Titanis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zachlepage.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Since when has it been definitively determined that Titanis's puny arms could "grab and hold prey", as the text states? I notice that the illustration promotes this idea as well, and neither instance bothers to mention that there are other people who think differently. Last I heard, this was still an ongoing debate. 70.210.133.14 ( talk) 05:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Some people think that Titanis is the same thing as Phorusrhacos. Should we add that to the article? Elasmosaurus ( talk) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Best Regards Monkeytheboy ( talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The terror bird subspecies in Primeval has not been confirmed to be a Titanis either, as they are only ever referred to as terror birds. I suggest removing both these pop culture references, since the claims that they are Titanis are unsupported in both cases. -- 24.36.130.109 ( talk) 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This page says Titanis is part of subfamily Brontornithinae, while the Phorusrhacidae article says it belongs to Phorusrhacinae. Something isn't right here.-- 24.36.139.110 ( talk) 20:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the Florida Museum of Natural History, as well as this article ( http://www.wired.com/2011/02/terror-birds-aint-what-they-used-to-be-a-titanis-take-down/), Titanis was only 1.5 meters tall. Shouldn't the "2.5 meters long" text be changed?
50.158.207.70 ( talk) 20:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is there an apparent concerted effort by a vandal or vandals to put in fake references to support a false claim of Titanis being alive? Is there some new Discovery Channel fake-umentary spewing bullshit?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 02:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
In the lead, it states "Titanis was thought to be carnivorous and most likely preyed on the many small mammals of the time period." Is that meant to mean "Titanis is thought to have been carnivorous..." or does it mean it was, at one time, thought to have been carnivorous, but not any more. In the later case, what is the newer thinking?
Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Titanis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Nature":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PrimalMustelid ( talk · contribs) 02:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I can take this review session since I'm knowledgeable to Cenozoic paleontology to an extent. I'll start a full review of the article based on GA criteria within the next few days, so I'll let you know when I've started it. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 02:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Order of Sections:
Lead Section:
Description:
Discovery and Age:
Classification:
More to come soon, looks like the article's good for GA other than minor issues. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 01:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Paleobiology:
Paleoenvironment:
Extinction:
The images as far as I'm aware should be good for usage, so it's just some of the remaining text-based minor errors and a potential concern for the paleobiology section that's left. Should you address all these, the article should be good for GA. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 15:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Titanis is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zachlepage.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Since when has it been definitively determined that Titanis's puny arms could "grab and hold prey", as the text states? I notice that the illustration promotes this idea as well, and neither instance bothers to mention that there are other people who think differently. Last I heard, this was still an ongoing debate. 70.210.133.14 ( talk) 05:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Some people think that Titanis is the same thing as Phorusrhacos. Should we add that to the article? Elasmosaurus ( talk) 15:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Best Regards Monkeytheboy ( talk) 18:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The terror bird subspecies in Primeval has not been confirmed to be a Titanis either, as they are only ever referred to as terror birds. I suggest removing both these pop culture references, since the claims that they are Titanis are unsupported in both cases. -- 24.36.130.109 ( talk) 01:34, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
This page says Titanis is part of subfamily Brontornithinae, while the Phorusrhacidae article says it belongs to Phorusrhacinae. Something isn't right here.-- 24.36.139.110 ( talk) 20:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
According to the Florida Museum of Natural History, as well as this article ( http://www.wired.com/2011/02/terror-birds-aint-what-they-used-to-be-a-titanis-take-down/), Titanis was only 1.5 meters tall. Shouldn't the "2.5 meters long" text be changed?
50.158.207.70 ( talk) 20:46, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Why is there an apparent concerted effort by a vandal or vandals to put in fake references to support a false claim of Titanis being alive? Is there some new Discovery Channel fake-umentary spewing bullshit?-- Mr Fink ( talk) 02:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
In the lead, it states "Titanis was thought to be carnivorous and most likely preyed on the many small mammals of the time period." Is that meant to mean "Titanis is thought to have been carnivorous..." or does it mean it was, at one time, thought to have been carnivorous, but not any more. In the later case, what is the newer thinking?
Graham.Fountain | Talk 12:50, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Titanis's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Nature":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:18, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: PrimalMustelid ( talk · contribs) 02:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I can take this review session since I'm knowledgeable to Cenozoic paleontology to an extent. I'll start a full review of the article based on GA criteria within the next few days, so I'll let you know when I've started it. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 02:04, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Order of Sections:
Lead Section:
Description:
Discovery and Age:
Classification:
More to come soon, looks like the article's good for GA other than minor issues. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 01:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
Paleobiology:
Paleoenvironment:
Extinction:
The images as far as I'm aware should be good for usage, so it's just some of the remaining text-based minor errors and a potential concern for the paleobiology section that's left. Should you address all these, the article should be good for GA. PrimalMustelid ( talk) 15:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)