This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed that the Discovery section is all the way at the bottom of the article. I think it should be at least the second (per convention), if not the first (because some of the content in Description depends on it). Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 00:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article still uses some overly feathered restorations, which are considered inaccurate since Bell et al. (2017). The current consensus among paleontologists is that T. rex either had no feathers, or only had about as large amount of feathers which is comparable to the amount of the hair that elephants, hippos, rhinos and whales have on their body. I asked various experts (Mark Witton, Scott Hartman, Nima Sassani, Thomas Holtz), and they all said that it would be the best for Wikipedia to use completely scaly or very lightly feathered restorations, and to avoid restorations with a "jacket of feathers", as they consider it unlikely there very sharp transitions between scales and feathers on its body, and their arguments were very convincing (they also mentioned the feathers can turn into scales and vica versa thing, but still preferred scaly or lightly feathered restorations). I also asked them about the restorations made by RJ Palmer ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rjpalmer_tyrannosaurusrex_001.jpg) and Matt Martyniuk ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tyrannosaurus_rex_mmartyniuk.png) and they said that as of now, these have too large amount of feathers based on the evidence published by Bell et al. (2017), and they said they heavily disagree with the ones who say Bell et al. (2017) changes nothing. Grimace1223424 ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
But they all advised to me and for Wikipedia days ago to go featherless or almost featherless. Also, they, and even me knew about the scales before they were published, but they only got to read the arguments of the paper when it was published, and all of them agree with it based on current evidence. If they say it, I think we should accept that, as they know more about these things than any of us. Grimace1223424 ( talk) 15:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Tyrannosaurus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line in the first sentence "The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), ..." should more correctly read "The species Tyrannosaurus rex (meaning "tyrant lizard" in Greek plus "king" in Latin), ..." 68.149.12.34 ( talk) 06:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Tyrannosaurids refer to Tyrannosauridae, tyrannosaurines refer to Tyrannosaurinae, but to what taxa does tyrannosaur refer to? There's no "Tyrannosauria" out there. I suggest a brief clarification should be included in the article about whatever tyrannosaur means. Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 20:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The part about feathers needs to be revised. New researches indicate that Tyrannosaurus rex and other large Tyrannosaurids were covered in scales. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/06/tyrannosaurus-rex-had-scaly-skin-and-wasnt-covered-in-feathers-a-new-study-says/?utm_term=.ac626c5a5848 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/07/feather-furore-trex-may-not-have-been-fluffy-after-all-skin-study-suggests http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-skin-was-not-covered-feathers-study-says-180963603/ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/world-s-only-fossils-t-rex-skin-suggest-it-was-covered-scales-not-feathers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Hunter 6amm4 ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The current article states: Tyrannosaurus had very large olfactory bulbs and olfactory nerves relative to their brain size, the organs responsible for a heightened sense of smell. This suggests that the sense of smell was highly developed, and implies that tyrannosaurs could detect carcasses by scent alone across great distances. The sense of smell in tyrannosaurs may have been comparable to modern vultures, which use scent to track carcasses for scavenging. Research on the olfactory bulbs has shown that Tyrannosaurus rex had the most highly developed sense of smell of 21 sampled non-avian dinosaur species.[125]
The citation refers [125] to:
"T. Rex brain study reveals a refined 'nose'". Calgary Herald. October 28, 2008. Retrieved October 29, 2008.
This article is currently unavailable, but there are numerous news articles that appeared at the same time. They all seem to use the same quote 'The research is detailed in the current issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.'
The journal article seems to be this one: Olfactory acuity in theropods: palaeobiological and evolutionary implications Darla K Zelenitsky , François Therrien , and Yoshitsugu Kobayashi Published:28 October 200 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2008.1075
The same authors published another journal article three years later: Evolution of olfaction in non-avian theropod dinosaurs and birds Darla K. Zelenitsky , François Therrien , Ryan C. Ridgely , Amanda R. McGee , and Lawrence M. Witmer Published:13 April 2011 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0238
In this journal article they specifically state that: "Some published non-avian theropod specimens (e.g. Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, subadult Tyrannosaurus rex) were excluded owing to uncertainties in their olfactory ratios" AlasdairD ( talk) 07:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Section Paleoecology, third paragraph: "Another formation with tyrannosaur remains is the Lance Formation of Wyoming.". Is this Tyrannosaurus fossils or Tyrannosauroidea? Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 17:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.
Therefore, I believe that this article no longer qualifies as a featured article, and it needs to be delisted immediately. Mimihitam ( talk) 12:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
What I meant is that if you published a claim that a T-rex has a red head and a brown body and put such an image as a scientifically-true illustration, you would immediately be roasted. And can I publish a rainbow-colored T-rex in the thermoregulation part now? It has exactly the same standing with the red-coloured one. It doesn't matter if a "paleontologist" used such an image if there is no evidence at all. Some paleontologists were also involved in the whole "Dino Gangs" fiasco, doesn't mean we should follow them like a sheep. The argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy here is really strong. As I said, just move it to either the history part of the popular depiction part, and that would be a compromise. Mimihitam ( talk) 11:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Again, argumentum ad auctoritatem. It would be better to put all of these creative products in the appropriate section: either history or popular depictions. It should not be presented as a scientifically-true image. Unless you are bent on misleading people, then I don't really give a damn if it's "not going to be adhered to" here. Farewell. Mimihitam ( talk) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Because it's extremely arbitrary to have an image with a red head and a brown body, might as well put a rainbow in the forelimbs, and worse is that it is being presented here as a scientifically-true image. There is no basis for that except for your argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy. Unless you put a disclaimer that it is an "artistic depiction", then it is bound to be misleading. People would start believing that they really have a red head and a brown color.
Oh, and interestingly the page that you are referring to has this section: Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If_it's_written_in_a_book,_it_must_be_true!". Mimihitam ( talk) 11:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"Piss off", ROFL, what a bunch of ignorant sheeps who just blindly believe that T-Rex really had multi-colours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I don't think people like IJReid care about that. Your "artistic" images really have the status of the bible here, it's so sacred and nobody is allowed to remove it even though it's not based on any evidence. I can't do anything against deeply-held dogma, it's just like arguing with creationists. So once again I couldn't care less. Farewell. Mimihitam ( talk) 11:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Saying "piss off" in the first place is really unethical. It's not about "I don't like it", it's about giving the wrong impression, like how Jurassic Park/World made people think that all velociraptors were as big as humans. Anyway, since this is pointless (and I've actually stopped responding until someone has to be called out for writing something nice), I will leave it as it is. Thank you. Mimihitam ( talk) 12:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The horse that is the crux of the argument against the restoration has been beaten to death for years now, with overwhelming community consensus that paleoart is not original research provided the existence of WP:DINOART and proper sourcing. If Mimihitam would like to change the status quo, they are welcome to start a RfC and attempt to persuade other editors. Also, the suggestion that this restoration of Tyrannosaurus would not be published is ridiculous given the appearance of this diagram as a figure in a peer-reviewed paper, which has a way more red Tyrannosaurus and a pop culture reference to boot. Finally, Mimihitam's offence at supposedly incendiary comments is ironic given their choice words such as "ignorant sheep". 2001:569:782B:7A00:3564:406A:6710:1DD ( talk) 17:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@ LittleJerry FunkMonk footnotes number 3, 7 and 22 are missing. If one of them is a book already quoted in another part, we need to find the page. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the dinosaur literatures. Also I believe that it would be more comfortable for readers to have a paragraph with all the scientists who believe that they can't run, and then another one who believe they can run, with the 2017 research and the "it does not really matter" part as the closing paragraph. But that's just my 2 cents, it's up to you guys. I think the proposed summary is already much more legible than the previous version. Mimihitam ( talk) 10:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@ LittleJerry Thank you for your hard work! I appreciate it. Mimihitam ( talk) 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@ LittleJerry: the references need to be rechecked. I have removed the blogs and other unreliable sources, but some of the books were cited without the page number. Example: Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-74185-3. Mimihitam ( talk) 18:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
An editor has just removed every single named researcher from this section, saying that they are "not needed". While this approach seems sensible in spirit, this edit has also purged any notion of contradicting research, instead presenting all of the information as the product of an amalgamated "research community".
Consider the current text:
This is a completely misleading rewrite of the original text:
Evidently the original text can be more concise, for example by omitting Abler and "in a 1993 popular book", but it is also clear that the current version is completely inadequate and downright misleading.
This is particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that Horner's scavenger hypothesis is hardly mainstream, and yet is presented by the current revision of the article as an accepted possibility published in peer-reviewed literature. The recently-removed text noted:
Instead of this "shotgun surgery" approach, I would argue that the entire section needs a rewrite from scratch. It violates the spirit of WP:FRINGE by placing a generally unaccepted hypothesis - that Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger - at its center, taking up several paragraphs. A more appropriate presentation of this section would be to introduce evidence supporting a predatory lifestyle first, followed by a paragraph or two each of the scavenger hypothesis and the "infectious saliva" hypothesis. 2001:569:782B:7A00:C04E:DF87:A37:63E1 ( talk) 23:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I am merging this into the Featured Article Review section, because it is a good illustration of the deficiencies in the text. 2001:569:782B:7A00:C04E:DF87:A37:63E1 ( talk) 23:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively the section can be trimmed to just a link to Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus, to eliminate the WP:CONTENTFORK. 2001:569:782B:7A00:C04E:DF87:A37:63E1 ( talk) 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Individual names have less (or no) importance if the cited source is from a WP:SCIRS source. That was my point. Also, Casliber, your carelessly-prepared entry reverting my edit is not English grammar. Please be more careful with your editing. -- Zefr ( talk) 00:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
This paragraph is still problematic for reasons noted above:
It needs either in-text attributions or a "however" preceding the final sentence to denote that the hypotheses are contrary. 128.189.217.131 ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Should we make the picture of the Sue specimen the infobox picture? I'm asking because Sue has its gastralia, while the reconstruction of the type specimen does not. Does the type specimen always have to be the infobox picture? Zach Varmitech ( talk) 17:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Article should reflect the modification of his views a few years ago. 104.169.45.151 ( talk) 07:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
This 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. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Just noticed that the Discovery section is all the way at the bottom of the article. I think it should be at least the second (per convention), if not the first (because some of the content in Description depends on it). Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes ( talk | contribs) 00:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I've noticed that this article still uses some overly feathered restorations, which are considered inaccurate since Bell et al. (2017). The current consensus among paleontologists is that T. rex either had no feathers, or only had about as large amount of feathers which is comparable to the amount of the hair that elephants, hippos, rhinos and whales have on their body. I asked various experts (Mark Witton, Scott Hartman, Nima Sassani, Thomas Holtz), and they all said that it would be the best for Wikipedia to use completely scaly or very lightly feathered restorations, and to avoid restorations with a "jacket of feathers", as they consider it unlikely there very sharp transitions between scales and feathers on its body, and their arguments were very convincing (they also mentioned the feathers can turn into scales and vica versa thing, but still preferred scaly or lightly feathered restorations). I also asked them about the restorations made by RJ Palmer ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rjpalmer_tyrannosaurusrex_001.jpg) and Matt Martyniuk ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Tyrannosaurus_rex_mmartyniuk.png) and they said that as of now, these have too large amount of feathers based on the evidence published by Bell et al. (2017), and they said they heavily disagree with the ones who say Bell et al. (2017) changes nothing. Grimace1223424 ( talk) 15:04, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
But they all advised to me and for Wikipedia days ago to go featherless or almost featherless. Also, they, and even me knew about the scales before they were published, but they only got to read the arguments of the paper when it was published, and all of them agree with it based on current evidence. If they say it, I think we should accept that, as they know more about these things than any of us. Grimace1223424 ( talk) 15:24, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Tyrannosaurus. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
Tyrannosaurus has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The line in the first sentence "The species Tyrannosaurus rex (rex meaning "king" in Latin), ..." should more correctly read "The species Tyrannosaurus rex (meaning "tyrant lizard" in Greek plus "king" in Latin), ..." 68.149.12.34 ( talk) 06:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Tyrannosaurids refer to Tyrannosauridae, tyrannosaurines refer to Tyrannosaurinae, but to what taxa does tyrannosaur refer to? There's no "Tyrannosauria" out there. I suggest a brief clarification should be included in the article about whatever tyrannosaur means. Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 20:46, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The part about feathers needs to be revised. New researches indicate that Tyrannosaurus rex and other large Tyrannosaurids were covered in scales. Sources: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2017/06/06/tyrannosaurus-rex-had-scaly-skin-and-wasnt-covered-in-feathers-a-new-study-says/?utm_term=.ac626c5a5848 https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jun/07/feather-furore-trex-may-not-have-been-fluffy-after-all-skin-study-suggests http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/t-rex-skin-was-not-covered-feathers-study-says-180963603/ http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/world-s-only-fossils-t-rex-skin-suggest-it-was-covered-scales-not-feathers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Hunter 6amm4 ( talk • contribs) 03:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
The current article states: Tyrannosaurus had very large olfactory bulbs and olfactory nerves relative to their brain size, the organs responsible for a heightened sense of smell. This suggests that the sense of smell was highly developed, and implies that tyrannosaurs could detect carcasses by scent alone across great distances. The sense of smell in tyrannosaurs may have been comparable to modern vultures, which use scent to track carcasses for scavenging. Research on the olfactory bulbs has shown that Tyrannosaurus rex had the most highly developed sense of smell of 21 sampled non-avian dinosaur species.[125]
The citation refers [125] to:
"T. Rex brain study reveals a refined 'nose'". Calgary Herald. October 28, 2008. Retrieved October 29, 2008.
This article is currently unavailable, but there are numerous news articles that appeared at the same time. They all seem to use the same quote 'The research is detailed in the current issue of the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B.'
The journal article seems to be this one: Olfactory acuity in theropods: palaeobiological and evolutionary implications Darla K Zelenitsky , François Therrien , and Yoshitsugu Kobayashi Published:28 October 200 https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2008.1075
The same authors published another journal article three years later: Evolution of olfaction in non-avian theropod dinosaurs and birds Darla K. Zelenitsky , François Therrien , Ryan C. Ridgely , Amanda R. McGee , and Lawrence M. Witmer Published:13 April 2011 https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2011.0238
In this journal article they specifically state that: "Some published non-avian theropod specimens (e.g. Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, subadult Tyrannosaurus rex) were excluded owing to uncertainties in their olfactory ratios" AlasdairD ( talk) 07:48, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Section Paleoecology, third paragraph: "Another formation with tyrannosaur remains is the Lance Formation of Wyoming.". Is this Tyrannosaurus fossils or Tyrannosauroidea? Dinosaur (talk) 🌴🦕🦖 -- 17:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.
Therefore, I believe that this article no longer qualifies as a featured article, and it needs to be delisted immediately. Mimihitam ( talk) 12:09, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
What I meant is that if you published a claim that a T-rex has a red head and a brown body and put such an image as a scientifically-true illustration, you would immediately be roasted. And can I publish a rainbow-colored T-rex in the thermoregulation part now? It has exactly the same standing with the red-coloured one. It doesn't matter if a "paleontologist" used such an image if there is no evidence at all. Some paleontologists were also involved in the whole "Dino Gangs" fiasco, doesn't mean we should follow them like a sheep. The argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy here is really strong. As I said, just move it to either the history part of the popular depiction part, and that would be a compromise. Mimihitam ( talk) 11:22, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Again, argumentum ad auctoritatem. It would be better to put all of these creative products in the appropriate section: either history or popular depictions. It should not be presented as a scientifically-true image. Unless you are bent on misleading people, then I don't really give a damn if it's "not going to be adhered to" here. Farewell. Mimihitam ( talk) 11:34, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Because it's extremely arbitrary to have an image with a red head and a brown body, might as well put a rainbow in the forelimbs, and worse is that it is being presented here as a scientifically-true image. There is no basis for that except for your argumentum ad auctoritatem fallacy. Unless you put a disclaimer that it is an "artistic depiction", then it is bound to be misleading. People would start believing that they really have a red head and a brown color.
Oh, and interestingly the page that you are referring to has this section: Wikipedia:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If_it's_written_in_a_book,_it_must_be_true!". Mimihitam ( talk) 11:58, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
"Piss off", ROFL, what a bunch of ignorant sheeps who just blindly believe that T-Rex really had multi-colours. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But I don't think people like IJReid care about that. Your "artistic" images really have the status of the bible here, it's so sacred and nobody is allowed to remove it even though it's not based on any evidence. I can't do anything against deeply-held dogma, it's just like arguing with creationists. So once again I couldn't care less. Farewell. Mimihitam ( talk) 11:55, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Saying "piss off" in the first place is really unethical. It's not about "I don't like it", it's about giving the wrong impression, like how Jurassic Park/World made people think that all velociraptors were as big as humans. Anyway, since this is pointless (and I've actually stopped responding until someone has to be called out for writing something nice), I will leave it as it is. Thank you. Mimihitam ( talk) 12:28, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
The horse that is the crux of the argument against the restoration has been beaten to death for years now, with overwhelming community consensus that paleoart is not original research provided the existence of WP:DINOART and proper sourcing. If Mimihitam would like to change the status quo, they are welcome to start a RfC and attempt to persuade other editors. Also, the suggestion that this restoration of Tyrannosaurus would not be published is ridiculous given the appearance of this diagram as a figure in a peer-reviewed paper, which has a way more red Tyrannosaurus and a pop culture reference to boot. Finally, Mimihitam's offence at supposedly incendiary comments is ironic given their choice words such as "ignorant sheep". 2001:569:782B:7A00:3564:406A:6710:1DD ( talk) 17:05, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
@ LittleJerry FunkMonk footnotes number 3, 7 and 22 are missing. If one of them is a book already quoted in another part, we need to find the page. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the dinosaur literatures. Also I believe that it would be more comfortable for readers to have a paragraph with all the scientists who believe that they can't run, and then another one who believe they can run, with the 2017 research and the "it does not really matter" part as the closing paragraph. But that's just my 2 cents, it's up to you guys. I think the proposed summary is already much more legible than the previous version. Mimihitam ( talk) 10:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@ LittleJerry Thank you for your hard work! I appreciate it. Mimihitam ( talk) 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
@ LittleJerry: the references need to be rechecked. I have removed the blogs and other unreliable sources, but some of the books were cited without the page number. Example: Horner, John R.; Lessem, Don (1993). The complete T. rex. New York City: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-74185-3. Mimihitam ( talk) 18:01, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
An editor has just removed every single named researcher from this section, saying that they are "not needed". While this approach seems sensible in spirit, this edit has also purged any notion of contradicting research, instead presenting all of the information as the product of an amalgamated "research community".
Consider the current text:
This is a completely misleading rewrite of the original text:
Evidently the original text can be more concise, for example by omitting Abler and "in a 1993 popular book", but it is also clear that the current version is completely inadequate and downright misleading.
This is particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that Horner's scavenger hypothesis is hardly mainstream, and yet is presented by the current revision of the article as an accepted possibility published in peer-reviewed literature. The recently-removed text noted:
Instead of this "shotgun surgery" approach, I would argue that the entire section needs a rewrite from scratch. It violates the spirit of WP:FRINGE by placing a generally unaccepted hypothesis - that Tyrannosaurus was a scavenger - at its center, taking up several paragraphs. A more appropriate presentation of this section would be to introduce evidence supporting a predatory lifestyle first, followed by a paragraph or two each of the scavenger hypothesis and the "infectious saliva" hypothesis. 2001:569:782B:7A00:C04E:DF87:A37:63E1 ( talk) 23:08, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
I am merging this into the Featured Article Review section, because it is a good illustration of the deficiencies in the text. 2001:569:782B:7A00:C04E:DF87:A37:63E1 ( talk) 23:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Alternatively the section can be trimmed to just a link to Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus, to eliminate the WP:CONTENTFORK. 2001:569:782B:7A00:C04E:DF87:A37:63E1 ( talk) 23:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
( edit conflict)Individual names have less (or no) importance if the cited source is from a WP:SCIRS source. That was my point. Also, Casliber, your carelessly-prepared entry reverting my edit is not English grammar. Please be more careful with your editing. -- Zefr ( talk) 00:13, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
This paragraph is still problematic for reasons noted above:
It needs either in-text attributions or a "however" preceding the final sentence to denote that the hypotheses are contrary. 128.189.217.131 ( talk) 20:49, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Should we make the picture of the Sue specimen the infobox picture? I'm asking because Sue has its gastralia, while the reconstruction of the type specimen does not. Does the type specimen always have to be the infobox picture? Zach Varmitech ( talk) 17:05, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Article should reflect the modification of his views a few years ago. 104.169.45.151 ( talk) 07:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)