Talk:Dromaeosaurus

message: Dromaeosaurus has been portrayed as living at the very end of the Dinosaurs in Jurassic fight club and Walking with Dinosaurs. But in every article i've read, it says they died out around 70 MYA. Does anyone have any articles on this topic ?
Thanks, Ollie.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.34.208.191 (talk) 17:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's possible they lived all the way to the end, since there are teeth similar to Dromaeosaurus known from the Hell Creek Formation, etc. However, its unknown if this was actually Dromaeosaurus or a similar species not yet known from body fossils. Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:04, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Extinction

message: The feet of Dromaeosaurus have never been found. It's only a skull :o).
MWAK--84.27.81.59 11:03, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong. Strange comment - read the article. HammerFilmFan (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: At the time, the only descriptive part of the stub consisted of "was known for its sharp claw on each foot". I knew that no sickle claw had ever been found, so I found this rather ironic. I was not aware of the other phalanges considered part of the holotype.--MWAK (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Feet

message: :Image:Dromaeosaur.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 20:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Dromaeosaur.jpg

message: Dromaeosaurus is twice listed in the article as NOT being a contemporary of Tyrannosaurus, yet the article states Drom's place and time (Alberta, 76-65 MYA) as actually being contemporary to Tyrannosaurus....obviously, something here isn't right.
Upon searching off the best raw data source I know of online for Dinosaurs (DinoData), Dromaeosaurus is listed as "Late Campanian", roughly 74-70 MYA. This confirms the other info I vaguely remembered about Drom, plus it makes Drom NOT contemporary to Tyrannosaurus. As such, I am changing the article to reflect this, and I will put the source in this talk box so someone else can source it (I do not know how), assuming it's considered a legit source (I'm not sure why it wouldn't be...it's quite useful and accurate by all I know).
http://www.dinodata.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6400&Itemid=67
That's the link... Forescore68 (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: D. albertensis, which is all anyone ever thinks about when it comes to Dromaeosaurus, is only Campanian (more middle, actually, 76-72 Ma), but there are pieces-parts assigned to the genus Dromaeosaurus from other units of varying age.  What those are I can't recall at the moment.  Some are Judith River, which is about the same age, but I'm pretty sure Lance is mixed in there somewhere. J. Spencer (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, D. cristatus is the late Maas species, but it's one of those old floatsome&jetsome names left over from Laelaps; there's no real reason to assign it or any of the others to Dromaeosaurus except convenience. J. Spencer (talk) 02:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  'albertensis' is the only species I knew of and you'd know better than I would (the only work I've ever done is Late Jurassic)...I'm trying to get some of the listed theropod times specified here on the Wiki and I noticed the weird contradiction in the text so I investigated this one..Forescore68 (talk) 02:39, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, like I said, the others that were listed were just pieces-parts, and given our state of knowledge on theropod bits (teeth mostly in these cases), there's no compelling reason to have any of those old species that didn't start out in Dromaeosaurus listed here, so I trimmed it to albertensis. J. Spencer (talk) 04:16, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: There are teeth from the Maast. Hell Creek fmt. referred to Dromaeosaurus... the same way dromaeosaurid teeth from all over the world ranging from all over the cretaceous are assigned to Richardoestesia. That is, they're most certainly not Dromaeosaurus, but nobody has bothered to re-assign them, because nobody wants to base new taxa on teeth anymore. Dinoguy2 (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If that Maast material was dubiously assigned, why was the timing just changed back to including Maast? I know it's nitpicky, but let's get this accurate folks. There's very little chance a small theropod genus survives 9+ million years, and even less in this case...so what now? Forescore68 (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's just the same guy, over and over again. J. Spencer (talk) 02:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way to block '173.32.49.206' from continuing this childish game of changing information daily and requiring one of us to undo it? I realize this is a free and open encyclopdia, but this is getting rediculous. Forescore68 (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Most dinosaur books tend to generalize time period to the epoch, but the average species only lasts for a few million years. So "Late Cretaceous" is not precise, it may as well say "Mesozoic". That said, there are some fragments from the Hell Creek Formation (latest Maastrichtain) that have been referred to Dromaeosaurus. This was reflected in the fossil range diagram but I also added it to the text. Are these really Dromaeosaurus albertensis? I sincerely doubt it, probably a new species if not genus, but the remains are probably not diagnostic anyway so who knows. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:12, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Tyrannosaurus (well, moreso with timing...) 

message: Dromaeosaurus was much more heavily built than Velociraptor. Its jaws had a bite force that was three times as strong, according to a source from this article. Now, this article states that it weighed 33 pounds, which is about the same size as Velociraptor. Don't you think it weighed a little more, like 65 pounds, because it was much more heavily-built? Thanks.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.202.240.226 (talk) 20:08, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you mean by heavily built? That its individual bones were thicker? Stronger jaws doesn't necessarily mean more robust skeleton overall. Nor does skeletal size directly = life weight. Also, remember that like all birds these had a very extensive system of air sacs lightening them, no matter what the robustness of the body. (In fact I'm not sure this has been taken into account like it has for T. rex and some sauropods, so published weight estimates for dromaeosaurs are probably all too high to begin with). I'd stick with published weight estimates. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Size

message: I believe I saw this creature in National Geographic's program Dinosaurs Decoded. It's here: . Skip to the 5:38 mark, and again to the 6:46 mark. I would normally guess that it was Troodon, but the skull shape is all wrong. If it is indeed Dromaeosaurus (and I could find nothing on NatGeo's website), could this go in the Popular Culture section? 70.80.215.121 (talk) 21:27, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No, sorry. Not only is it not notable, but we don't even know if it's supposed to be this particular species or not so it's original research to boot. MMartyniuk (talk) 21:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''Dinosaurs Decoded'' 

message: It's mentioned that the dromaeosaurus had rather large teeth, that its maxilla only contained nine.  it seems odd that it wouldn't be an even number, yet it is true that not all animals are built with perfect symmetry. On the other hand, In looking at the photo of the skull, more than nine upper teeth are visible, without even being able to see the entire right side.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chitownriverscum (talk • contribs) 16:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It should be each maxilla only contained nine (i.e. nine on each side). Of course this is not counting the upper teeth in the premaxilla. Dinoguy2 (talk) 22:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description issues 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion