![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200701/06/57/e0064457_12314216.jpg that's what spino's complete skull is thought to look like right? 130.207.180.41 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a 5% difference at best in my opinion.The shape and structure are the same basically. I think its good because slight skull variations are a common occurence in individual creatures, theropods included. DinoJones 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well to be fair I wasn't suggesting it for use.:)I've seen a picture of a seemingly unfinished cast of the upper jaw that looks similar I'll have to find the picture. Perhaps you can tell me of its veracity? DinoJones 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys look what I found on Robert Gay's website dinodomain.com. http://dinodomain.com/spinosaursnout.html Looks pretty cool huh? DinoJones ( talk) 03:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm I don't think I ever saw the mention of where it was found. I do remember reading from him that he saw it at some mineral show I think? Tucson Gem and Mineral show yeah that was the name of the event. DinoJones ( talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
According to this article the Spinosaur is the biggest predator that have ever lived on land, wich i see really wierd, the Giganatosaurus have been claimed by many scientists to the biggest therropod. I see it really wierd that the Spinosaur is the biggest off the hunter dinosaurs it and by 5 sources i read the Giganatousaurus was bigger than the spinosaurus, the t.rex was also claimed to be heavier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.178.178 ( talk) 08:18:10, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that I have added one of those invisible requests that can only be seen when you try to edit the section (cant remember the proper name at the moment) to the JP3 section, seeing as the old "the Rex should have won" debate seems to be rearing it's ugly head again. Hopefully that might help. Regards. SMegatron 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, do we have a source for this Spino in JP4 thing? Its the first Ive heard of it. SMegatron 10:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
According to this [ [2]] and this [ [3]], the size of spinosaurus is overexaggerated. The only evidence, according to this source and various others, for an 80 foot long spinosaurus is from an 8-foot long skull, which could belong to something else. Also, as mentioned in the first source, Half of Spinosaurus's length was its tail. Really, I think this should be taken into consideration. The article makes it sound like a whale. Any thoughts?-- DeadGuy 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry this may come of as an angry lecture it isn’t meant to be. Also I’m not very good at getting my thoughts on to the page, so it may not make sense. Why do people keep constantly changing this article. Why do they feel the need to change the size estimates, do they just get board of the old ones. What was wrong with the dal Sasso estimates, the dorsal vertebra of the holotype ranged from 19 to 21cm in length. The 21 cm vertebra, I think belongs near the sacral region were the dorsals are at their largest. The 19 cm vertebra was probably located between the middle dorsal region and the cervical vertebra. What this shows is that the vertebra aren’t going to be much bigger than the 21 cm and on average will be smaller. Assuming that on average the vertebra were 20 cm, (the average will probably be smaller) and that there’s about 19 to 20 dorsal+sacral vertebra then that whole region will be around 4m. Then you add the head which is estimated at 1.45m and the neck which is probably a similar length, you get nearly 7 m from the snout to the back of the hip. The tail is most probably half or more the total body length which gives the holotype a length roughly around 14m in length. Then direct scaling form the 998cm snout you get an animal around 16-17 m in length. In no way can I get 17.4m for the holotype, even though the vertebra are almost twice the size of baryonyx walkeri (the largest being 11cm ). Also has any one tried to draw it, it looks ridiculous as well. Also I am not sure but isn’t the fragmentary snout from MNHN SAM 124 comparable in size to MSNM V4047, I could be wrong. thanks. steceoc_86
I think that there's a living reptile with a smaller sail back, I do not know if also made of vertebral extensions, but perhaps it would be could be mentioned if someone knows which animal is it and it would really serve as an example of something. I think it is one lizard of galapagos, but could be from anywere really. I think it resembled a bit more the sail of sailfishes, however. -- Extremophile 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Another good comparison would be Arizonasaurus or Lotosaurus, both have very enlongated vertebral spines, which are very similar to those of Spinosaurus, as they are not round in diameter, but much longer than wide, similar to those of bison. As this animals are also extinct, we also don´t know how their backs actually looked, sadly.
Would someone please give me some god damn proof about spinosaurus being 16-20ft. And please give me proof before you revert it. I say if there isn't any proof for spinosaurus being 16-20ft, We might as well put it at 16-22ft in height or randomly puting it a unreasonable 30ft tall. My point is PLEASE PUT SOME PROOF IN THE ARTICLE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.23.65.113 ( talk) 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
I know it is only a guess but are there any thoughts of adding it to the article? 24.208.55.168 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
In the Specimens section, mass estimates are given that are far higher than those listed elsewhere in the article, as well as in the sources given. Why is this? - Dotdotdotdash 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know if there is a reference to the size of Spinosaurus marocannus? Atroposs 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Idont think the picture of Jurassic parck III are a spinosaureus because I think is a picture of veloceraptor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.176.72 ( talk) 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Nominated April 13th, 2007;
Support:
Comments:
I've got a photo of the original Spinosaurus material on my hard drive. I seem to recall there was a (fairly recent?) paper or article announcing the "re-discovery" of this image. While I'm thinking the original may be public domain, I'm not so sure if it was re-published. Does anyone have the cites for either the original photo or the recent papaer? Dinoguy2 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Nubula 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's see if we can't kick-start this collaboration.
First, bulleted lists should be reworked into prose, and references should be converted to the "cite journal"/etc. templates.
The intro is a bit too detailed.
Description: actually, all we have are skull/jaws and vertebrae, so those should be the focus. Limb material doesn't appear to be known for Spino.
Classification: none yet, but this would be a quick paragraph (maybe include Rauhut's chimera hypothesis here); perhaps take the last intro paragraph for a base?
Discovery and species: reformatting is needed here more than anything else.
Paleobiology: a description of the habitat would be nice, and I think there may be bite-force estimation out there somewhere.
In popular culture: just add citations, I suppose.
Thoughts? J. Spencer 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
With the collaboration period over, I think that the state of the article is much improved. I think the writing is the main area remaining for improvement (flow, that sort of thing), although I would like to see a paleoecological paragraph somewhere, with contemporaries and habitat. Paralititan was a contemporary, so we can go off of its mangrove forests for some of it. J. Spencer 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Some one added a bit about spinosaurus teeth being 2-4 inches, from what ive seen, the largest teeth on MSNM V4047 would reach about 15cm (about 6 inches) excluding root. but i cant find a reference to this sort of size. Steveoc 86 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Found this image on the web. Is it accurate at all? [14]
Spinosaurus is known to have had a diet of mostely fish. Fish isn't really considered meat, is it? If its not considered meat would that mean that Spinosaurus is not a meat-eater? 24.208.55.168 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
'MSNM V4047—Specimen MSNM V4047,......The specimen was reported to have been found east of the town of Taouz, within the red beds underlying the Hammada du Guir plateau, and more precisely in the area called Kem Kem. More specific field data were not recorded but sediment adhering to the bone is closely consistent with the Kem Kem red sandstone both in colour, composition, and texture. An isolated fish vertebra associated with the specimen is embedded between the right second premaxillary alveolus and its erupting tooth and can be tentatively referred to ?Onchopristis sp. (Stromer, 1926:taf I, fig. 7), a sawfish that is very abundant in the Kem Kem beds.' Steveoc 86 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The bottom copyrighted image needs a fair use rationale for the GA to pass; please address this before somebody reviews the article. -- Nehrams2020 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A few comments about the GA nomination:
Hope these are helpful pointers for improving the article. Thanks Suicidalhamster 11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've promoted it to GA status. I think that each section should be expanded more, but it all checks out with GA criteria. bibliomaniac 15 BUY NOW! 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and semi-protected this article, as well as Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. I'm tired of seeing the already well-sourced size numbers for these animals changing on a daily basis, and I know that first thing in the morning, some IP is going to change the information without changing the reference. I understand that fanboy-types want their favorite to be the largest, meanest, baddest ones, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is ridiculous to add a few feet in length just to make your favorite the largest. Since the disruption is limited almost entirely to IPs, semi-protection should work fine. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't a picture of spinosaurus actually have its spine in it? Just a thought, but that would much better depict it in my opinion, since the spine is one of its most distinguished features DallasOConner 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, I know it sounds a little far-fetched, but might we all agree to at least explore the possibility that the Spinosaurus may not have exsisted? Not everything adds up and I'm not the only one who thinks so. -Dr. John P. Windsor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.59.106 ( talk) 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have mentioned this point before, judging by the IP. While Rauhut did suggest that there were multiple animals in Stromer's original remains, this has not been followed up by anyone, and if Rauhut was right, there would be a giant Acrocanthosaurus-like carcharodontosaurid with tall spines, and a giant croc-snouted baryonychid ("two weird giant dinosaurs instead of one", not "no weird giant dinosaurs instead of one"). J. Spencer 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I just thought this was preety cool. Mayo on Pie 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I’ve been acused of entering an edit war over at the giganotosaurus article. I thought I was reverting the usual vandalism these large theropods get. This line has been altered; 'Spinosaurus emerges victorious by snapping the <juvenile> tyrannosaur's neck' Where is the source that states that the T.rex in Jurassic park 3 is juvenile? This clearly needs to be removed because as far as it looks, it’s OR, I’d remove it but I don't want to get to get accused of being in another edit war. So apparently it needs discussing..….so who thinks it should stay?? Steveoc 86 ( talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well actually is was confirmed to be a juvenile T-Rex in JP3.(It was from a legit source from one of the movie sites that's official). Some fans believe it was the infant from the 2nd movie more grown up. Mcelite ( talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite
I call bullshit on that.
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Jurassic-Park-III.html
^Here's the original script for Jurassic Park III. Scroll down to the Spino vs. T-Rex encounter...
Our friends stop dead in their tracks. Amanda stifles a cry. Before them lies an immense unmoving SAUROPOD.
GRANT: Don't worry. It's dead.
Then a full-grown bull TYRANNOSAURUS rises up behind the carcass. It was feeding, its mouth mottled with blood and carrion.
There ya have it- straight from the horse's mouth.
K00bine ( talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That script isn't accurate. When on Earth did the Spino kick the T-Rex or knock it down? Also it wasn't the Spino's foot that almost crushed Grant is was the T-Rex's foot that did.
Mcelite (
talk)
05:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite
Sometimes things change during the translation from script to the finished product. However, it IS accurate save for some extremely minor nitpicky insignificant details like the ones you pointed out. The T. Rex in JP3 is an adult, and to suggest it is anything otherwise is merely wishful thinking on the part of Rex fans to try and denigrate the Spino's feat... and I say this as a T. Rex fan, hater of JP3 and JP3's Spinosaurus.
I stated a fact. I backed it up with a citation from an official source (a quote from the script.) This is how wikipedia works. Until someone comes up with a citation from an official source that says the T. Rex in JP3 was a Juvinile, the script's description of the Rex as being a full-grown bull still stands.
K00bine ( talk) 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no don't take it that way K00bine. I didn't mean to make it seem like u got it from a bogus source. Also is there really a thing for haters of JP3? If so that's hilarious.... But yeah that script did have things they didn't do at all, but I also agree that this shouldn't be an issue in the article Mcelite ( talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite
just thought this was interesting [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.53.190 ( talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
http://pds.exblog.jp/pds/1/200701/06/57/e0064457_12314216.jpg that's what spino's complete skull is thought to look like right? 130.207.180.41 18:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
It looks like a 5% difference at best in my opinion.The shape and structure are the same basically. I think its good because slight skull variations are a common occurence in individual creatures, theropods included. DinoJones 23:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Well to be fair I wasn't suggesting it for use.:)I've seen a picture of a seemingly unfinished cast of the upper jaw that looks similar I'll have to find the picture. Perhaps you can tell me of its veracity? DinoJones 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hey guys look what I found on Robert Gay's website dinodomain.com. http://dinodomain.com/spinosaursnout.html Looks pretty cool huh? DinoJones ( talk) 03:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm I don't think I ever saw the mention of where it was found. I do remember reading from him that he saw it at some mineral show I think? Tucson Gem and Mineral show yeah that was the name of the event. DinoJones ( talk) 03:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
According to this article the Spinosaur is the biggest predator that have ever lived on land, wich i see really wierd, the Giganatosaurus have been claimed by many scientists to the biggest therropod. I see it really wierd that the Spinosaur is the biggest off the hunter dinosaurs it and by 5 sources i read the Giganatousaurus was bigger than the spinosaurus, the t.rex was also claimed to be heavier. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.224.178.178 ( talk) 08:18:10, August 19, 2007 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know that I have added one of those invisible requests that can only be seen when you try to edit the section (cant remember the proper name at the moment) to the JP3 section, seeing as the old "the Rex should have won" debate seems to be rearing it's ugly head again. Hopefully that might help. Regards. SMegatron 12:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
On a similar note, do we have a source for this Spino in JP4 thing? Its the first Ive heard of it. SMegatron 10:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
According to this [ [2]] and this [ [3]], the size of spinosaurus is overexaggerated. The only evidence, according to this source and various others, for an 80 foot long spinosaurus is from an 8-foot long skull, which could belong to something else. Also, as mentioned in the first source, Half of Spinosaurus's length was its tail. Really, I think this should be taken into consideration. The article makes it sound like a whale. Any thoughts?-- DeadGuy 17:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry this may come of as an angry lecture it isn’t meant to be. Also I’m not very good at getting my thoughts on to the page, so it may not make sense. Why do people keep constantly changing this article. Why do they feel the need to change the size estimates, do they just get board of the old ones. What was wrong with the dal Sasso estimates, the dorsal vertebra of the holotype ranged from 19 to 21cm in length. The 21 cm vertebra, I think belongs near the sacral region were the dorsals are at their largest. The 19 cm vertebra was probably located between the middle dorsal region and the cervical vertebra. What this shows is that the vertebra aren’t going to be much bigger than the 21 cm and on average will be smaller. Assuming that on average the vertebra were 20 cm, (the average will probably be smaller) and that there’s about 19 to 20 dorsal+sacral vertebra then that whole region will be around 4m. Then you add the head which is estimated at 1.45m and the neck which is probably a similar length, you get nearly 7 m from the snout to the back of the hip. The tail is most probably half or more the total body length which gives the holotype a length roughly around 14m in length. Then direct scaling form the 998cm snout you get an animal around 16-17 m in length. In no way can I get 17.4m for the holotype, even though the vertebra are almost twice the size of baryonyx walkeri (the largest being 11cm ). Also has any one tried to draw it, it looks ridiculous as well. Also I am not sure but isn’t the fragmentary snout from MNHN SAM 124 comparable in size to MSNM V4047, I could be wrong. thanks. steceoc_86
I think that there's a living reptile with a smaller sail back, I do not know if also made of vertebral extensions, but perhaps it would be could be mentioned if someone knows which animal is it and it would really serve as an example of something. I think it is one lizard of galapagos, but could be from anywere really. I think it resembled a bit more the sail of sailfishes, however. -- Extremophile 05:38, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Another good comparison would be Arizonasaurus or Lotosaurus, both have very enlongated vertebral spines, which are very similar to those of Spinosaurus, as they are not round in diameter, but much longer than wide, similar to those of bison. As this animals are also extinct, we also don´t know how their backs actually looked, sadly.
Would someone please give me some god damn proof about spinosaurus being 16-20ft. And please give me proof before you revert it. I say if there isn't any proof for spinosaurus being 16-20ft, We might as well put it at 16-22ft in height or randomly puting it a unreasonable 30ft tall. My point is PLEASE PUT SOME PROOF IN THE ARTICLE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.23.65.113 ( talk) 21:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC).
I know it is only a guess but are there any thoughts of adding it to the article? 24.208.55.168 03:17, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
In the Specimens section, mass estimates are given that are far higher than those listed elsewhere in the article, as well as in the sources given. Why is this? - Dotdotdotdash 02:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
Does anybody know if there is a reference to the size of Spinosaurus marocannus? Atroposs 21:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Idont think the picture of Jurassic parck III are a spinosaureus because I think is a picture of veloceraptor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.176.72 ( talk) 18:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
Nominated April 13th, 2007;
Support:
Comments:
I've got a photo of the original Spinosaurus material on my hard drive. I seem to recall there was a (fairly recent?) paper or article announcing the "re-discovery" of this image. While I'm thinking the original may be public domain, I'm not so sure if it was re-published. Does anyone have the cites for either the original photo or the recent papaer? Dinoguy2 08:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
-- Nubula 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Let's see if we can't kick-start this collaboration.
First, bulleted lists should be reworked into prose, and references should be converted to the "cite journal"/etc. templates.
The intro is a bit too detailed.
Description: actually, all we have are skull/jaws and vertebrae, so those should be the focus. Limb material doesn't appear to be known for Spino.
Classification: none yet, but this would be a quick paragraph (maybe include Rauhut's chimera hypothesis here); perhaps take the last intro paragraph for a base?
Discovery and species: reformatting is needed here more than anything else.
Paleobiology: a description of the habitat would be nice, and I think there may be bite-force estimation out there somewhere.
In popular culture: just add citations, I suppose.
Thoughts? J. Spencer 03:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
With the collaboration period over, I think that the state of the article is much improved. I think the writing is the main area remaining for improvement (flow, that sort of thing), although I would like to see a paleoecological paragraph somewhere, with contemporaries and habitat. Paralititan was a contemporary, so we can go off of its mangrove forests for some of it. J. Spencer 03:01, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Some one added a bit about spinosaurus teeth being 2-4 inches, from what ive seen, the largest teeth on MSNM V4047 would reach about 15cm (about 6 inches) excluding root. but i cant find a reference to this sort of size. Steveoc 86 12:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
Found this image on the web. Is it accurate at all? [14]
Spinosaurus is known to have had a diet of mostely fish. Fish isn't really considered meat, is it? If its not considered meat would that mean that Spinosaurus is not a meat-eater? 24.208.55.168 21:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
'MSNM V4047—Specimen MSNM V4047,......The specimen was reported to have been found east of the town of Taouz, within the red beds underlying the Hammada du Guir plateau, and more precisely in the area called Kem Kem. More specific field data were not recorded but sediment adhering to the bone is closely consistent with the Kem Kem red sandstone both in colour, composition, and texture. An isolated fish vertebra associated with the specimen is embedded between the right second premaxillary alveolus and its erupting tooth and can be tentatively referred to ?Onchopristis sp. (Stromer, 1926:taf I, fig. 7), a sawfish that is very abundant in the Kem Kem beds.' Steveoc 86 22:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The bottom copyrighted image needs a fair use rationale for the GA to pass; please address this before somebody reviews the article. -- Nehrams2020 05:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
A few comments about the GA nomination:
Hope these are helpful pointers for improving the article. Thanks Suicidalhamster 11:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
I've promoted it to GA status. I think that each section should be expanded more, but it all checks out with GA criteria. bibliomaniac 15 BUY NOW! 02:39, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
I've been bold and semi-protected this article, as well as Tyrannosaurus and Giganotosaurus. I'm tired of seeing the already well-sourced size numbers for these animals changing on a daily basis, and I know that first thing in the morning, some IP is going to change the information without changing the reference. I understand that fanboy-types want their favorite to be the largest, meanest, baddest ones, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is ridiculous to add a few feet in length just to make your favorite the largest. Since the disruption is limited almost entirely to IPs, semi-protection should work fine. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't a picture of spinosaurus actually have its spine in it? Just a thought, but that would much better depict it in my opinion, since the spine is one of its most distinguished features DallasOConner 01:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
Look, I know it sounds a little far-fetched, but might we all agree to at least explore the possibility that the Spinosaurus may not have exsisted? Not everything adds up and I'm not the only one who thinks so. -Dr. John P. Windsor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.59.106 ( talk) 02:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have mentioned this point before, judging by the IP. While Rauhut did suggest that there were multiple animals in Stromer's original remains, this has not been followed up by anyone, and if Rauhut was right, there would be a giant Acrocanthosaurus-like carcharodontosaurid with tall spines, and a giant croc-snouted baryonychid ("two weird giant dinosaurs instead of one", not "no weird giant dinosaurs instead of one"). J. Spencer 02:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I just thought this was preety cool. Mayo on Pie 19:25, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I’ve been acused of entering an edit war over at the giganotosaurus article. I thought I was reverting the usual vandalism these large theropods get. This line has been altered; 'Spinosaurus emerges victorious by snapping the <juvenile> tyrannosaur's neck' Where is the source that states that the T.rex in Jurassic park 3 is juvenile? This clearly needs to be removed because as far as it looks, it’s OR, I’d remove it but I don't want to get to get accused of being in another edit war. So apparently it needs discussing..….so who thinks it should stay?? Steveoc 86 ( talk) 00:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Well actually is was confirmed to be a juvenile T-Rex in JP3.(It was from a legit source from one of the movie sites that's official). Some fans believe it was the infant from the 2nd movie more grown up. Mcelite ( talk) 23:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite
I call bullshit on that.
http://www.imsdb.com/scripts/Jurassic-Park-III.html
^Here's the original script for Jurassic Park III. Scroll down to the Spino vs. T-Rex encounter...
Our friends stop dead in their tracks. Amanda stifles a cry. Before them lies an immense unmoving SAUROPOD.
GRANT: Don't worry. It's dead.
Then a full-grown bull TYRANNOSAURUS rises up behind the carcass. It was feeding, its mouth mottled with blood and carrion.
There ya have it- straight from the horse's mouth.
K00bine ( talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
That script isn't accurate. When on Earth did the Spino kick the T-Rex or knock it down? Also it wasn't the Spino's foot that almost crushed Grant is was the T-Rex's foot that did.
Mcelite (
talk)
05:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite
Sometimes things change during the translation from script to the finished product. However, it IS accurate save for some extremely minor nitpicky insignificant details like the ones you pointed out. The T. Rex in JP3 is an adult, and to suggest it is anything otherwise is merely wishful thinking on the part of Rex fans to try and denigrate the Spino's feat... and I say this as a T. Rex fan, hater of JP3 and JP3's Spinosaurus.
I stated a fact. I backed it up with a citation from an official source (a quote from the script.) This is how wikipedia works. Until someone comes up with a citation from an official source that says the T. Rex in JP3 was a Juvinile, the script's description of the Rex as being a full-grown bull still stands.
K00bine ( talk) 16:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh no don't take it that way K00bine. I didn't mean to make it seem like u got it from a bogus source. Also is there really a thing for haters of JP3? If so that's hilarious.... But yeah that script did have things they didn't do at all, but I also agree that this shouldn't be an issue in the article Mcelite ( talk) 02:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)mcelite
just thought this was interesting [15] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.53.190 ( talk) 22:35, 17 December 2007 (UTC)