This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
It is nonexistant. Slasher600 23:31, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's new. I added the reference. However, it is not a theropod nor a hadrosaur (can't be both anyway!), it's a titanosaur. I have no idea where Elmo12456 got his info from, but the name does exist and is a real dinosaur.Dinoguy2 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We've established it's not so I've removed the hoax template. I also removed the "needs references" box because we have a reference now, and I think there were too many boxes on the page. RupertMillard (Talk) 17:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Taxobox image does not depict correct material[edit]
The image currently in the taxobox uploaded by Harold9595959 does not depict MCT 1488-R, the holotype of Trigonosaurus pricei, but rather CPPLIP-035 and CPPLIP-103, elements Silva Junior et al. referred to Baurutitan in the same paper in which they proposed synonymizing Trigonosaurus with it. Evidently, the wrong half of Silva Junior et al.'s figure 19 was cropped out to produce this image. Somebody should fix that. Ornithopsis (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So the image should have parts B, D, and F of the figure instead? -SlvrHwk (talk) 00:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is correct. Also, as a related minor note, the description of the specimens as "axials" in the file is nonstandard: "axial" is an adjective, not a noun, in this context. "Vertebrae" would be the more appropriate term. Ornithopsis (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does it look good now? I got the file name changed for the original image and uploaded the correct half of the figure for this page. -SlvrHwk (talk) 23:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, that's much better! Ornithopsis (talk) 03:51, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
