Archives

Archive 1

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Hope you're doing well.

I'm a YouTuber that makes videos on a game called ARK: Survival Ascended and i've been enjoying viewing your size comparison images of all the dinosaurs. I'm currently making a video showcasing how a lot of the dinosaurs could be improved upon in the game and it would be a great privilege to have your permission to use some of your images to show a side by side comparison to the dinosaurs in game? I'd completely understand if not. I would give full credit to you and the source of the images ofcourse.

I look forward to your reply. :) BEYplaysgames (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out! Since all of my images are licensed under CC BY-SA 4.0, you technically don't have to ask for permission but I appreciate the gesture regardless. I would be happy if you used my diagrams, provided proper attribution is given. As a quick note, I have been slowly working on updating all of my pre-2023 diagrams to a newer format, so if you have an idea of which ones you want to use I could update those, if applicable. Or just use them as the are. Cheers, -SlvrHwk (talk) 14:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!

And thank you so much, i'll leave a link to your wiki page in the description of my video and mention your username on screen if that is good for you?

Oh lovely, i'm pretty happy either way. I was looking to use the Dilophosaur and the Quetzalcoatlus. Thanks :) BEYplaysgames (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for accidentally undoing your good changes/fixes to Newtonsaurus, which I had no objections to, I was on mobile and I didn't see them and only thought your changes related to the images. Thanks for all your great work over the years, I really appreciate it. Cheers. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:53, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologize, I assumed something like that was the case. And thank you for the kind words. Best, -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:47, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you revert my edit on Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauridae? In the source I cited, they unranked Tyrannsauridae and some other taxa, and proposed a new ichnofamily Tyrannosauripodidae under the unranked clade Tyrannosauridae. A family can't contain an ichnofamily, that is taxonomically not correct. Jako96 (talk) 06:57, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The edits were problematic for several reasons. A single paper (especially one not focused on [bio]taxonomy) is insufficient to warrant changes to the consensus for taxonomy templates. Applying this to basically every template for clades within Tyrannosauridae is also strange, as the source doesn't even mention or discuss most of them, let alone their 'rank' (does that source explicitly mention 'unranking' Tyrannosauridae in the first place?). Regardless, the suffix "-idae" effectively implies "family-group" by definition ([1], 7: 29.2). You are correct that a family can't contain an ichnofamily, but not in the sense you are proposing; ichno(/para-)taxa should not be assigned to biotaxa at all (i.e., Tyrannosauripodidae to Tyrannosauridae). You can see view a relevant discussion here. It seems to ultimately be a fault of the original publication for proposing this systematic classification, and there is no reason to widely implement its approach. -SlvrHwk (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hi there i am just wondering why the webp i suggested got replaced with png again the big png 80 times larger in file size. btw said png seems to be scaled up by 400% in dimensions so that adds to the size. 2600:8803:740D:2700:9AB4:D475:AB6E:3131 (talk) 19:27, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...are you referring to Chakisaurus? Why would a low-resolution image be preferred over a high-resolution one? There is no reason not to use the artist's original upload. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:00, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

ok that makes sense. also why is my name red i am confused? 2600:8803:740D:2700:F88C:B1C:70D:DC60 (talk) 00:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Could you do a size comparison of the Beast of Lesotho? Also known as Precious or the Lesotho brachyopid, this animal is one of the largest temnospondyls of all time, measuring 7 m (23 ft) in length. Note I say one of, because I personally believe the upper estimate of Prionosuchus (26-30 feet, which is 8-9 m) is the largest amphibian of all time, even though paleontologists are skeptical that it may be an overestimate. We already have a BoL size comparison, but it's based off of a Metoposaurus model, so it's inaccurate.-https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Brachyopoid_size_comparison_with_human.png

You can decide whether it is in a terrestrial setting or aquatic one.

Sources: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277669571_A_giant_brachyopoid_temnospondyl_from_the_Upper_Triassic_or_Lower_Jurassic_of_Lesotho https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/sgf/bsgf/article/176/3/243/88426/A-giant-brachyopoid-temnospondyl-from-the-Upper 2600:4040:5100:FC00:69B2:C57E:12F1:4817 (talk) 21:09, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your interest, but unnamed fragmentary taxa are not currently a priority for me, so I won't be able to do this one (at least right now). -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:05, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, that works for me! 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1FA:93A:2850:1321 (talk) 16:01, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do I add into the brackets of the paleofauna of lourinha or create a new one? the sources I have are legit and I'm just trying to get the information of new finds out there and show that some dinosaurs were in more than one member. but I don't know how to put them in the boxes where they belong and it makes it look broken and disjointed. I'm going to edit it again, the information IS NOT USELESS but I admit I don't have a clue how to put it in there Themanguything (talk) 20:44, 17 September 2025 (UTC) also how I do I properly link stuff like template? last one my mentor gave didn't do crap Themanguything (talk) 20:52, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and please stop undoing my edits, please. the information is not useless. there's barely any info on t utahensis so I was only trying to share more. the information of the megaraptoran gives it more context and the updated age of the Lago colhue huapi formation is important given its history of uncertainty regarding its age.

if its formatted poorly then just reformat it or tell how to do it right but deleting useful and important information based purely off your whim is BS Themanguything (talk) 21:04, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your frustration. Please keep in mind, I never said your contributions were useless, but that, in their current state, they are unusable. Unfortunately, I do not have the time to go through tens of edits and ensure proper grammar, structure, formatting, citation style, etc. in all of them. Many of the edits introduced redundant content that did not contribute to the page. I tried to keep what I could on some pages with quick reworks, but many were beyond my capacity in the moment. I'm not denying the legitimacy of your sources, nor am I questioning your intentions. However, I must request, on behalf of other editors—and more importantly, the readers—that you ensure that your contributions include (1) proper grammar, (2) consistency with Wikipedia's Manual of Style, and (3) appropriate use of templates (especially for citations) when applicable. If you don't understand how to do those things, please practice in your sandbox first and/or ask on the relevant talk pages. It is helpful to view the source code on other relevant pages to understand templates. Visual editing can be easier for beginners if you want to edit tables. I personally use ProveIt to add citations (Wikipedia has other similar tools - visual editor has one built-in), since you can simply give it a URL/DOI and it will format the entire citation more-or-less accurately, including the title, authors, date, journal, etc. Using a spell-checker will also greatly improve your edits. -SlvrHwk (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

how do I make new boxes in like the boxes brackets that list paleofauna? I can fix my mistakes on lourinha and javelina and can use that for the megaraptoran and lithostrotian on the LCH formation page.

I spend a lot of time researching and getting my sources together. if my formatting is an issue than please let me know and show me my wrong and I'll fix my mistake. but just deleting it and trashing my hard work with no notice is BS. Themanguything (talk) 01:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What 'boxes' are you referring to? The paleofauna tables? For new editors it is probably easiest to edit in the visual editor, but again, make sure you reference those on other pages for consistency. You can copy tables from one page/section to another and make changes as applicable. The basics of the template code are here. As far as grammar goes, let me just reference these two sentences you added to Elosuchus:

"In that study larsson et Al extrapolated an 8 meter length for elosuchus from a skull estimated at 108 cm. In 2022 a new specimen was referred to elosuchus"

And here is a corrected version with proper grammar and preferred formatting. There should be a comma after "In that study..." since it is an introductory phrase, "Larsson" is someone's name so must be capitalized, "et Al" should be formatted "et al." (all lowercase, with a period after "al."), convert templates should be used for measurements, generic names are always capitalized and italicized ("Elosuchus", not "elosuchus"; specific names are always italicized but never capitalized), "In 2022..." is another introductory phrase, and, needless to say, there should be a period at the end of the sentence:

"In that study, Larsson et al. extrapolated an 8-metre (26 ft) length for Elosuchus from a skull estimated at 108 cm (43 in) long. In 2022, a new specimen was referred to Elosuchus."

These are all very basic rules that you should be familiar with before editing. As another note, I reworked your additions to Lago Colhué Huapí Formation (version here, differences here). Please review and make sure you understand them. I am happy to help, but please make sure you put more effort into ensuring your edits meet the requirements I listed in my previous response. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also the Nemegt formations age keeps on being changed to upper Campanian by some guy named bubblesborg, please watch out for and revert any attempts of his to edit it back that way. you can see my rationale in my edit descriptions and the talk page. Themanguything (talk) 21:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"please stop changing the Nemegt formations age to upper campanian.

once again barun goyot underlies Nemegt and is itself considered to be latest Campanian at its oldest, so Nemegt being that old just makes no sense stratigraphically. the top of the djadochta formation itself has more precisely been dated to 71 million years ago and its precedes the barun goyot and the nemegt so a 72 million year age for Nemegt just makes no sense in that regard.

the 2013 study was before the upb dating was done and when there was more room for discussion. but the 2023 dating tested the middle Nemegt to be 66.7 mya give or take 2.5 mya. even if you add the 2.5 mil, the middle Nemegt is still well within the maastrichtian. the lower Nemegt better span millions of years to justify a 72 mya age. the upd study has narrowed the Nemegt down to the maastrichtian, full stop.

the 2021 study has not been universally accepted and as it stands the consensus is that the barun goyot and Nemegt are seperates albeit closely related formations https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0031018217305771#:~:text=The%20lower%20Nemegt%20is%20well,origins%20of%20the%20dinosaurian%20biostratigraphy.

the discourse on the nemegts age while still not resolved, points to an age well confined to the maastrichtian between the upd study, the biostratigraphical implications of the maastrichtian saurolophus and the radiometrics of the much older djadochta make the notion of the lower nemegt being 72 mya very unlikely. as it stands it is safest to give the nemegts age as 70-66 million years old, 72 million years old is a bridge to far for now as it stands."

"1. the barun goyot is considered to Maastrichtian in age and it is older than the Nemegt, so that makes the idea of the lower Nemegt being Campanian stratigraphically very unlikely. 2 the djadochta formation top has more precisely been dated to 71 million years ago and it is older than BG or Nemegt. 3. the study in 2021 has not been universally accepted"

just to give some background to the whole debate. his additions keep on upsetting the whole stratigraphicall order of the Nemegt and bg and djadochta Themanguything (talk) 21:36, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the description of Zavacephale and your size comparison depicting said animal, I humbly request you make a size comparison of all four dinosaurs known from the Khuren Dukh Formation, that is;

Altirhinus kurzanovi, Choyrodon barsboldi, Harpymimus okladnikovi, and of course, Zavacephale rinpoche.

Do you think you'll be able to do this? Sorry to bug you again after my Beast of Lesotho request. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:1FA:93A:2850:1321 (talk) 23:24, 17 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Zackmann08. Thank you for your recent contributions to Gracilisgallus. When you were adding content to the page, you added duplicate arguments to a template which can cause issues with how the template is rendered. In the future, please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find these errors as they will display in yellow at the top of the page. Thanks. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 09:16, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

me and bubblesborg are having a disagreement about the Nemegts age and we need other editors to arbitrate and be the judges. would you be one of them please? Themanguything (talk) 22:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

basically I was looking at paleontology of alaska and I came across this paper https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6076232/

Alaska is important to the Nemegt because Alaska is the only way the saurolophus could get into Asia so any info I can gloom onto from there can be useful.

it was discussing a therizinosaur and hadrosaur trackway in Alaska elementally dated to 69 million years ago. it mentions the Nemegt formation multiple times. it mentions how this trackway showing a mixing of asian and north american dinosaurs was happening at the same time as the climate change event the middle Maastrichtian event.

it states in the paper that climate that the climate change going on 69 mya could have triggered the migration of derived hadrosaurids into asia. with Nemegt having a transcontinental hadrosaur that assertation is very important in regards to the age because it can be used to argue for an age of 69 million years ago or younger.

can add into the age and stratigraphy section? "In 2018, a fossilized trackway in the Cantwell Formation in Alaska showed Therizinosaurid and Hadrosaurid footprints side by side. This trackway was dated to 69 million years ago & The date coincides with the global climate change of the Middle Maastrichtian Event. The authors state this climate shift could have triggered the migration of derived hadrosaurids from North America. This is important because Saurolophus is known from Asia and North America and the authors indicate this climate change could have triggered Saurolophus migration into north America (citation) Themanguything (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

the Tremp formation page needs major updates Themanguything (talk) 01:38, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Spathobatidae indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, 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!} 02:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I want to apologize for past behavior. IDK if you know, but I'm the same person who criticized your Lisowicia size comparison back in December of 2022. Since that, I'VE TRULY CHANGED. Truly snapped out of it. Please accept my apology, forgive me, and understand I can't afford to be banned for blocking evasion. 2600:4040:5100:FC00:63EC:4371:F1F8:F0C3 (talk) 12:32, 12 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.academia.edu/61322321/Theropod_teeth_from_the_Mar%C3%ADlia_Formation_late_Maastrichtian_at_the_paleontological_site_of_Peir%C3%B3polis_in_Minas_Gerais_State_Brazil

this 2012 paper described carcharodontosaur teeth from serra da galga and in 2020 delcourt et al reinterpreted bauru group teeth referred to carcharodontosauridae including those from serra da galga and reinterpreted them as abelisaur teeth

it does mention the formation or at least reanalyzed material from it

so stop reverting Themanguything (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Serra da Galga, how was anyone supposed to know about Candeiro e.a. (2012) if it wasn't cited on the page? You seem to have been senselessly edit-warring when this could have been avoided had you provided your sources—as required by Wikipedia—in the first place.

You are in no position to be making demands of other editors who are spending hours of their life trying to improve Wikipedia as an encyclopedia and having to take unreasonable amounts of time trying to clean up after you. Part of what makes your edits so frustrating for other users (and results in their too-frequent reversion) is that it seems you refuse to take the time to proofread, copyedit, or spell-check your edits, and format content as required. The least you could do is start your sentences with a capital letter. Or capitalize any proper noun, for that matter. These should go without saying. That applies to my (and others') talk page(s) as well, where at least some degree of professionalism is expected, especially if you want anyone to take your contributions seriously. Multiple other editors have tried to provide advice to help you improve your editing behavior and you have yet to show any indication you are interested in doing this. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:44, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for expanding the Olkasuchus article! Good work it's quite fascinating and well-sourced. sksatsuma 10:24, 2 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a sensible move re the moth genus. I had to change the rank in Template:Taxonomy/Disparia to clade, because the phylum Caelestes is below it, and a phylum cannot be below a superorder (see Wikipedia:Automated taxobox system/ranks#Checking rank order). It may be that "supergroup" needs to be added to the set of acceptable ranks without any check on rank order. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:30, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see, I was wondering why the phylum was getting highlighted in red... I appreciate the clarification! -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:35, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added "supergroup" to the list of accepted 'ranks', as it seems to be finding increasing use. I've updated Template:Taxonomy/Disparia. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:23, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The synonymy has been proposed, but conversely Keller et al (2025) treat both taxa distinct in his revision of all Araripe Basin pterosaurs, with Cearadactylus being an anhanguerid, while Brasileodactylus as a non-anhanguerid anhanguerian. https://www.scielo.br/j/aabc/a/xNmRx7Lm5MCVmzSJC3Nc7CL/?lang=en Huinculsaurus (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting point, that would be something to raise as part of the merge discussion (which would be here). However, I will note that three of the authors of the new synonymy paper are also on the paper you linked. Perhaps more importantly, the authors of "Cretaceous Pterosaurs..." do not explicitly argue for the validity and distinction of both Cearadactylus and Brasileodactylus, as discussing their synonymy would have been out-of-scope for that paper. As such, I would not use that paper as support for or against their distinction. -SlvrHwk (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have kinda noted this already on the Utetitan talk page, but I'm just here to state what I said there again with some additions. The Smithsonian Institution has multiple photographs of the Utetitan holotype with a CC0 license (taken by Michael Brett-Surman), though except for the photograph of the osteoderms and some other parts, the quality of most photographs are not very high; still I believe that photographs of the actual specimen are just as necessary if not more than the diagram that represents the taxon, so at least some of them may warrant inclusion. What photographs among these do you think would be relevant (and appropriate in terms of quality) for inclusion? https://collections.nmnh.si.edu/search/paleo/?ark=ark:/65665/3f06c7d88-5245-47a7-9695-eb625c195f28

Also Dr. Brian Curtice has recently noted some discrepancy in Gregory Paul's diagram and the actual specimen (with informal critique on Paul's paper that he seemingly intends to publish later on), which is another reason why I think using the actual photographs of the Utetitan holotype for the article may be necessary. https://www.fossilcrates.com/blogs/news/alamosaurus Junsik1223 (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, thanks for the reminder (I totally forgot to write a response on the Utetitan talk page). The low image resolution is certainly unfortunate but I agree the images should be uploaded (no reason not to upload all of them if possible). For the taxobox, I'd say either the scapula (one of the allegedly more 'diagnostic' bones) or the caudal verts (to show more of the material that might be more easily recognizable to a broader audience). Or both! Either way, good find on the free-licensed images, definitely an improvement over Paul's outlines. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

hello im aware you are knowledgeable paleo nerd and I wanted you to answer a question of mine.

It involves the lourinha formation. I've come across a slew of papers referring dinosaur material from the late Jurassic of Portugal to a unit called the "freixial formation". It adds up to a large roster of information.

Problem is im not certain if freixial is considered a distinct formation or if it's like the sobral formation, considered the equivalent to and therefore the same as a constituent member of lourinha. In sobrals case its the equivalent of the praia Azul member.

Do you know the answer? Dinodev123 (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question, though I'll admit stratigraphy is far from my specialty. After a cursory literature review, it seems most recent sources treat the 'Freixial unit' as a distinct formation, though some older ones treat it as a member of the Farta Pão Formation. Either way, distinct from the Lourinhã Fm. Some relevant discussion here and a ?good summary in fig. 1 here (or here if you don't have access). Hope this helps, -SlvrHwk (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

also forgive my edits to lourinha proper. I had read a 2025 paper and misinterpreted the findings as being diagnostic brachiosaurid teeth from some of the members. I thought this because pages 17 and 25 stated something along the lines of "data set shows a brachiosaurid affinity" but then I contacted the author and he said that was only with the teeth they immediately had but they were isolated teeth according to him which made the actual referral less certain and the teeth could only be referred to as titanosauriforms in determinate. So I misinterpreted the findings and added that in and I had to change course yes Dinodev123 (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

if it's a distinct unit then I would like to kno how do I make a new Wikipedia page so I can accommodate this. I want to make a new page in order to accommodate all the information of the formation I have found. Dinodev123 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

never mind I'm looking at the page of lourinha and it appears to include freixial under the Assenta or it treats it as equivalent to the Assenta, to simplify the stratigraphical dispute that Octavio Mateus told me about. So for the information I want to put in I'm just going to have to include them as being in the "Assenta member" instead of including them in the freixial formation Page I was creating Dinodev123 (talk) 05:09, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

To come back to this (and to reiterate what I said above) I don't think any of the published sources regard the Freixial Fm. as a unit of the Lourinhã Fm (hence why I reverted your changes at the latter). In papers I could find that discuss "Freixial" and "Assenta" together, it seems the latter is generally in reference to a geographic locality or region, rather than the formal geologic unit of the Lourinhã Fm. I think creating a page for the Freixial Fm. would be an appropriate approach. If you decide to tackle this, please start in either your sandbox or draftspace since you are still learning proper formatting and Wikipedia style. This way other editors can help make it polished and publishable. Note (in case you were unaware) that Lusovenator is actually known from multiple specimens in different localities — the holotype is from the Praia da Amoreira-Porto Novo Member (/Formation), while SHN.019, a tentatively referred specimen, is from the Freixial Fm. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any questions/comments. -SlvrHwk (talk) 08:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

you implying you saw the paper describing lusovenator? If so would you send the PDF? I want to see the paper but malafaia et al pay wall it or lock it Dinodev123 (talk) 20:01, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and I've tried emailing Elizabete and contacting her on messenger not just for this paper but others and no replies whatsoever. In fact I believe I've been ignored because they post them FB all the time so it's useless to ask her Dinodev123 (talk) 20:04, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

scratch that I managed to see the paper on scribd Dinodev123 (talk) 20:14, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

cambelodon paper is completely closed access Dinodev123 (talk) 19:22, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. Is this a polite request for a PDF? Try this link, accessible for the next couple days. -SlvrHwk (talk) 10:57, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that my edit was reverted as there were only 3 authors but there are 4. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 00:25, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, not sure how I missed that. Regardless, "et al." shouldn't be italicized, and in the future make sure to include basic taxon info (extinct, age, country, etc.) in the lead. Happy editing, -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The structure of these articles isn't really fixed, and in fact varied a bit throughout the years, so of course improvements to it are welcome. The current structure that does not include lepidosauromorph and archosauromorph sections does sidestep the issue of whether we should commit to one of the phylogenetic hypotheses on the placement of sauropterygians etc. or not. But I guess if we move them to an "incertae sedis" section or something like that then what you propose can be done, and would in fact be a significant improvement. Regards--Macrochelys (talk) 08:49, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Now implemented, let me know if anything looks amiss! -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine to me. --Macrochelys (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	I appreciate your effort in creating new articles about dinosaur discoveries, your work provides reliable paleontology knowledge. Thanks Pasados (talk) 16:34, 23 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate it! -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		The Fossilized Barnstar
		Thank you so much for all the high-quality graphics you provide and all of the work you've done over the years! Your effort and dedication do not go unnoticed!!! :) Sauriazoicillus (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, thank you so much (and glad this barnstar is getting put to good use again)! -SlvrHwk (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks for all the nice comparison charts! Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hi,sorry if my edits on the khodzhukal formation are error filled. my kitten was in front of my face and I couldn't see the keyboard. its kind of a stub and I didn't have the energy to overhaul the format. Themanguything (talk) 03:21, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year Mr. SlvrHwk. I hope you continue to bless Wikipedia with your amazing size comparisons and skeletal displays. Thank you. I hope you spend more years helping out the wiki like this. Also, I think it's a bit of a shame your Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis size comparison isn't on the wiki. A.atokensis (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlvrHwk. Thank you for your work on Yeneen. Another editor, Ingratis, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thank you for this article.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ingratis}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ingratis (talk) 08:51, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlvrHwk. Thank you for your work on Lacosteaster. Another editor, Miminity, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Good work in the article, I suggest submitting a interesting fun fact to WP:DYK about this article. Side note, the image body violated WP:SANDWICH

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Miminity}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Warm Regards, Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs) 15:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello I came here to talk about a huge discrepancy about the information on the nanxiong formation Wikipedia page versus what's in the actual literature.

You see most of the links on the page in regards to stratigraphy and paleoclimate and all of that are applicable to the nanxiong basin which is the equivalent of the formation itself.

The issue comes with the fact is that virtually all the vertebrates from the "nanxiong formation"don't actually come from that formation technically. The nanxiong basin and therefore the nanxiong formation based off the definition of all the sources on the page is located in Guangdong province China.

But if you look at literally all the papers describing the dinosaurs from the nanxiong formation, you will notice the maps in the papers are instead portraying jiangxi province.

Apparently what happened is that the dinosaurs actually came from a basin in nearby jiangxi province, this basin is referred to as the ganzhou basin.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/364813436

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/ae6f/81ecae1e0f6d6efd319a826031d9be0e6453.pdf#:~:text=The nest and associated traces reported here,the Guifeng Group (He et al.%2C 2017).

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/rsos/article/13/2/252253/480039/A-new-polyglyphanodontian-lizard-from-the-Upper

In reality all the dinosaurs of the "nanxiong formation"do not actually belong to that formation and instead based off the papers I've linked they belong to the ganzhou basin,specifically the hekou formation.

The paper about the polyglyphanodontian is in particular the most damning because it says the ganzhou basin has produced a multitude of dinosaur remains and over a dozen links are provided and almost every single link talks about dinosaurs that are from the "nanxiong formation".

Apparently someone on Reddit informed me that the dinosaurs around ganzhou city were originally thought to belong to the nanxiong formation but more recent studies have instead linked the dinosaurs around that City to the guifeng group and hekou formation, as evidenced by the paper I linked.

As a result I think there needs to be major changes to that page like it's got to be completely redone. Because the dinosaurs on the page come from a completely different basin. Dinodev123 (talk) 07:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

At the Temujinia RfD I asked about Temujiniidae. I do not know enough about it to nominate it. Should it be deleted as well? Jay 💬 04:24, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So I made an edit to the Bruhathkayosaurus article but it was kinda bad considering I’m not that good of a writer and I’m new to Wikipedia. Would you, if you please, write what I was trying to communicate in a Wikipedia-acceptable format?

Sincerely, DinosaurFan81 DinosaurFan81 (talk) 06:32, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for reaching out. First I'd recommend checking out Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and synthesis/original research. All statements included on Wikipedia need to be explicitly backed up by reliable sources, and can not include speculation or personal interpretations of them. The additions I removed partially fell into these categories: (1) redundant with content elsewhere on the page (listing all of the fossil material); (2) not supported by the linked paper / misinterpretations of available research ("likely" theropod affinities); and (3) unhelpful "trivia" (nicknames). Given the fact that the Bruhathkayosaurus fossils don't even exist anymore, it's important to have a conservative approach for covering this taxon on Wikipedia. Hope this helps, let me know if you have any other questions. -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help! I’ll have to look into those later, but I think I should stick to minor additions to Wikipedia pages until I become as experienced as users like you. DinosaurFan81 (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with the Low importance -- but it's a defensible argument. And you are a professional.

Incidentally, I just sent N. Myrvold an email asking if we could get a couple of his beautiful illos as PD for Wiki use. Hope it works. Lovely new paper!

Cheers -- Pete Tillman Pete Tillman (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For fossil taxa, importance should be determined over time based on proven significance to the field of paleontology. A single species named from fragmentary remains only ~a day ago shouldn't be regarded as any higher than low importance, at least for now. The genus, on the other hand, is clearly of some importance.

Looking through the current list of mid-importance dinosaur pages, I think a fair few of them should be reassessed... -SlvrHwk (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]