Talk:Tupandactylus
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Hemiauchenia in topic "Ingridia navigans"
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
How big? Signed 211 z 14 August 201. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.21.249 (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
In popular culture
edit@Kevmin: I took a look at the Ornithocheirus page, its appearance in WWD (concurrent with that of T. imperator) is included with a citation from the companion book by Tim Haynes... could something similar be done here? Should we alternatively excise all mentions of Walking with Dinosaurs from the Wikipedia pages of the taxa that are included in it? Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:18, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
- My general opinion is that we should treat the WWD series with caution since it didnt actually expand on the knowledge of the taxa it shown, and often made large leaps from fossils to behaviors. Also many of the taxa, such as this one were not actually named in the series, and thus entries like this one have no reference to back the assertion that a taxon in the show was x creature.--Kevmin § 23:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
"Ingridia navigans"
editThis preprint uses Ingridia navigans instead of T. navigans. Might expect a full paper on this in the coming weeks. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 05:04, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- As an actual paper or just as an SVPCA abstract?[1] I assumed it was not necessarily to become a paper any time soon... FunkMonk (talk) 07:46, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- From what I've seen myself, people tend to submit both PrePrint and Peer-Reviewed papers at the same time. PrePrints take a few days to be put up, Peer-Reviews take up to 27 days. IJReid discuss 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
- Wow, that's taking some time? FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- I've noticed a number of PeerJ preprints that never end up as actually published papers, and I would assume this is the case here. I would ignore it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, that's taking some time? FunkMonk (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- From what I've seen myself, people tend to submit both PrePrint and Peer-Reviewed papers at the same time. PrePrints take a few days to be put up, Peer-Reviews take up to 27 days. IJReid discuss 16:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)