Talk:Brachiosauridae

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amoreira11.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This article needs a better cladogram.

Read title^^^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Better in what way? This one shows the relationships of brachiosaurids to one another based on an analysis. Not sure what more a cladogram can be... MMartyniuk (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I assume my pass self was talking about the low species inclusion and lack of outgroup. I completely understand if there are no better ones published.142.176.114.76 (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Blah blah blah

In addition, brachiosaurids shared other unambiguous synapomorphies specific to the taxa. They possessed middle and posterior dorsal vertebrae with long, 'rod-like' transverse processes as well as an abbreviated pubic peduncle of the ischium.[4] Their humerus had a large deltopectoral crest and they had wide supratemporal fenestrae.[6] They had anteriorly placed neural arches, expanded distal blades, irregularly shaped coracoids, and ventral triangular projections on the anterior ramus of their quadratojugal bones.[4]

This paragraph sounds like this to normal people, "In addition, blah blah shared other blah blah blah specific to the blah blah. They possessed middle and blah blah blah with long rod like blah blah as well as a blah blah blah blah of the blah. Their blah had a large blah blah and they had wide blah blah blah. They had blah blah blah, expanded blah blah, irregularly shaped blah blah and blah blah blah on the blah blah blah of their blah blah bones.

It's very useful for science and paleontologists. However these articles shouldn't force one into simple english wikipedia in order to get the gist of it. When they fill up completely with paragraph after paragraph of technical jargon they lose the reader. A simple nod every three or four sentences to reach out to someone who does not have a doctorate in paleontology or a degree in anatomy is very, very useful as it can bridge a reader into learning and understanding these terms. Thus, wikipedia can fulfill one of its goals (education).

A THICK WALL OF TECHNICAL JARGON DOES NOT EDUCATE ANYONE. The people who know all of the jargon are not coming here to read about brachiosaurus. The fact that nobody is even talking about this article indicates that people don't understand half of it and are bailing out.

Just my two bits about a broken wikipedia process, where editors start editing articles aiming for themselves. I am not suggesting this article devolve into baby talk, but a wall of technical jargon, sentence after sentence, is not helpful and makes for a bad article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.201.54 (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

You assume this was written by some expert. But in fact it was the work of a non-professional. That explains the general lack of explanation ;o).--MWAK (talk) 20:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Teeth

This article hammers on the importance of the different teeth for this animal and then uses jargon after "spoon like" to describe them. Now sit down for a moment and think if you say something is spoon like what image it is going to put into the average joe's head. If T-Rex has dagger like teeth he's going to imagine spoons in the same positions. Is this correct or not? We don't know. If these teeth and their differences with other sauropods are so important, then why is this article worried about showing a brachiosaur wearing a Chicago Blackhawks jersey instead of showing us, you know, pictures of these important teeth. So we can learn. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.186.201.54 (talk) 11:06, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point. It so happens that a nice picture has just been made available.--MWAK (talk) 20:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Brachiosaurus skeletal mount.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Size in Brachiosauridae

I am surprised that nothing is said about the height and length of Brachiosauridae, which are well-known to be among the tallest animals on Earth. Could anyone who has the time to do so include a section on size in which information on the estimated height and length of various brachiosaurids such as the most complete (Giraffatitan and Brachiosaurus) and the smallest ones (Europasaurus) could be provided? I can do it in a few days/weeks if nobody can deal with that. Thanks a lot in advance! Cheers, Christophe Hendrickx (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)