User talk:SlvrHwk

Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Start a new talk topic.

Archives

DYK for Eocarcharia

On 7 July 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Eocarcharia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the carnivorous dinosaur Eocarcharia may be a chimaera, its bones coming from two different families? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eocarcharia. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Eocarcharia), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

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

Your Size Comparison Diagrams.

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

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]

About your revert on Template:Taxonomy/Tyrannosauridae

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]

hello i am asking question

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]

Request:Beast of Lesotho size comparison

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]

New section by Themanguything

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]

Request: Khuren Dukh Dinosauria Size Comparison

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]

September 2025

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]

nemegt talk page

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]

Nemegt request

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]

Tremp formation

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Spathobatidae

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]