Talk:Saltasaurus

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Mid‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

idsjhckjhckjhx hello idiots i has hacking yuo

Untitled[edit]

I couldn't verify the following, so I deleted it:

The Titanosaurus, first named in 1893 as a sauropod, had been reclassified as an ankylosaur when pieces of armour were found with some later skeletons. However, Saltasaurus showed that a dinosaur could be armoured and retain its status as a sauropod - Titanosaurus was duly restored to "sauropodhood".

Osteoderms were mistakenly attributed to a nodosaurid ankylosaur, but I don't think Titanosaurus was ever mistaken for an ankylosaur.... 68.81.231.127 17:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What's with the big chunk of name comparison? I understand the logic behind listing the alternate spelling, but, I never had trouble distinguishing Saltasaurus from Saltopus or Saltoposuchus, even as a kid... the only reason anyone might "mistake" them for one another is because they start with "salt--" but I don't see long paragraphs distinguishing Archaeopteryx, Archaeoraptor, Archaeoceratops, Archaeornithomimus, etc. or Sinosauropteryx, Sinornithosaurus, Sinraptor, Sinovenator, etc., which are much more complex and actually can be confusing. 97.104.210.67 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's very redundant. FunkMonk (talk) 17:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auca Mahuevo[edit]

As far I know, the fossils from Saltasaurus coming from the Allen Formation, that is younger compared with the Anacleto Formation, where is located the Auca Mahuevo site. So, why are related here in the article? really exists remains that match with Saltasaurus in Auca Mahuevo?--Rextron (talk) 03:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, they were (perhaps) of saltasaurines, not saltasauri. I've adapted the text somewhat.--MWAK (talk) 09:33, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've forget this! thanks for the editions. --Rextron (talk) 19:59, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Saltasaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080615211132/http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/330Sauropodomorpha/330.600.html to http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Units/330Sauropodomorpha/330.600.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]