Wikijunior talk:Dinosaurs/Apatosaurus

Misinformation
The article states "Scientists now know that the back bones of the Apatosaurus grew together as the animal gets bigger." I think it would be misinformation to say scientists "know". It took them nearly a hundred years to figure out the wrong head was on the body. And in another hundred years they'll probably change their minds again. The most that can be said is that scientists speculate about these things since they weren't there to make the observations first hand. Saying the scientists know is carrying it too far. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.86.50 (talk • contribs) 13:16, 25 March 2010

Even thought the head has not been spoted it may never be found —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.208.124 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 30 November 2010

Apatosaurus picture
I'm trying to obtain an accurate Apatosaurus picture, featuring the whole body, without the neck tilted up(because it's disputed whether they really could tilt their heads up) and with the right head. A couple of days I have contacted the author of http://www.psychosaurus.com/dino/images/apatosaurus.jpg asking for permission, but no response yet. It would be appreciated if someone could find one. --Konstable 07:38, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Split this Article
Shouldn't this article be split? There should be an article on Apatosaurus, and a second brief article about the Brontosaurus naming mistake. It's confusing to mix them together IMO. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dora Nichov (talk • contribs).
 * I brought this up before actually. And the general opinion seemed to be that Brontosaurus is a much more well known name.  I remember when I was a little kid learninga bout dinos I definitely learned about the amphibious Brontosaurus, and I still have the book displaying it proudly.  The discussion was here: Talk:Wikijunior Dinosaurs.  What you are suggesting is what the English-language Wikipedia does (see Brontosaurus and Apatosaurus), but I think because this is for kids it would just create unnecessary confusion.  Anyway the article here is really not long enough on its own to warrant a split in my view.--Konstable 01:54, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * IMO the article should definitely be split. Kids are much more likely to learn about apatosaurus than brontosaurus these days. Just because we learned about brontosaurus when we were kids doesn't mean that todays kids learn the same thing (and in fact, they don't.) There should be one regular article on apatosaurus, and one 'special' article on brontosaurus. --Xixtas 13:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Is "Deceptive" an adequately simple word?
Topic. I'm not sure, I want some opinions. Perhaps "tricky" (although that lacks some of the meaning, and could lead to misinterpretation)? As I said, I'm not sure. 24.205.34.217 23:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC) Also, on the article on Brontosaurus, is it correct to use emotive language to describe the degree of the mistake made ("This was a bad mistake")? Not sure, just asking. 24.205.34.217 23:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)