[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents#constant disruptive editing on article Spinosaurus|constant disruptive editing on article Spinosaurus]].<!–Template:Discussion notice–><!–Template:ANI-notice–> [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 15:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
[[File:Information icon4.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is [[Wikipedia:Administrators’ noticeboard/Incidents#constant disruptive editing on article Spinosaurus|constant disruptive editing on article Spinosaurus]].<!–Template:Discussion notice–><!–Template:ANI-notice–> [[User:45dogs|45dogs]] <small> (they/them) [[User talk:45dogs|(talk page)]]</small> 15:07, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
== edits over Spinosaurus size estimates ==
I have noticed your recent edit to the Spinosaurus article has disregard the older and higher estimates that are still mentioned but are less accepted so adding a higher range would settle edit disputes and fit with the current scientific understating of Spinosaurus as the general consensus for its size is 14-18 metres and 7-20 tons in weight. [[User:Teatimenew|Teatimenew]] ([[User talk:Teatimenew|talk]]) 15:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
I have nominated Goblin shark for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare “Keep” or “Delist” in regards to the article’s featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 06:08, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Duho Formation, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 22% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thanks again, and happy editing!
New papers, possibly of interest: [1] and [2]. Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:40, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Actually I’ve already added them. Honestly I was personally more convinced with the paper by Peter Falkingham and you, though I still added both. Junsik1223 (talk) 11:44, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
-
- Oh wow, that was quick! —Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:45, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
Bakonydraco has been classified as a tapejarid since 2013 (current consensus) but was classified as an azhdarchid again in 2020. So i think it it not necessary to change the taxobox based on the current consensus. Huinculsaurus (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
- Now the only reason I changed the dating to Cenomanian was because I forgot Bakonydraco, regardless of its classification. But the fact that there is still a dispute in its classification (it seems like even some papers refer it to as an azhdarchoid outside any family) suggest that it’s best to put it as latest=Santonian rather than putting it as a definitive tapejarid. Junsik1223 (talk) 15:56, 14 July 2025 (UTC)
Have you actually obtained Gigantoscorpio description as it is cited? If so is that possible to provide me that via email? Seems “A restudy of the fossil Scorpionida of the world” have mention of large leg specimen so I am interested in. Of course if you can’t that is fine as will request for the resource request. (also sorry I somewhat misunderstood size estimation discussed there) Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- To be specific, I didn’t find the whole PDF of the actual publication, but page 60 as shown from Google Books does prove that the original publication did consider its length estimate as 365 mm or 280-420 mm. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Skrifter/ZsepU-iN_WYC?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=365%20mm; https://www.google.com/books/edition/Parasitic_Micromycetes_from_the_Canary_I/EiseAQAAMAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=365%20mm
- This is consistent with what the original description paper of Brontoscorpio by Kjellesvig-Waering (1972) cited from Stormer (1963): “From the Carboniferous, Stormer (1963) described the then largest known scorpion, Gigantoscorpio willsi, which was estimated to be 365 mm in length (measured from anterior of carapace to the end of the aculeus). Vachon (in Stormer, 1963, p. 60), using the relationship of the length of the pectines to total length, arrived at a length estimate between 280-420 mm. This great variation in estimates reveals the unreliability of using the pectines as length indicators…” Junsik1223 (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Quote from original publication (in Stormer, 1963, p. 60): “For the reconstruction the median length of the holotype of Gigantoscorpio was considered to be 365 mm. Sreenivasa-Reddy (1959) has pointed out a relation between the length of the pectines and the length of the body in scorpions. Using this relation Dr. Vachon suggests to me that the specimen may have had a length 280-420 mm.” Junsik1223 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- The large leg specimen you mentioned here is probably “GSE 2174, distal podomeres from the leg of a large scorpion” (Jeram, 1994). Originally Peach (1882) considered this specimen as Glyptoscorpius, until Stormer (1963) considered this as a specimen of Gigantoscorpio (as indicated in “Cyrtoctenus gen. nov., a large late Palaeozoic Arthropod with pectinate Appendages” by Stormer and Waterston, 1968). On the other hand, the original description paper of Pulmonoscorpius by Jeram (1994) disagreed with any material being referred to Gigantoscorpio (except for its name-bearing holotype). Junsik1223 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Good to know, thank you! Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:55, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
- The large leg specimen you mentioned here is probably “GSE 2174, distal podomeres from the leg of a large scorpion” (Jeram, 1994). Originally Peach (1882) considered this specimen as Glyptoscorpius, until Stormer (1963) considered this as a specimen of Gigantoscorpio (as indicated in “Cyrtoctenus gen. nov., a large late Palaeozoic Arthropod with pectinate Appendages” by Stormer and Waterston, 1968). On the other hand, the original description paper of Pulmonoscorpius by Jeram (1994) disagreed with any material being referred to Gigantoscorpio (except for its name-bearing holotype). Junsik1223 (talk) 16:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
- Quote from original publication (in Stormer, 1963, p. 60): “For the reconstruction the median length of the holotype of Gigantoscorpio was considered to be 365 mm. Sreenivasa-Reddy (1959) has pointed out a relation between the length of the pectines and the length of the body in scorpions. Using this relation Dr. Vachon suggests to me that the specimen may have had a length 280-420 mm.” Junsik1223 (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2025 (UTC)
I have noticed your recent edit to the Spinosaurus article has disregard the older and higher estimates that are still mentioned but are less accepted so adding a higher range would settle edit disputes and fit with the current scientific understating of Spinosaurus as the general consensus for its size is 14-18 metres and 7-20 tons in weight. Teatimenew (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2025 (UTC)
