Talk:Dreadnoughtus

Is redirection necessary?

I understand that GSA abstracts are not a great source, and that it does not count as actually being published, but the only reason Cathetosaurus does not currently redirect to Camarasaurus is because of a program abstract. Many of the pages about nomina nuda cite no published sources. Why should Dreadnoughtus be treated differently? Ashorocetus (talk) 00:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

My concern is a possible journal embargo. In this case, my guess is that the authors must have expected that the full description would have been published before the GSA abstracts got out (maybe they didn't expect the abstracts would be available this soon), and it is possible that they are publishing in a journal that has an embargo policy, which if violated could cause problems. This is clearly a big find (no pun intended), and could well be a cover article. J. Spencer (talk) 15:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And yes, I realize that the cat is out of the bag and high-tailing it to Mexico as we speak, but it feels like there's a functional difference between Internet chatter or the abstracts themselves, buried on the GSA website, which are like the cat traveling incognito, and an article on the English Wikipedia, which is like the cat traveling with a brass band. J. Spencer (talk) 16:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, I understand. Ashorocetus (talk) 13:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is currently an embargo on all information regarding Dreadnoughtus, which will be lifted at 9am EST on September 4th. Wikipedia content has already been prepared.Tharkibo (talk) 21:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, good. Thanks for clearing that up. Ashorocetus (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Too bad about the comic macaronic name, when Nihiltimens is available.--Wetman (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sauropods are somewhat comical critters to begin with, eh? Ashorocetus (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Original research.

I'm finding lots of what appears to be original research in the article cited as if explicitly stated by Lacovara et al. (2014), things like body posture (as in the disparity between hind and fore limbs), the angle of the neck with respect to the body, the shoulder height, comparisons with Brachiosaurus regarding their long forelimbs, the precise lengths of the body and tail alone of 5.1m and 8.7m (which is 28.5ft not the 30ft mentioned in news articles) none of this appear neither in the description paper or the supplementary material. Mike.BRZ (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But some of these features are in the news notes? if not, must be retired... --Rextron (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Besides the claim of the tail being 30ft long I don't remember seeing those other claims in the news stories. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Meaning of name

I don't think the statement in the first sentence, Dreadnoughtus (meaning "fearing nothing") , is correct in its current form. It got its name after the dreadnoughts (battleships) according to all the sources I've seen (eg. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/04/battleship-beast-colossal-dinosaur-skeleton-found-patagonia-argentina-dreadnoughtus-schrani). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.117.6 (talk) 05:46, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The paper says "fearing nothing" and also mentions the battleships. What we have is pretty much exactly what is cited, so that's good. Ashorocetus (talk) 14:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what "dreadnought" means, after all, it "dreads not."--Mr Fink (talk) 16:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

"Pretty much"? It's nearly exactly what the paper says. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 04:10, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Being bold, I've reversed the "type of warship" and the "fears nothing" meaning. As I understand it, the name came first based on the warships and only later was the word translated into modern English. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was my problem, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.117.6 (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've re-phrased this section to remove the overly close paraphrasing and marked one significant sentence chunk ("alludes to the gigantic body size of the (which presumably rendered healthy adult individuals nearly impervious to attack)" as a quote, which it was—verbatim. There is a case for using the exact words in the article for that part of the etymology, but if they are used, they must be clearly marked as a quote and optimally, also attributed in the text. Voceditenore (talk) 17:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass comparison table

The table under the "Mass" section lists Brachiosaurus with a mass of 56,255 kg. This is much larger than any number given in the Brachiosaurus article, and also is much larger than the number given in the image comparing Dreadnoughtus with a plane, other dinosaurs, and other animals. Is there a source for the 56,255 kg number (or for the rest of the table comparing sauropod masses, for that matter)? Is that 56,255 kg number considered an accurate estimate? If so, why isn't it mentioned in the Brachiosaurus article? Calathan (talk) 20:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a source for the 56,255 kg estimate; it comes from Benson et al. (2014) I just put it on the Brachiosaurus page. This page should probably cite that.. Ashorocetus (talk) 23:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Benson et al. give their mass estimates (see their Table 1 and Dataset S1) to 2 significant figures, which would be a good practice for this article and others to emulate. WolfmanSF (talk) 06:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

According to Campione & Evans (2012) (cited by Benson et al. for accuracy of mass estimates), mass estimates derived from bone measurements have a 25% mean prediction error (incorporated into the mass ranges in their Table 6).

WolfmanSF (talk) 06:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Real mass

The Mass table is need the correct sizes, which are actually in the paper, and FunkMonk and IJReid, who are among the best contributors on wikipedia said that: FunkMonk: "But Wikipedia articles are not supposed to interpret the sources,only reflect what they say." IJReid: "if the paper has found that precise of an estimate, it can stay here wholly. It didn't round in the paper, and papers are more conservative than wikipedia". We can say that these numbers are too accurate, too precise or false precision, that's just our opinion. What the scientist wrote is the important opinions.

Christina1969 (talk) 21:21 22 January 2015 (UTC)

IJReid made that comment before he was aware that the mass estimate in question was only accurate to about plus or minus 25%. FunkMonk made his comment when he was not aware that Wikipedia policy specifically encourages rounding off of numbers that are presented with false precision. Please stop repeating the same false arguments over and over, and please read the policy MOS:UNCERTAINTY and tell us whether you can understand it. WolfmanSF (talk) 22:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Look at what Lacovara et al. wrote about their mass estimate: "Using the scaling equation recently proposed by Campione and Evans ... these values yield an estimated body mass of 59,291 kg (~59.3 metric tons, or 65.4 short tons) for this Dreadnoughtus individual." In the paper, they give the value 59,291 kg once, and immediately round it off, because they understand that it is an example of false precision; they give the value of 59.3 metric tons three times. It is obvious that they favor the value of 59.3 tonnes, and so should we. WolfmanSF (talk) 02:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, consider the masses given for Brachiosaurus altithorax (56,255 kg), Turiasaurus riodevensis (50,923 kg), Elaltitan lilloi (42,798 kg), Futalognkosaurus dukei (38,139 kg), Giraffatitan brancai (34,003 kg) and Diplodocus longus (14,813 kg). The reference cited for the masses is Benson et. al. But what are the masses actually given in the article? From Table 1, those values are 56,000 kg for Brachiosaurus and 51,000 kg for Turiasaurus. In Dataset S1 in supplementary information, the same values are given for Brachiosaurus and Turiasaurus, and values of 43,000 kg for Elaltitan, 38,000 kg for Futalognkosaurus, 34,000 kg for Giraffatitan and 15,000 kg for Diplodocus. None of the 5 significant digit mass values appear anywhere in the source, which you obviously didn't read. There is no justification for putting them in the Wikipedia article. WolfmanSF (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Christina for 31 hours for continuing to edit war. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I see now that the 5-significant digit mass estimate values were taken from Lacovara et al. Even though they were published, it is still best that we not use them as they are prime examples of a ridiculous degree of false precision. The reason that Benson et al. used 2 significant digits while Lacovara et al. used 5 is not that they disagree over the accuracy of the estimates. Benson et al. were conscientiously trying to use the appropriate number of significant digits, while Lacovara et al. are simply showing the numbers the equation spits out based on the bone circumference data, perhaps to aid those who might be trying to use the same equation. WolfmanSF (talk) 19:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then I'm going to add the more precise estimates back, based on Lacovara et al.

Christina1969 (talk) 17:34 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Hey Guys. One editor has already been blocked over this issue and edit warring is happening. I hope I can give a little independent input to calm this down. As editors, it is our job to communicate information in the best way we can. We must remember that these are masses are only estimates. I have not seen the original source, but to publish a mass estimate to the last kg of an animal that weighs over 56 tonnes seems to indicate a huge (over) trust in the model/s used in the calculation. These animals presumably had a range of weights according to Normal distribution of biological variation. Even with extant animals, we round up, for example the Elephant article states their mass as 4,000–7,000 kg. Personally, (as a professional biologist of 30 years experience) I find 56.3 tonnes considerably more digestible than 56,255 kg. And I would probably forget the .3 and just remember 56 tonnes! This is only my opinion, but I hope it helps.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Christina for two weeks for continuing to edit war and previous block evasion, eg [1]. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree completely with the use of 2 significant figures. The method used here (estimating body mass using a general scaling equation based on bone circumference measurements) is thought to be accurate only to roughly plus or minus 25%, as Campione & Evans make clear. Christina1969 has been a relentless advocate (in this article and 5 others: Deinocheirus, Argentinosaurus, Diprotodon, Woolly rhinoceros and Doedicurus) of reproducing any published megafaunal mass estimate that has precision down to kg units, based only on the argument that we can't or shouldn't round off published estimates, even when the original source does (e.g., Benson et al. use 2 sig. figure masses consistently). However, Wikipedia policy specifically states that it is appropriate to do so to avoid false precision; that is also why Template:undue precision was created. WolfmanSF (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, then I'm going to add the more precise estimates back, based on Lacovara et al, but with round up (56.3 tonnes instead of 56,255 kg, ect...)

Christina1969 (talk) 19:44 12 February 2015 (UTC)

One digit is not worth fighting over, but... the authors that originally published the mass estimates (Benson et al.) used 2 significant digits. Don't you think they did so for a good reason? WolfmanSF (talk) 19:01, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

You do not have consensus to make these changes, and they have been reverted. If anything, the other expressed opinion is two significant figures suffices. Changing that to three significant figures based on a paper which provides undue precision is not helpful. Looking at the numbers in question, essentially all the numbers are unchanged between the references until you start adding decimals of meaningless detail. Please don't start this up again. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked Christina for three months. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:02, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Discovery and study

In the section Dreadnoughtus#Discovery and study is the following sentence:

• Mules, ropes, hills, and many team members were needed to finally get the field-jacketed bones to a truck.

I can understand mules, ropes and team members, but "hills" don't seem to fit into this list. I'd be interested to know how the presence of hills assisted in getting the bones to a truck. CorinneSD (talk) 19:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Precise vs. rounded estimates

12 Precise vs. rounded estimates- paraphrased from a user talk page ....whether to round.. the key component here: context.

If rounded numbers are used, they should be preceded by the word "about", like "the weight has been estimated at about 22t".

If precise numbers are used, then the context should reference the fact that they were generated by an algorithm or equation, like "the technique used by this study determined the weight to be 22.1t".

Both of the are equally correct. What is incorrect is saying "the weight was 22t" or the "weight was 22.1t". Both of those statements are equally incorrect.

Unfortunately, your comments evade the main issue, which is the actual accuracy of the estimate. It is against Wikipedia policy, and common sense generally, as well as dishonest, to state results that greatly exaggerate the accuracy of an estimate. The fact that an estimate may have been published to x decimal places does not mean that it makes sense for us to reproduce that number without comment when we know full well that only one or two of those digits is significant. Quoting from our policy, "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." Algorithm or no algorithm, a mass estimate (not detemination) of 22.1 t represents false precision. WolfmanSF (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

any RS info on probable lifestyle/behavior? what about predators?

I'm sure this would fit right into the large titanosaurs' known or predicted activities in the paleo-environment, but what predators where in the area that could have preyed on juveniles? 98.67.190.97 (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Austral summers?

When talking about the excavation, why use the phrase "austral summers"?. It's just 4 summers, because Argentina is in the Southern Hemisphere. An aclaration is needed only if one has an Eurocentric point of view. 200.28.29.145 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Time Period

I tried to fix the time that Dreadnoughtus lived on the page to the Cenomanian (the time of the Cerro Fortaleza Formation) rather than the Campanian or the Maastrichtian. However, the edit got reverted back to the original. Every other animal from the formation has the correct time except for Dreadnoughtus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.122.21.249 (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Do you have sources to verify or support your edits?--Mr Fink (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Cerro_Fortaleza_Formation#cite_note-varelaetal2012-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.122.22.140 (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Also, Puertasaurus was from the same time and formation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.122.21.249 (talk) 23:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

That Orkoraptor paper's from 2008, though, while multiple other papers since then have given a Campanian-Maastrictian age, including the paper describing Dreadnoughtus. Additional studies regarding this include Schroeter et. al. (2014) and Sickman et. al. (2018), the latter of which focused specifically on dating Argentine formations. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 12:56, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I've changed the age back to the more recent figures. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 00:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Cross reference to Prehistotic Planet

I've tried to read the rules, but I admit my eyes are crossing; given that Dreadnaughtus was given a segment in Prehistoric Planet, would it be worth creating a section referencing that? Something along the lines of:

"Dreadnaughtus was included in the 2022 show Prehistoric Planet. In the episode, it was portrayed as having gular air sacs used as a mating display. The males were shown to fight based on the fighting of elephant seals."

(Not necessarily that, but based on it?) 38.77.242.197 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)