Talk:Titanoceratops

Size

I haven't found any convenient size estimates of Titanoceratops ouranos. But I heard its pretty big, based off of Longrich's size comparison. If anybody has any further information about its size please notify me. Taylor Reints (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

@DeinonychusDinosaur999: It was estimated to be 9 m (30 ft) by Holtz in 2012, about the same size as Triceratops and Torosaurus. IJReid (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The skeletal in Longrich's paper is 6m in axial length (measured in GIMP using a path measurement script) based on the femur being 102cm long as reported in the paper, the holotype of Titanoceratops ouranos is definitely on the size range of "adult" Triceratops but is no where near as big as the big specimens that are the only ones that realistically can approach or reach 9m in length, specimens like CM 1618 that have femora 127cm long or AMNH 971 which have humeri 84cm long (Chinnery 2004 supplemental) and if it had the same proportions as USNM 4842 and CM 1618 its femur will be about 140cm long. This is not acknowledged in any scientific publication thought and above we can see that even Holtz fell for how long the skull is, being only so long for the incredibly long frill it was reconstructed for it. Mike.BRZ (talk) 00:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

On size, this comparison[1] seems to show the animal as barely three metres long? FunkMonk (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

lol Farke is a giant, that needs to be corrected. Mike.BRZ (talk) 22:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry. I have absolutely where he became so huge when I created the comparison. Phylopic is a very useful site. Does either of you think that the article could be renominated now, we have better images and all the old comments have been corrected? IJReid ^discuss 22:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it might still be problematic that the genus was named so recently, and there is still some controversy over its validity... FunkMonk (talk) 08:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I would personally wait until someone does an actual thorough study and comparison of the various members of the "Pentaceratops grade". The validity of this taxon and Utahceratops at this point seems to depend on lumping vs. splitting genera and how to handle paraphyletic genera. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:01, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thing, given the above, we should perhaps be a bit cautious with the images, as they all restore it after Pentaceratops. Perhaps this photo is better for the taxobox (it was there before), as it doesn't show the "fake" frill:[2] Then we should probably also cut down on the other images, and note in the captions of those we keep that the frill is restored after Pentaceratops. Might be misleading otherwise. It is also too premature to "correct" the restorations, since we don't know what the animal is closest related to. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

• Fowler & Fowler 2020 consider the specimen "aff. Pentaceratops sp."[3]. FunkMonk (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Can someone confirm the pronunciation? It seems less than natural, or perhaps even taken from another language's. 8ty3hree (talk) 04:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the promunciation. IJReid (talk) 14:59, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Titanoceratops/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'll read through and copyedit as I go and use edit summaries to explain (please revert if my change accidentally guffs the meaning)!, and pop questions down below. Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Errr, "Triceratopsin"? - I have never heard this term - I can't see it on google searches either, I'd stick with "member of Triceratopsini" maybe.....

Done

The sentence that begins, " The possible contemporaries from the two formations include...." is a bit listy - I'd rework it as "The possible contemporaries from the two formations include the carnivorous Bistahieversor sealeyi and "Saurornitholestes" robustus, and plant-eating Kritosaurus navajovius, Naashoibitosaurus ostromi, Anasazisaurus horneri, Parasaurolophus tubicen, Parasaurolophus cyrtocristatus, Sphaerotholus goodwini, Stegoceras validum, Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis, Pentaceratops sternbergii, an unnamed ornithomimid, and an indeterminate centrosaurine." - just to break it up a bit and give it some context. on second thoughts, see FunkMonk's comment below, which I think I agree with.

Removed info that was already mentioned in lead or does not have that much to do with Titanoceratops

"The identification of Titanoceratops as a triceratopsin suggests that there is a five million year ghost lineage leading the more derived chasmosaurines such as Eotriceratops." - "leading to"?

done

"A moderately diverse amount of fauna are known" - err, "number"..."array" of fauna ("amount" is wrong word...)

Part of information removed

Down in fauna subsection Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Done now.

"Both formation are last Campanian in age" - latest?

Done

• A little drive by comment, the lead is way too long (also goes for the Corythosaurus article). It almost replicates the entire article! Two thirds could easily be cut, especially the faunal list. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Length FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the lead is now a better size. IJReid (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Best to use a consistent reference style - choose a way to list authors and make them all the same (e.g. Smith, John; Jones, Sam; etc.)

Done

Regarding comprehensiveness, I think there are some other papers worth inspecting and possibly adding - I can try and fetch some fulltexts of this, this and this and this (last one is by Dodson, so good to look at) to see of there is any mention. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, the wick paper describing Bravoceratops notes the two taxa (Bravoceratops and Titanoceratops) have a large epijugal horn but questions whether the latter is a genus that should be recognised. I can send pdf. If you want I can get the others. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great! IJReid (talk) 21:24, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Please compare the text in subsection "Distinguishing characteristics" with the original source; I think it is uncomfortably close paraphrasing. Sasata (talk) 01:20, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

agree - needs rewording. Not a huge amount but definitely does. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:43, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Well written?:

Prose quality: - paraphrasing segments need rewording before this can be assessed.

Manual of Style compliance:

2. Factually accurate and verifiable?:

References to sources:

Citations to reliable sources, where required:

No original research:

3. Broad in coverage?:

Major aspects: - several articles not used. Due the the low number of articles citing material, it is important to review all.

Focused:

4. Reflects a neutral point of view?:

Fair representation without bias:

5. Reasonably stable?

No edit wars, etc. (Vandalism does not count against GA):

6. Illustrated by images, when possible and appropriate?:

Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

Overall:

Pass or Fail: - I am closing this one without listing at this time. I offered to get articles and received no reply. I don't have a problem with that as such but the articles need reviewing somehow as the low number of articles cited means even one or two missing may mean a large chunk of info and context are not here. Also, the section "Distinguishing characteristics" needs rewriting. I think it is best to close this and re-nominate once these are done. I'd be happy to review again or might even improve it myself (and someone else can review). I didn't have the time so far.Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:48, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

---

Whether or not it passed GA review, I found this an unusually well-written and informative article, about a beastie that's new to me. I came to it from the fossil tree stump photo, having just added another from a (then) working coal mine. These stumps were/are quite a hazard when encountered in the roof (back) of the underground mine, as they could (and did, in the early days) fall & kill miners! --Pete Tillman (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Nominating this seems a bit premature anyhow. First, it is a very new taxon, so it has very little coverage, which is almost a quickfail by itself, and there is even controversy about whether it is a distinct taxon, which make sit fail the stability criterion. So it should probably not be nominated until these matters are more settled. Perhaps it will even be merged back into Pentaceratops. FunkMonk (talk) 23:45, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree on the nomination being premature but I don't find this Perhaps it will even be merged back into Pentaceratops likely. Contra the comments made above, Wick and Lehman (2013) never mount a case as to why Longrich (2011) was wrong, they cite him in regards to Titanoceratops just twice, one saying they are ignoring his referral and a second one saying that large horn-like epijugals are not necessarily diagnostic because Bravoceratops (and others) have them, ironically "large horn-like epijugal" is one of the 3 characters Lehman (1998) used to assign it to Pentaceratops in the first place, Longrich (2011) actually recognize this feature is present in other taxa but differentiate Titanoceratops because its epijugals curve dorsally, still what about the other 20 characters differentiating OMNH 10165 from specimens of Pentaceratops proper? they don't even attempt testing the hypothesis by separating OMNH 10165 and Pentaceratops into individual OTUs to see if they find them in a sister relationship or not. At last Longrich (2014), using a new larger improved matrix that draws from all others previously utilized to test chasmosaurine phylogeny, finds Titanoceratops once again in a sister relationship to a clade compromising Eotriceratops+Torosaurus+Triceratops while Pentaceratops sternbergii is far out there where it has always been recovered recently. Mike.BRZ (talk) 01:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Not largest animal in north america / its ecosystem

The kirkland formation also includes e.g. daspletosaurus at 9 m length. So this sentence is not factual. Ubilaz (talk) 21:23, 10 November 2020 (UTC)