Wikipedia

Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 11

< Talk:Tyrannosaurus
Latest comment: 5 years ago by 104.169.45.151 in topic Jack Horner backed off the pure-scavenger view
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:54, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:25, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Move the discovery section? Comment

Latest comment: 6 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

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)

Hmm, not sure about first, but yeah, definitely before classification. FunkMonk (talk) 00:07, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Alright, it's in second. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
The history section here is pretty modest in size, but I'm wondeing what to do with for example Iguanodon and Pittacosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 09:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I would actually argue for moving the history/discovery section up to first in all three cases. There's a tempting conformity in having description first, as in recent species. However with many fossil species (particularly "storied" ones like Iguanodon) the discovery is a) such an important part of the topic that one would like to place it early on, but b) having Description & Palaeobiology split by a Discovery section breaks the flow, since these two often thematically lead into one another. So lifting that section right to the top might work well. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:45, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
It breaks with a long-standing "tradition" among dinosaur articles, so it should probably have a wider discussion at the project first. Modern animal articles usually have taxonomic history first, on the other hand, but note for example the backlash at the FAC discussion when I did the same with the extinct Paraceratherium. Two editors refused to support for the reason alone that I didn't move description first... FunkMonk (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

The amount of feathers on restorations

Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Hi, take a look at the existing section above called "Feathers", where this comment seems to belong. As far as I've seen, Holtz at least was critical of the new conclusions on Facebook, and note that these skin patches have been known for years, so that's why they don't really change anything; they have been taken into account previously, the only difference is that now they're published. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 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)

If "they say it" doesn't mean anything if it is not published, but merely "personal communication". On Witton's blog, he merely states it is more likely, not that it is the only possibility. More likely does not equal something else is incorrect. Oh, and I just noticed, you're that Hungarian sockpuppet again, no? Can we get some admins on the case? FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:31, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 August 2018

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

  Not done Rex means "king" in Greek too. ~ Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk to me) 07:45, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

What taxa does tyrannosaur refer to?

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

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)

Tyrannosaur clearly redirects to Tyrannosauroidea. 128.189.203.33 (talk) 21:27, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Feathers

Latest comment: 5 years ago41 comments11 people in discussion

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)

Both views are already reflected in the article. There is no consensus, and there probably won't be one, unless a mummified specimen is found... All we can do here is say what arguments have been published so far. FunkMonk (talk) 16:33, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
By the way, I moved the scaly, lipless Vienna model up to the description section so it is juxtaposed with the feathered, lipped model in Poland. I think it's a good way to show both views and not seem biased. FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Seems this will be an eternal back and forth, see the latest edits[1], so I'll ping the usual dinosaur art reviewers to figure out what to do here. Should we only use restorations that show feathers restricted to parts were scales aren't known (which supposedly excludes the current Saurian-syle image), or should anything go, since feathers and scales coexist in the same skin patches of some birds, as well as supposedly in Kulindadromeus? IJReid, Steveoc 86, Lythronaxargestes, Dinoguy2, Tomopteryx, Lusotitan. FunkMonk (talk) 14:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The current Saurian-style image may only have a slight inaccuracy, which would be over the pelvis, as scales are known from the bottom back corner of the ilium. Scales are also known from under the torso, and up to halfway up the middle tail, so there should be scales in these regions, as least primarily. Scales are also known from the neck but it is unknown where on the neck, so we cannot really claim inaccuracies for that. With such a lack of consensus, it is probably best to let anything go integument-wise, although still remove skeletaly inaccurate images. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:50, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I would also support letting it go either way for integument. Lusotitan 18:52, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I'd go with restricted feathers if possible. Why second guess published sources? Feather-scale coexistance in this case seems like special pleading. Yeah it's possible, but there's no evidence, and just scales are also possible. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Since both are possible I feel it's important both are represented. Lusotitan 05:40, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The feathered version is overrepresented in that case. It's way at the top, while the scale-only version (which is referred to as outdated) is a lot farther down. Prinsgezinde (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a model head without feathers right below the feathered drawing. But yes, we could replace one of the other feather images (like the one under locomotion), but we don't really have many good ones. FunkMonk (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 
I took the time to look through all the ones we have. Among some other very low-quality and inaccurate ones, there is only the famed Witton image left, which only features sparse feathering. The only issue is the dewclaw is too large but I can easily fix it with a photo editing tool. Thoughts? ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:37, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
That could probably work, what do people say? FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
I think it's fine. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:46, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Ok, I did a rejig by replacing Durbed's feathered restoration, since one of his images is also in the palaeoecology section. FunkMonk (talk) 03:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Looks good. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 03:47, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
If we think the RJPalmer image is maybe a bit too in one direction as the first restoration, we could also swap the placement of that and the Witton image. But I don't think that's really urgent, and the Witton image lacks a bit of detail around the head. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Seems the lifted, and very eagle-like, tongue in the Palmer image is inaccurate:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
RJ's defense (for his new one, also sporting a lifted tongue) is that he believes this means tyrannosaurs had immobile tongues, but not necessarily ones fused to the mouth floor like with crocodilians, which he chalks up to being another of their weirdo specializations, perhaps for death-rolling. I don't believe he has any evidence for this, but his suggestion isn't out of the question either. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 15:19, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Well, it kind of amounts to original research/special pleading. But in any case, am I wrong or does the paper not say anything specifically about tyrannosaurs other than showing a photo of Yutyrannus? It seems Tyrannosaurus is only brought up in various pop science articles? FunkMonk (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
  • Nobu Tamura made a new, free restoration[3] this year based on the scale paper. It only shows feathers along the upper midline. The thigh muscle looks very strange, though, and the tongue is raised. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
The foot also looks wonky. Not the best illustration. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
  • The four feathered illustrations in the article all got their descriptions on Commons modified by IPs to say either "dated," "debunked," or "fictional." I have reverted these edits based on the above conversation. Please correct me if I did the wrong thing. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:09, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
By the same guy who keeps removing the images form here, maybe? But yeah, there still doesn't seem to be scientific consensus about it, Thomas Holtz and Darren Naish still maintian that taphonomy has been ignored, which I guess implies that preserved skin without feathers isn't proof of absence of feathers. Which seems sensible, if you find a dead, decayed dog without fur, you wouldn't assume it was naked in life. We know feathers and scales an coexist on the same patches of skin, form both modern birds, as well as Kulindadromeus. FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Now even Saurian redesigned their Tyrannosaurus to be scaly[4], and the Palmer drawing we have is directly tied to their earlier design. Time to use Witton's drawing as our main restoration? FunkMonk (talk) 21:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah using a design Saurian considers to be outdated seems like a poor idea. Could we contact RJ/Arvalis to use his new one? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 00:14, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Of course, since he already "donated" one image, there might be a chance. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I have put Witton's image in its place for now. I think the restoration under palaeoecology should be ok too, since it does not show feathers in the areas where skin is known. FunkMonk (talk) 03:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Witton's feels like a huge step down in clearly showing the anatomy of the animal. Is it worth swapping out the detailed but feathered one over some integument we're not even confidant about yet? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:17, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll say from a scientific standpoint I think it may be better to exclude the image with feathers. There is still uncertainty if the Rex had feathers, and I think it's irresponsible to push that when we don't have hard evidence for it. That would be like if lions were extinct, and we found fossilized evidence of the mane. Then declaring all felids have a mane which isn't true. I think the best solutions is to include both an image of a Rex with and without feathers standing next to each other. Making is clear that really do not know with 100% certainty if they had feathers at all.Mcelite (talk) 06:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree - it's more like we had several fossil relatives all around T. rex with evidence of feathers. A bit like...say....a fossil bird. I see no problem with having a depiction with feathers and noting it as such as an alternative view. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:00, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As long as there are respected palaeontologists who still argue for some amount of feathers, such as Thomas Holtz and Darren Naish, we are pretty much obliged to show them anyway. But we should probably not use restorations that show feathers in areas of the body where scales are known (hence the removal of the Palmer image, which also showed an overly flexible tongue, which is probably also incorrect). As for the Witton image, it is the best placeholder we have for now, but of course, if a new image comes up, we can replace it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I still think the Martyniuk restoration is the best, and the limited feathering still follows what's possible, while the image itself is clearer. If we get into another pointless argument over it, we might as well try toning down the brightness of the red. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
We should certainly keep it in the article, but I wonder if it is too "controversial" (even without the red) to use as the first restoration. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest then having two images together with one have some feathers, but I agree with FunkMonk that the restoration with feathers should not have feather placements where we know there were scales. That's basically reaching in favor for a certain point of view, and not neutral. I think this will always be controversial especially because it is speculative, but again I'll agree with a restoration with partial feathers as long as it is either paired with a fully scaled animal, or the text explicitly says that we are uncertain if the Rex had feathers.Mcelite (talk) 17:45, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I have a restoration here, [5] which I could modify for Wikipedia. Almost everything is in layers so the feathers can be switched off, which would make a feathered/scaly comparison somewhat easy. If I do upload, I'd remove or reduce the scarring and restore the missing a hand... I'd also like to update the skin details on the head to conform better to Witton's interpretation and apply a few other fixes. That said, If RJ donates his superior restoration, that would be my preferred option. Steveoc 86 (talk) 18:16, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
As is, the feathered model is shown in a section where it is juxtaposed with the scaly model head. And your image looks good, Steve, but yeah, probably best to patch him up and send him for review first! FunkMonk (talk) 18:41, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
We also can temporarily re-add File:Tyrannosaurus rex by durbed.jpg if we wanna risk being a little repetitive. Additionally, these two images also exist, although they're rather wonky: File:Tyrannosaurus rex Reconstruction by Nobu Tamura.jpg and File:Tyrannosaurus rex by abelov2014.jpg. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 21:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that's a nice restoration Steveoc 86 of course with the patch ups. Having 2 version of it would be fitting. I'm not in disagreement with adding in the other files temporarily either FunkMonk. The last one is the best restoration in my opinion.Mcelite (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
There's also File:Tyrantcol.jpg and File:Tyrannosaurus2 NT.jpg. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 04:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
The Abelov one has a weird head (and at least one pronated hand). The Durbed one with scales has a too massive lower jaw. The rest of the scaly ones are a bit wonky, so as earlier, the problem is mainly our lack of appropriate images. But Steve's should rectify this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:36, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, and it matches with the restorations we have for other tyrannosaurids as well. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Talked to RJ, he turned down having the updated Saurian art be used for copyright/attribution reasons. Steveoc's is definitely the choice to go for at the moment. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that's the best outcome, Steve is very good at keeping his images up to date, I doubt that would be the case with a non-regular. FunkMonk (talk) 23:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Old factory Bulbs

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

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)

Tyrannosaur

Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

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)

"Tyrannosaur" never refers to Tyrannosaurus on Wikipedia, usually Tyrannosauroidea. 2001:569:782B:7A00:A47E:5CD:254B:F95 (talk) 20:35, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
It can refer to both, but we should be specific here. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Featured article review

Latest comment: 5 years ago61 comments13 people in discussion

This article was promoted more than a decade ago in 2006. Now it has become really messy.

  1. Several parts could be considered as a hodgepodge of super technical data without any coherent flow. A notable example is the section on Locomotion. It's extremely long, but there is no flow there at all. Random information that are hard to understand are put here and there without any consideration of legibility. This section needs to be summarized based on the current scientific consensus, and then further debates could be put in a separate article.
  2. Bad sources. I have found and deleted blog sources that were cited. The article still cites a lecture; even if it's delivered by a professor, it's not a proper scholarly publication. The article also cites "science for kids" website, and all the popular science sources need to be replaced by peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, many sources are missing the pages, and the Internet sources are not cited properly.

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)

No articles are ever "delisted immediately", that's just not how it works. Have a look at WP:FAR. Best course of action is to simply list issues that need fixing, as you have done, notify the dinosaur project, and then it will most likely be fixed. I agree the article has deteriorated, but per the FAR instructions ("raise issues at article Talk") it is best to see if the issues can be dealt with in the usual way before taking it there; FAR is the last resort, not the first. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we could go through this or perhaps a few of the oldest dinosaur FAs and touch them up as the next WikiProject Dinosaurs collab, with Brachiosaurus on the final stretch. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:48, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps we should have an entire task listed at the dinosaur project devoted to maintaining FAs and keeping them up to date. It certainly is a neglected area. Even some recent FAs are lacking information published after they passed, so more than a temporary collaboration, it should probably be an ongoing, parallel process. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
I've been meaning to get Thescelosaurus into this half of the decade sometime... the only two papers from more recent than 2011 cited are from 2012 and 2013 respectively, the latter for the now positively ancient looking pre-Boyd (2015) phylogenetic tree. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 19:57, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
From what I've seen in recent articles, some of the other major tyrannosaurid ones like Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Daspletosaurus look like they wouldn't pass FAC today. They're quite readable in terms of prose, but go into only about as much detail or comprehensiveness as a modern GA would. Seems like this should be a slow process though. Like FunkMonk said, we probably shouldn't run around and start uprooting everything immediately. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 20:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Everything promoted before 2009 really has this problem, before the GA and FA criteria were overhauled. I added some new tasks to the dinosaur project page. FunkMonk (talk) 20:25, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
This is as good a place to start as any - it then also provides a good template for Gorgosaurus, Albertosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Daspletosaurus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:10, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Red headed depiction

 
Image in question
  • As for the current edit war over an image of Tyrannosaurus with a red head (a moot point, since the colour of most dinosaurs isn't known), it was depicted as such in the Discovery documentary Valley of the T. rex, based on the ideas of Jack R. Horner. Here is another[6] published restoration of Tyrannosaurus with a red head, by Doug Henderson (artist). That at least sets a precedence, and shows the image doesn't present novel ideas. In any case, we don't need sources to say Tyrannosaurus was green or brown either for us to depict it as such. We don't know, so it can't be sourced, all we can do is look at published, artistic precedences. FunkMonk (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
A documentary is not a valid scientific source, period. The point is that the image is a creative undertaking. It is not a scientific one and it doesn't belong to the scientific sections. If you published such an image in the scientific community, you would immediately be roasted. Where are the evidences that T-rex had a red head and a brown body? I might as well create an image where the T-rex is all pink or even rainbow, and then put it in the thermoregulation section. Hey it's valid right?? Nobody knows their colour, so I am allowed to put a rainbow-colored T-rex there! That's how absurd it is, and that's why it should either be deleted or moved to the "popular depiction" or "history" part. Mimihitam (talk) 11:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Err, I just showed you that Tyrannosaurus has been depicted as such in both books and documentaries made by palaeontologists, so "If you published such an image in the scientific community, you would immediately be roasted" is already falsified there. I've seen the Henderson image published in two or three books. FunkMonk (talk) 11:17, 18 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)

If your point is that dinosaurs should only be depicted in black and white because we don't know their colouration, then I'm sorry to tell you that will not be adhered here, or anywhere else for that matter. Now we're at it, here's another redheaded Tyrannosaurus[7], published in a book by Peter Dodson. We could probably go on like this, but the point is, Tyrannosaurus has been depicted with a red head multiple times in publications by professional palaeontologists, and that sets a precedent we can follow. We don't need a source that says "Tyrannosaurus had a red head" because such statements cannot, and will never be made, because no one knows. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 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)

Well, can you explain why you latched onto that particular image and not one of the others? Seems extremely arbitrary; we don't know if any of the colours shown are "true", and we will never know. Also, remember WP:verifiability not truth. I have shown you there is published precedence for this colour scheme, and that's all that can be done. FunkMonk (talk) 11:45, 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)

First, no, it is not comparable at all to a depiction with a rainbow colouration, because it has never been depicted with rainbow colours in any reliable source. Secondly, there are no less than eight different restorations in the article, all with different colour schemes. Who exactly is going to believe that exactly one of them is the "real" one? As for adding "artistic depiction", that is what "restoration" implies. As for your last comment, it doesn't apply, because again, we show eight different colour schemes, so we don't exactly claim any one in particular is "true". We show a very wide range of possibilities. FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
This is all moot in light of the beyond overwhelming WP:Consensus that speculatively coloured reconstructions of extinct subjects are within reasonable, necessary levels of speculation, as evidence by the presence of hundreds of them on commons, many of which being used on Wikipedia right now. If you want a published, academic justification for using colour in art of prehistoric species, I'm sure Mark Witton's recent The Palaeoartist's Handbook contains passages on the subject of what is reasonable speculation in palaeoart, by one of the formost authorities on the subject. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
For one, a rainbow Tyrannosaurus *would* be inaccurate if it was feathered as this one is, due to the impossibility of green or blue or bright yellow feathers in such a basal taxon. Having multi-coloured skin is not inaccurate, regardless of the colours, if done within the variety seen in nature (some animals do naturally have unreasonably brightly-coloured regions, just look at a baboons ass). Feel free to create a rainbow Tyrannosaurus and if it is accurate and more relevant/better quality than the images we currently have, we might end up including it. Until then, piss off. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 23:00, 19 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)

You have some temper for a supposed admin. But you are doing good work on the article otherwise, so I think we should just focus on that. The issue about this particular image seems more like a case of WP:I don't like it. Again, if there was some sort of "dogma" that the dinosaur had a red head and a conspiracy to enforce it, I doubt we would show seven other restorations with different colour schemes. FunkMonk (talk) 12:08, 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)

I agree that we should WP:keep it civil (sorry for quoting policies in every other comment), but again, you have not demonstrated why we give the "wrong impression", according to actual Wikipedia guidelines rather than personal opinion, so there is not much to be done about the particular image. It neither shows anything that contradicts published sources, nor does it introduce novel ideas, therefore it is not a problem to Wikipedia, though you may not like it. FunkMonk (talk) 12:41, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
This is a roundabout argument because we are all saying "nothing truly wrong with it" and then mimi is stating "well you're wrong". Nothing will change at this rate in the discussion because the two sides are so firmly implanted in their opinions. I would strongly recommend either a) bringing this up at WP:DINOART where more editors who discuss this topic are involved, b) getting an impartial third opinion on this, who listens to both sides of the argument, or c) follow the opinion of the more numerously supported side, which in this case is that the image as it is is not wrong and should not be removed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:07, 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)

  • Speaking of restorations, I just noticed something in this video of an upcoming Tyrannosaurus exhibition at the AMNH:[8] At 3:56 it seems the modelmakers have shown Tyrannosaurus with an external vestigial third finger, though the metacarpal (or whatever bone is left of the finger) is usually not shown. Is there any good reason to show this splint? It is also shown in the (weirdly stiff) animation of a juvenile at 3:44. FunkMonk (talk) 08:31, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

To do list

  • To get the ball rolling, we could maybe all add issues to a to do list, I'll start with some below, adapted form some mentioned above. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Replace unreliable sources.
  • Add page numbers to books.
  • Summarise overly technical paragraphs.
  • Summarise overly long and technical sections. The feeding behaviour section became huge a while ago, so I split some of it off into Feeding behaviour of Tyrannosaurus, perhaps it would be better off to have just bee shorter.
  • There is very little on postcranial anatomy, the description section could probably be expanded in general.
  • Mention differences from related genera under description.
I'll have a look this week. I could probably do 3 and 4. I don't have access to many sources so I can't be much help there. LittleJerry (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
All the journal sources should be easy to find with WP:RX or Scihub, but the books might be more problematic...
That feeding behaviour article is of respectable length to be justifiably separated, perhaps cut the current one down into a summary (which I still think should be in the Paleoecology section), link that one, and touch it up a bit? Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, it is certainly too long to merge back in. Question is how much to cut from here... FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, just write it like you would a lead, but just on feeding. Speaking of other articles, there's four additional ones, Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, Sue (dinosaur), Trix (dinosaur), and Tyrannosaurus in popular culture, that would also make sense to review while we're on the subject. We might even be able to make a Tyrannosaurus good topic. The first two need expanding, Trix getting its own article is questionable but the Dutch one is easily of a length within GA reach, and the last article is a mess but is arguably an important enough topic to have another go at. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:11, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Checkout my sandbox for the reduced locomotion section. This is probably the best i can do. LittleJerry (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
Since Mimihitam was the one who nominated this for FAR, we would expect them to stay in touch for the rest of the process and give responses to stuff like this. FunkMonk (talk) 09:56, 11 October 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)

Mimihitam, fixed. LittleJerry (talk) 14:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

@LittleJerry Thank you for your hard work! I appreciate it. Mimihitam (talk) 14:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Should "Feeding" be trimmed down? I think maybe cannibalism could be removed since its in the separate article. LittleJerry (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Well, it could be summarised, but subjects should not be removed entirely when splitting off a section, the coverage of them should just be shortened. FunkMonk (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I'll work on shortening the feeding section. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:50, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Lusotitan, how's that going? LittleJerry (talk) 14:49, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
So whats going on guys? LittleJerry (talk) 16:37, 11 November 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)

I don't have access to those sources. LittleJerry (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
I'll just leave this link here. And perhaps you know this one... In case you wonder why I haven't made any WP:RX requests lately, hehe... FunkMonk (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

"Feeding strategies"

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:

Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey as shown by serrations on the cutting edges of the teeth are closely spaced [...] Tyrannosaurus's tooth serrations may have been more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded.

This is a completely misleading rewrite of the original text:

Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey, as proposed by William Abler in 1992. Abler observed that the serrations on the cutting edges of the teeth are closely spaced [...] Jack Horner and Don Lessem, in a 1993 popular book, questioned Abler's hypothesis, arguing that Tyrannosaurus's tooth serrations as more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded.

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:

[...] Horner himself has claimed that he never published this idea in the peer-reviewed scientific literature [...]

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)

There seems to be a failure to understand what content forks are here. If info is moved to a spin off article, it still has to be summarised at the parent article. FunkMonk (talk) 02:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
I agree completely the removal of researcher names is a very destructive change. I considered merely undoing the edit but as there were good changes to the text within it as well I refrained from doing so. Anyways, trimming into a brief overview linking to the main article is the plan; I said I'd do the trimming, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
The Featured article criteria led me to trim a section so verbose with names, universities, and editor synthesis that it seemed written at the level of a high school term paper. Individual theories about feeding behavior are either accepted by the general scientific community (having been peer-reviewed, and so can be reliably written for the encyclopedia) or are an individual point of view, which violates WP:FACR by not being neutral. The Cannabalism and Pack behavior sections need similar trimming. --Zefr (talk) 23:55, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Huh? There is a lack of consensus in the scientific community about whether T. rex was a hunter or (exclusive) scavenger, hence attribution is critical to make sense of it. The removal of some names made the article lose meaning in places Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
There seems to be an implication here that peer review is an automatic "stamp of approval" from the research community, which is not true; counterarguments and formal rebuttals to peer-reviewed papers are frequently published, and in some cases the peer review process is so much of a joke that ridiculous papers are easily published (see Who's Afraid of Peer Review?). In particular, the dichotomy you have put forward does not hold for many active research questions in paleontology, e.g. the affinities of Chilesaurus, the temnospondyl/lepospondyl origins of amphibians, and the burrowing/aquatic origins of snakes; I am sure the same holds for many other fields. In principle I would have suggested an equal representation of the predator and scavenger hypotheses, making sure to distinguish the two and not present them as parts of a single consensus; however, the latter is not published in peer-reviewed literature and also veers close enough to fringe territory that it should either be discussed minimally or not at all. Either way, the current presentation is misleading. 2001:569:782B:7A00:C04E:DF87:A37:63E1 (talk) 00:09, 3 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)

May I point to the following sentence in WP:SCIRS:
Make readers aware of legitimate uncertainty or controversy within the particular field of study. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers.
2001:569:782B:7A00:C04E:DF87:A37:63E1 (talk) 00:16, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
Or you could have it read
Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey as shown by serrations on the cutting edges of the teeth are closely spaced... On the other hand/Conversely/However/etc., Tyrannosaurus's tooth serrations may have been more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded...
And it gets everything you need across save the names (which are meaningless)  User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  01:12, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
The names are not meaningless, that's the whole point. Attribution provides clarity regarding who's arguing what. Knowing that two different viewpoints are from two different people and that this and that were said by the same person provides an anchor for understanding the controversy of the issue in a way that's a lot harder to convey when it's just "a study" and "a study". Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
That’s what the footnote at the end of a sentence is for, crediting, and it’s not like you reference them again in some other part of the article these specific studies   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  03:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
It has nothing to do with author credit, it's about reader comprehension. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
This is a weird argument, WP:In-text attribution is commonplace in most featured articles, and required for when there is a debate about something. It should not be removed, per Wikipedia guidelines, and it has nothing to do with "credit". But no, we shouldn't list universities and journals in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 03:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

This paragraph is still problematic for reasons noted above:

Tyrannosaurus may have had infectious saliva used to kill its prey as shown by serrations [...] Tyrannosaurus's tooth serrations may have been more like cubes in shape than the serrations on a Komodo monitor's teeth, which are rounded.

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)

Well it was correct a week ago (I just had reworked that paragraph) until someone removed all attributions without checking if the text still makes sense. Restored my version now. I'm a bit tired. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:07, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Infobox picture

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

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)

I prefer the current picture, but I can't really comment without bias since it's overwhelmingly my favorite picture of a dinosaur mount as a picture we have on the site. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I think our photo of the type specimen is better than any of those we have of Sue, though. And it isn't often we have good enough photos of type specimens, so I'd vote for keeping the current one. And not that it should really make a difference here, but at least Gregory S. Paul has suggested that Sue and other "robust" specimens might be a different species from T. rex... Not to mention a "gracile" species, represented by Stan and Wankel rex... FunkMonk (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thirding support for the type specimen as the lead photo. Abyssal (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Jack Horner backed off the pure-scavenger view

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Article should reflect the modification of his views a few years ago.104.169.45.151 (talk) 07:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive_11&oldid=1092057175"