![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Yutyrannus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 April 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Feathered tyrant by pilsator-d4vbemk.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Feathered tyrant by pilsator-d4vbemk.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9271276/
A 2022 study by Naish and Cau found Yutyrannus to be more derived than the proceratosaurids, thus falling outside the grouping. Should probably acknowledge this new development.
User:Aliafroz1901 has recently repeatedly changed the mass estimate of this species from "about 1414 kilograms" (an exact quote from the source article) to "1400 kg" (apparently his own, rounded estimate). While it's true that it is often impossible to reach exact estimates, 1) the source does not claim it is exact, hence use of the word "about" and 2) even if it is incorrect, Wikipedia's No Original Research policy prohibits editors from correcting published data without backing it up with a verifiable source. It is not appropriate to change sourced information just because you personally feel it is likely to be wrong. You must cite a source disputing the first source's data. Writing "1400 kilograms" when the source used to verify this fact specifically says "about 1414 kilograms" is lying about the content of the source and is against wiki policy. MMartyniuk ( talk) 16:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You've been reverting my edits in which I rounded heavily over precise data about the holotype's scull length, which was crushed and thus could not be safely measured. You also reverted the mass figures to a similarly heavily over precise figure, forgetting that there are as many methods to produce estimates as there are scientists. You also forgot that weight will very due to a number of external variables, which by the way isn't WP:OR since there are many sources to back this up. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
O and 1400 kilograms is about 1414 kilograms. Not to mention that exact quotes are copyright violations. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 17:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Then Why does the FA
Alosaurus have so many rounded figures(chek the ssaurce for Big Al's weight and don't forget to chek the talk page for instences of concensous being to round). Also why arn't imejes speady deleted since they tend to combine one's interpretation of the information present in more then 1 saurce, while my edits are reverted for the same reason.
Aliafroz1901 (
talk)
04:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the over precise information.
Aliafroz1901 (
talk)
05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Dinoguy why did you revert my edits with your edit summary stateing "no justification what so ever for douting skull length" when we know that the holotype's skull was crushed. You also put the over precise mass figures back in with out provideing a reason in your edit summary, in fact you didn't say or imply that you were putting them back in. I've reverted your edits as for now. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 15:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Dinoguy why did you revert my edits once more with out even bothering to provide an edit summary. Though I honestly don't mind as long as you have a reasonable rationale. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Actuelly only 3 people have partisipated in this discussion so you can't really say that my opinion is in the minority. and I've seen mesages on some user talk pages requesting the user to provide a helpful edit summary even when unduing the most obvious tipe of vandelism, leve far when unduing a good faith edit. And to quote from dinoguy's post above "changing a single data point because it doesn't seem right in context is not appropriate. Either it should be left as-is or removed entirely until it is tested by other sources.", I was merely following his proposal and that's exactly the reason I am so desirous of a helpful explanation. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 05:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Well then what about adding about, around or approximately behind the estimates, so as to make it clear that they are only estimates. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 15:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yutyrannus. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 16:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
How do people even know that Yutyrannus had feathers?
I mean, seriously. If it had feathers, wouldn’t they have just rotted away eventually? Austin012599 ( talk) 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Austin012599 ( talk) 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
One paragraph should not show measurements in meters, millimeters and centimeters. Especially when the measurement in millimeters is larger than that in centimeters (i.e. 905 millimeters being followed by 60 cm). This is best all listed in meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.24.153 ( talk) 19:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It shares little traits with them but it looks alot like a carnosaur like neovenator or carcharodontosaurus rather than tyrannosaurus or albertosaurus Jakegaming7788 ( talk) 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Yutyrannus appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 13 April 2012 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() |
An image used in this article,
File:Feathered tyrant by pilsator-d4vbemk.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at
Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Feathered tyrant by pilsator-d4vbemk.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image -- CommonsNotificationBot ( talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC) |
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9271276/
A 2022 study by Naish and Cau found Yutyrannus to be more derived than the proceratosaurids, thus falling outside the grouping. Should probably acknowledge this new development.
User:Aliafroz1901 has recently repeatedly changed the mass estimate of this species from "about 1414 kilograms" (an exact quote from the source article) to "1400 kg" (apparently his own, rounded estimate). While it's true that it is often impossible to reach exact estimates, 1) the source does not claim it is exact, hence use of the word "about" and 2) even if it is incorrect, Wikipedia's No Original Research policy prohibits editors from correcting published data without backing it up with a verifiable source. It is not appropriate to change sourced information just because you personally feel it is likely to be wrong. You must cite a source disputing the first source's data. Writing "1400 kilograms" when the source used to verify this fact specifically says "about 1414 kilograms" is lying about the content of the source and is against wiki policy. MMartyniuk ( talk) 16:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
You've been reverting my edits in which I rounded heavily over precise data about the holotype's scull length, which was crushed and thus could not be safely measured. You also reverted the mass figures to a similarly heavily over precise figure, forgetting that there are as many methods to produce estimates as there are scientists. You also forgot that weight will very due to a number of external variables, which by the way isn't WP:OR since there are many sources to back this up. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
O and 1400 kilograms is about 1414 kilograms. Not to mention that exact quotes are copyright violations. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 17:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
Then Why does the FA
Alosaurus have so many rounded figures(chek the ssaurce for Big Al's weight and don't forget to chek the talk page for instences of concensous being to round). Also why arn't imejes speady deleted since they tend to combine one's interpretation of the information present in more then 1 saurce, while my edits are reverted for the same reason.
Aliafroz1901 (
talk)
04:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and deleted the over precise information.
Aliafroz1901 (
talk)
05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Dinoguy why did you revert my edits with your edit summary stateing "no justification what so ever for douting skull length" when we know that the holotype's skull was crushed. You also put the over precise mass figures back in with out provideing a reason in your edit summary, in fact you didn't say or imply that you were putting them back in. I've reverted your edits as for now. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 15:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Dinoguy why did you revert my edits once more with out even bothering to provide an edit summary. Though I honestly don't mind as long as you have a reasonable rationale. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Actuelly only 3 people have partisipated in this discussion so you can't really say that my opinion is in the minority. and I've seen mesages on some user talk pages requesting the user to provide a helpful edit summary even when unduing the most obvious tipe of vandelism, leve far when unduing a good faith edit. And to quote from dinoguy's post above "changing a single data point because it doesn't seem right in context is not appropriate. Either it should be left as-is or removed entirely until it is tested by other sources.", I was merely following his proposal and that's exactly the reason I am so desirous of a helpful explanation. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 05:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Well then what about adding about, around or approximately behind the estimates, so as to make it clear that they are only estimates. Aliafroz1901 ( talk) 15:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Yutyrannus. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
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) 16:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
How do people even know that Yutyrannus had feathers?
I mean, seriously. If it had feathers, wouldn’t they have just rotted away eventually? Austin012599 ( talk) 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Austin012599 ( talk) 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
One paragraph should not show measurements in meters, millimeters and centimeters. Especially when the measurement in millimeters is larger than that in centimeters (i.e. 905 millimeters being followed by 60 cm). This is best all listed in meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.24.153 ( talk) 19:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
It shares little traits with them but it looks alot like a carnosaur like neovenator or carcharodontosaurus rather than tyrannosaurus or albertosaurus Jakegaming7788 ( talk) 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)