This one?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/horns-clubs-plates-and-spikes-how-did-they-evolve-74054008/

Doesn't mention tails once, nor swimming for that matter but i digress.

And this one?

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/koreaceratopsa-swimming-ceratopsian-87335113/

While the author does seem to be somewhat doubtful of them swimming, alteast as it pertains to Koreanoceratops specifically, she does say "in this case anatomy alone may not provide an unambiguous answer", ergo there's still a discussion to be had.

Also, she literally says Spinosaurids were infact, semi-aquatic.

Ironically I already did posted all of these and the comments came up with the earlier ' studies ' just in favor with more speculative assessments

For fucks sake the author of the article you posted about Koreanoceratops literally says Spinosaurids were semi-aquatic.

@Rogeriforloki I am differentiating earlier studies; all the recent ones I posted gave you other answers If you want to Ignore them fine. And no; he says :

Earlier this year a different group of paleontologists used this technique to provide support for the idea that the predatory spinosaurs were semi-aquatic animals, a

And I literally posted the REAL ACTUAL STUDY 's ARTICLE

https://static.wikia.nocookie.net/dinosaurs/images/1/1f/Screenshot_20240228-160527_Samsung_Notes.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20240228133252

That study Openly says Spinosaurus isotopes are NOT observed

You know what keep ignoring all the other studies linked

No one is arguing for Spinosaurus being aquatic. We’re pointing out that the ceratopsian study and article does not support your claim and is actually arguing the opposite.

Oh no no no, i am not ignoring them, and let me tell you, the way i see it based on reading them...

Many, though not all of them, seemingly comes to the same conclusion, that being...

It's too difficult at the moment to say.

It's anatomy is too different from any other swimming animal alive today where we could make concrete comparisons.

TBH, that's also how i see it, there's so many studies where each one says something different, idk honestly anymore.

Imma leave now, for real this time.

Well, ok, i should perhaps clarify, all these studies are actually not all saying "we have no clue", but they're all coming to different conclusions.

That being said, they don't seem to argue that Spinosaurus didn't have absolutely 0 affinity for water, and atleast some are actually in favour of it being a semi-aquatic animal, even if not a diver.

But yes, as Duck said, the study you posted about ceratopsians literally goes against what you're saying.