited the part of the "Paleobiology" section of the Iyuku article about the estimated length of the subadult tibia. It seems to me, though, that these are two different estimates of the length of the same specimen, AM 6030, rather than two specimens. Forster et al. state in the section "The ontogenetic stage of Iyuku specimens" that: "AM 6030 is a relatively large tibia lacking a portion of its shaft. Its total length, based on complete tibiae from the collection, is estimated to be at least 42 cm, or five times the length of the largest juvenile tibia from the quarry site (...)". But in a later section describing the tibia they state: "(...) an isolated left tibia from a larger but still immature individual (AM 6030) was collected in 1986 from a sandstone unit on the Kirkwood cliffs. This tibia is missing part of its shaft, but is estimated to be ~35 cm long, or nearly four times the length of the largest juvenile specimen from the quarry, based on measurements of the proximal and distal ends". Macrochelys (talk) 21:49, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * You're right. I reverted my edit. It seems really strange that they would give two completely unrelated estimates for the same bone in different spots in the paper. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems not to be the only such case, for some reason the juvenile tibia they are comparing AM 6030 to (AM 6089) also has two different estimates of length provided in the paper (8.4 cm v. 89.2 mm). Regards--Macrochelys (talk) 22:31, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

"Possibly a bird" labels on List of dinosaur genera
I was honestly wondering whether to keep them or not, so why did you re-add them after the IP removed them? Atlantis536 (talk) 00:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I don't see a problem with keeping the notes, and they seem helpful. A lot of the IP edits on that page aren't beneficial, and I thought that might be the case here. But if you would rather not have the labels, that's fine with me. I don't have a preference. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started
Hello, SlvrHwk. Thank you for creating Mbiresaurus. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with. Please remember to sign your reply with ~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Elemgasem
The reason why I added it to the Chonan languages category is because it is named after a Tehuelche god of the same name, and Tehuelche is associated with Chonan, even if the taxon is not a language. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 18:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)


 * A solution proposed on the discord server was to create a new category along the lines of "organisms named after indigenous languages of the Americas". This would be a better fit for Elemgasem and the several other animals in the "Chonan languages" category. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:18, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You mean like, replacing the "Chonan languages" category with the proposed "Organisms named after indigenous languages of the Americas"? If so, then I shall do that. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 22:24, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * 👍 -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's also a lot of other articles that fall under the category "[insert indigenous language]", such as Category:Mapuche language, Category:Quechuan languages (including the corresponding subcategory Category:Quechua words and phrases), and Category:Aymaran languages. Feel free to help me recategorize the articles if you like. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 23:25, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, FYI, this only applies to scientific names. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 00:19, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Guanaco have both categories (Quechua words and phrases and Organisms . . . of the Americas)? Since the species name, L. guanicoe, comes from a Quechua word? SlvrHwk (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

OVERLINKING
Hi, thanks for your work, but PLEASE stop linking common terms like "United States" and "United Kingdom". Tony (talk)  03:18, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up about this issue. Out of curiosity, though, to what extent does this apply? For example, should the link to 'Argentina' (and 'Madagascar', 'North America', etc.) be removed from Yatenavis? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Lists of dinosaurs by continent
Hey, I'm currently working on expanding the "Lists of dinosaurs by continent" pages for 2022. There's just one problem: someone already rewrote List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs to include a table for the dubious dinosaurs, instead of just spelling them out with a list like on the other continent pages as well as Enantiornithes, which is my primary inspiration for those pages. I honestly have no opinion on the matter, so I want to ask: do you think I should give the dubious dinosaurs a table, or just keep them with a list? Miracusaurs (talk) 01:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * On second thought, I'll make everything like the Enantiornithes page instead. Is that alright with you? Miracusaurs (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's fine with me. I agree that a list is more suitable for this scenario, rather than a table. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
Back in 2019, I was the one who usually wrote new dinosaur pages, updated the List of dinosaur genera, updated taxonomy templates, added cladograms, and updated the Category:Lists of dinosaurs by landmass page. Now you’re doing much the same thing, and I’d just like to say you’re doing a much better job than me. In fact, if I were to retire for any reason, I’m sure high-quality new dinosaur pages would still be diligently added to Wikipedia. You created 75% of all new dinosaur pages for the first half of 2023! Keep up the good work! Atlantis536 (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Aw, thanks—it's good to know my work is appreciated. Your efforts have certainly been one of the main inspirations for my contributions! -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Aww, really? Now I know why your work is really similar to mine! Atlantis536 (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Hey, about Alamosaurus?
Why is it assumed that Alamosaurus came from South America instead of Asia when the latter shares far more fauna with North America compared to South America? 98.18.209.86 (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Not SlvrHwk, but, in short, Alamosaurus has been found to be more closely related to South American taxa such as Pellegrinisaurus in several recent phylogenetic analyses, and the presence of hadrosauroids in South America suggests an exchange route opened up between North America and South America in the Late Cretaceous. The recent discovery of the basally-branching hadrosauroid Gonkoken not only confirms that yes, this trade route did exist, but it existed for far longer than previously thought, appearing even before the appearance of true hadrosaurids. This claim certainly isn’t “r*tarded” [as you said it to be].
 * Also, are you the guy who claimed Kelumapusaura and Patagopelta were “lies” when your unsourced speculation about North American abelisaurids and South American ceratopsids were debunked? Well, guess what, the evidence for the Late Cretaceous American interchange is growing, but it still doesn’t include all the groups you claimed were involved. Even if you don’t believe it, you still have to accept it. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Atlantis536 explained this quite well. Also note that the Asian origin hypothesis has not yet been explicitly discounted. However, the ever-growing body of scientific research favors a South American origin as the more viable theory. This is further supported by the existence of Patagopelta and the Austrokritosauria—close relatives of North American nodosaurines and kritosaurins, respectively—in South America. Unfortunately, the nearly abysmal state of titanosaur phylogenies certainly doesn't clear things up, so whether Alamosaurus is more closely related to Asian or South American taxa is difficult to determine. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:45, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * How and when would the ancestors of Alamosaurus, Patagopelta and Austrokritosaurs have been able to travel across South America to North America and vice versa? 98.18.209.86 (talk) 07:08, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * A chain of islands existed in what is now Central America, and those taxa would’ve dispersed through them, possibly via rafting; this is not unusual and has been documented for example in island turtles. Gonkoken, one of the more basal immigrants, may have diverged from other hadrosauroids in the Turonian, suggesting the corridor was open since then. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * So that means Austrokritosauria or at least Saurolophinae existed as far back as the Turonian and traveled into South America alongside the ancestor of Patagopelta while the ancestor of Alamosaurus traveled into North America at the same time. 98.18.209.86 (talk) 19:02, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * The multitaxic dispersal events did not all happen simultaneously. As the Gonkoken description paper explains, it likely diverged from North American hadrosauroids in the Turonian (~91 Ma), while austrokritosaurs diverged from North American saurolophines later in the Santonian (~85 Ma). The Patagopelta description suggests a late Campanian divergence from North American nodosaurids. Given the age of Alamosaurus, it is possible that it diverged from South American titanosaurs around that time as well. -SlvrHwk (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I doubt that dinosaurs were able to travel across North and South America during the late Campanian, so it is more likely that actually the ancestors of Alamosaurus traveled from South America into North America while the ancestors of Patagopelta and Austrokritosauria traveled from North America into South America during the Santonian. 98.18.209.86 (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Why exactly do you doubt the dispersal happened in the Campanian? As SlvrHwk explained, that is the most likely date of divergence for Alamosaurus and Patagopelta. (But, then again, the fossil record is patchy, so a Santonian divergence isn’t completely out of the question.) Atlantis536 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * You can have whatever opinions you want about paleontology and dinosaur diversification, dispersal, etc., but Wikipedia requires a professional, academic approach to the presentation of information based on valid, published sources. Since much of the recent research strongly supports a South American origin for Alamosaurus, this point cannot be discounted on the page. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * At the time of the Campanian, Ceratopsids were extremely abundant across North America, so it would make more sense that the ancestors of Alamosaurus and Patagopelta to have traveled across the continents before ceratopsids existed. 98.18.209.86 (talk) 03:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What does the diversification of ceratopsids have to do with Alamosaurus and Patagopelta? Due to niche partitioning, ceratopsids were able to coexist with ankylosaurs and titanosaurs just fine, for example with Triceratops and Denversaurus in Hell Creek, and Sinoceratops and Zhuchengtitan in China. Atlantis536 (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Ceratopsids were too successful and abundant in North America at the time of the Campanian for them to have not traveled into South America alongside the ancestor of Patagopelta while the ancestor of Alamosaurus did the opposite, Sinoceratops proves that they were capable of adapting to new land. 98.18.209.86 (talk) 11:11, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that ceratopsids (as well as other marginocephalians like basal ceratopsians and pachycephalosaurs) were restricted to Laurasia (North America, Asia, and possibly Europe) throughout their entire existence. It’s possible that there were dietary restrictions preventing them from conquering Gondwana (South America, Africa, Australia, and Antarctica). Also, unless ceratopsids and nodosaurids had some sort of symbiosis going on, there was no requirement for them to join Patagopelta. Atlantis536 (talk) 11:28, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why would nodosaurids travel into South America to meet abelisaurids and megaraptorans if ceratopsids couldn’t? 98.18.209.86 (talk) 13:07, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Nodosaurids didn’t go to South America to “meet” abelisaurids or megaraptorans because they aren’t sentient like humans who travel far to meet friends. What is most likely is that a population of North American nodosaurids gradually expanded southward because that’s where they found food, and over a long period of time those populations rafted through the Central American archipelago before reaching South America, all by pure chance. As has been explained to you multiple times already, the presence of nodosaurids in South America does not automatically assume their contemporaries, like ceratopsids, had to join them. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why did only Sauropods, nodosaurs and hadrosaurs travel across North and South America when so many other animals did not? 98.18.209.86 (talk) 15:35, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, it’s most likely diet-related. Titanosaurs, nodosaurids, and hadrosauroids could support their transcontinental ranges because they were adaptable enough to process the plants that grew in foreign environments, while ceratopsids for example had limited ranges because they couldn’t eat the plants that grew outside their home range. Atlantis536 (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Why didn’t any predators travel across the two continents? 98.18.209.86 (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Again, environmental restrictions or pure chance. Abelisaurids and megaraptorans may have been uniquely adapted to the climate or type of prey found only on Gondwana, so they remained there. (Exceptions include European abelisaurs like Arcovenator, but that is because Europe uniquely hosted Gondwanan taxa during the Cretaceous). Atlantis536 (talk) 04:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What about Unenlagiidae, Dromaeosaurinae, Saurornitholestinae, Noasauridae and Troodontidae? 98.18.209.86 (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Unenlagiines were restricted to Gondwana, unless fragmentary taxa like Dakotaraptor and Pyroraptor belonged to that group.
 * Dromaeosaurines were restricted to North America and possibly Asia.
 * Saurornitholestines only appear to have lived in North America.
 * Noasaurids were mostly restricted to Gondwana, but Limusaurus is from Asia and the possible noasaurid Thecocoelurus is known from Europe.
 * Troodontids are only definitely known from Laurasia. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that Dakotaraptor was an unenlagiine since a South American origin for Alamosaurus is considered the most viable theory along with dinosaurs like Patagopelta and Austrokritosauria being South American dinosaurs that descended from North American ancestors. 98.18.209.86 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It’s a possibility, but from a purely scientific point of view, it is unlikely, since it was only proposed by a single study based on a rather unorthodox set of data, and the holotype of Dakotaraptor may be a chimera including parts of turtles, tyrannosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * There had to have been something else besides Titanosaurs, hadrosaurs and nodosaurs that traveled across North and South America. 98.18.209.86 (talk) 22:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is entirely possible that future fossil finds will support the existence of additional clades that dispersed to/from North/South America. As has been mentioned, the fossil record is incomplete. There are so many unknowns in paleontology—hypotheses are proposed to explain complex issues in the most parsimonious ways. Sometimes additional evidence supports them, while other times they are disproven. Most of the South American evidence for a dispersal event has been described in the past decade, and we can only assume that there is more to come from both continents. -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Short message of thanks
Hi SlvrHwk! Thank you so much for the additions to the Fujianvenator article! I had started and wanted to continue adding to it in a few subsequent edits but I wasn't able to track down the original paper and had to then immediately go to a doctor's appointment. When I came back I saw that you had added some important information that I just had to thank you for! Hope you have a wonderful day and thank you again! Ornithoptera (talk) 23:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I have repaired your cut-and-paste page move
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Woodbine Formation a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Woodbine Group. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Oh, I'm sorry! I feel really dumb that I didn't think to do that in the first place. Thanks for cleaning up after me—I'll remember to do that in the future. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:57, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

You're welcome and thank you too..
Hello and I am sorry for my late reply. I just want to say you re welcome and thank you for noticing my reconstruction of those proterochampsids.. Wish you all the best and hope maybe we can work together for some pages that haven't got images on it! DD (talk) 09:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! I really do appreciate your artistic contributions, as do other WikiProject Paleontology members. It's nice to see so much good new artwork, especially of under-appreciated species! -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:20, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you once again for you appreciation! DD (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Ddinodan's art
I noticed that whenever Ddinodan uploads art, you seem to speed it through the review process without too much critical commentary, and you and FunkMonk proceed to put them wherever possible, including taxoboxes, navigation templates, cladograms etc., even when works by other artists are available. For example, your new "paleoart reviewer" userbox uses Ddinodan's Spinosaurus and the Jormungandr walhallaensis page uses their Styxosaurus, even when works by other artists are available. Just curious, what is it about Ddinodan that makes you want to use their art over others'? 49.144.195.139 (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, that's an interesting observation that I hadn't really paid any specific attention to. I think the primary reason is just that their work is of a very high quality (both technically and artistically) and is presented in a way that makes it widely usable. This is why extensive critiques are not needed at the review pages. Since most of their taxa are shown in a simple lateral view and the images have blank backgrounds, they are easy to add to cladograms for comparison with related taxa. If other works are available from other artists, then they are either of inferior quality in regard to technical details, artistic talent, or general presentation, or I am simply unaware of them.
 * For the Jormungandr page, I used the Styxosaurus image because the only viable alternative for the presentation I had in mind was an innacurate one by Nobu Tamura. I chose Styxosaurus specifically because it helped represent the paleobiota diversity of the Pierre Shale, and the other plesiosaur life restorations represented species not known from the Pembina Member. Looking more in-depth at some other options, an environment illustration like this could work for the page, but is less comprehensive.
 * For the paleoart reviewer userbox, I tried to pick illustrations made by currently active Wikipedians (the exception here is Sordes, since there are very few pterosaur restorations in the first place, and even fewer of them in flight), while also representing taxonomic diversity. I chose Spinosaurus (the only dinosaur in the image, per discussions with other WP:PALEO members) specifically because it filled the available space in a way that "worked" for me and is easily recognizable (but without the "fame" of T. rex). The other option was PaleoGeek's restoration, which, while accurate and very well-done, is more detailed than I wanted for the compilation image (besides the fact that the user is not currently active).
 * So really, it's not that I (or other users, as far as I am aware) am especially invested in this particular artist, so much as it is that the illustrations themselves are consistently very good and are usable in many contexts. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I see. Thanks for clearing it up! 49.144.195.139 (talk) 05:48, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Birds described in 2023


A tag has been placed on Category:Birds described in 2023 indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 04:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello, SlvrHwk,
 * If a category is empty in 7 days, it will be deleted, whether or not you remove the CSD tag from it (which you shouldn't). You should see if there are any appropriate articles to put in the category, not whether or not it has a CSD tag on it. But if it is empty in a week, it will be deleted. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)


 * By the way, what is your relationship to User:Tyroxin? Liz Read! Talk! 06:55, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello, sorry for any recent confusion here. I have not interacted with Tyroxin before the ongoing category debacle for fossil taxa. The use of these categories is currently being discussed at WT:PALEO (Fossil X described in 2023). Would it be better to hold this discussion at WP:CFD? I was not directly aware of this page before now. -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I also wish to state, that I have not interacted directly with SlvrHwk prior to this. I do not contest the deletion, as per maintenance, nor fundamentally oppose the action that have caused them to be marked for deletion, as it maintains the current status quo in an ongoing discussion. If a decision for change is made, there should be no problem in recreating them. The IP user enacting the blanking could have referred to that discussion/status quo in the edit comment, but that does not invalidate the action.
 * P.S. It saddens me, that this question appears to imply the accusation of sockpuppetry. --Tyroxin (talk) 15:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just noticed that this is not one of 'my' "Fossil X described in" categories. I second, that Category:Birds described in 2023 is currently in use, and if a change was to be decided, it would possibly be a parent category. Else Category:Species described in 2022 would have to be considered 'empty' as well. --Tyroxin (talk) 15:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Spinosaurus weight
Actually the new scientist says Spinosaurus weight was like 8.4_9 tons in weight which is now like the third biggest theropod, the 7.4 weight was for 2020, and now it got bigger legs, also they put its weight 8.4 instead of 7.4 WaspDragon2000 (talk) 13:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Please make sure you have thoroughly read the relevant literature before making changes to established pages and commenting on users' talk pages. The most recent in-depth study on Spinosaurus size was Sereno et al. (2022), who estimated its body mass at ~7390 kg. If you think you have important changes that need to be made, first seek WP:CONSENSUS at the relevant talk page, and make sure you can provide reliable sources. -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:32, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2023 (UTC)