Talk:Daspletosaurus

message: Gosh I know where the next FAC is comin' from....cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 04:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Where? Spawn Man 04:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dur...here. Or if you reckon somewhere else I'm sure this mob'll race ya.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 07:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But seriously - mainly momentum really cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 07:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next FAC..

message: Should we remove the "2 or 3 unnamed species" from the taxobox? Sheep81 06:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably, this is discussed pretty throuoghly in the text. Aside from Quetzalcoatlus I can't think of any taxoboxes that list unnamed species, and that one is kind of a special case, since Qsp is far better known than Qn (why it hasn't been named after all these years is pretty baffling!). Dinoguy2 07:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure; sounds a bit clunky as written. I'd leave out unless someone comes up with an alternative.cheers,  Cas Liber | talk  |  contribs 07:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was going to mention that it didn't sound very encyclopedic, but forgot. I think it should be removed... Spawn Man 07:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Survey says, remove! Sheep81 08:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Taxobox question

message: The article is looking good - I did muse on mentioning co-habitants Centrosaurus and Hypacrosaurus in the lead's final para...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like how? Sheep81 22:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

text: I did a quick edit, but I want to concentrate on a separate project and am not doing any in-depth review for the time being (which, incidentally, is why i haven,t dared approach Bird yet).Circeus 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How's that now? I removed the picture width from the taxobox, now it just uses the default width. Sheep81 00:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - all good. I must say I am impressed at how comprehensively you can get from Go (stub) to Whoa (all info, double check, copyedit and a lick of boot polish) without a large amount from the rest of us. Congrats - ready to roll into FAC then? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, that is a good or a bad thing depending who you ask. I think it's ready but the peer review has only been open for like 24 hours, so... Sheep81 00:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. See what happens.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This artical has gotten really good, i cant find any unreferenced staitment. The only small and fairly unimportant thing i can think of is a popular culture section. the only program i know it was featured in was an episode of Dinosaur Planet.Steveoc 86 09:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Final bits

message: Hi - The old drawing of Dasp. was replaced with a photo of a skull. Personally, I think the drawing was more appropriate for the taxobox, and the skull would be better in the article. Anyone else agree? de Bivort 07:53, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I guess I wouldn't have agreed with that consensus, thinking a skull alone is less illustrative than the drawing of a body, particularly when the rest of the animal is known and the skeletal image has a distracting background. de Bivort 15:42, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: **Yeah, well, I guess it isn't such a big deal, I wouldn't mind if you switched it back. FunkMonk (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't think it's too big of a deal either. I'm inclined to leave it as your version but just express my preference here. de Bivort 20:04, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I think the second photo might be best (though it is busy, it shows more details than the first one, and the last one is blurry). Do we know what specimen it is based on? In any case, we should probably include the photo of the holotype at least somewhere in the article. I have some doubts over the copyright status of the photo under Discovery and naming, so maybe it could go there instead. As for the issue with coracoids, the problem is also that these have only recently been taken into consideration with museum mounts, it seems, so we simply don't have many photos of skeletons where these are placed correctly. FunkMonk (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The Field Museum picture from the classification section is probably the most clear and focused photo we have. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:38, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That one depicts an unnamed species, though, we are not sure whether it will even stay in the genus... FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess. I'm just kind of grasping for any alternative, I personally find the new one absolutely butt ugly, but I can't really make an argument against it... Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is the clearest we have, but the specimen is very recently excavated and has not been described. Not that it really matters, but it would help solidify its identification. Maybe in the future. FunkMonk (talk) 04:26, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes, that's even more ugly. I hate the ones without backgrounds. Anyways, you removed the images of the cliffs since the section was cluttered, but now it looks awkward since all the images in the section are on one side. I feel we need something to put back on the right side. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No big deal to me, feel free to put it back in. This article could really need some expansion, would help make the images fit better too... I fear there will be little to do if the article is FARCed, saving it would take quite some work... FunkMonk (talk) 04:32, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I was thinking that after Brachiosaurus is done maybe we could spend time updating older dino FCs as a focus instead of a single collaboration subject. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 04:35, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think at least we could try to make a list of the most "endangered" articles to begin with (FA as well as GA), those that are outdated, incomprehensive, and inadequately sourced. Then we could kind of bypass the formal procedures, so that we can do it at our own speed... FunkMonk (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  taxobox image 

message: If Daspletosaurus torosus is an adult Aublysodon mirandus then Daspletosaurus is invalid in favor for Aublysodon because:
**Aublysodon mirandus, 1868
**Daspletosaurus torosus, 1970
Or is their some other wacky rule in the ICZN that I should know about? Taylor Reints (talk) 01:46, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Who synonymized Daspletosaurus with A. mirandus? A. mirandus is from the Judith river formation, where no definite Daspletosaurus remains are found. So it may not be the same species, and whether it's the same genus is subjective. MMartyniuk (talk) 01:51, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: "Most recently, in 2006, a near complete skeleton of a 5-6 meter long tyrannosaurid was collected by private collectors in the Judith River Formation of eastern Montana. Due to the lack of serrations on its premaxillary teeth, and the similarity of the low, long skull to the "Jordan theropod," this specimen has been referred to Aublysodon. The similarity of this specimen to the 'Jordan theropod' and immature tyrannosaurines from Asia strongly indicates that this specimen is in fact a juvenile of Daspletosaurus or a related taxon."
This was taken from the Wikipedia article, Aublysodon. If this is true then Daspletosaurus could possibly be rejected if this specimen is referable to Aublysodon. 
But you're right about the Judith River Formation and Daspletosaurus's distribution.
Although, Albertosaurus, an albertosaurine that has long been confused with Daspletosaurus due to their convergent similarities, is known from the formation so maybe it could be a juvenile A. libratus. 99.56.36.169 (talk) 15:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I just deleted the paragraph you quoted because it had no source. I'm not doubting it's true, but if it was collected by a private company, it will need to be studied by scientists and published on to determine if it is really Daspletosaurus and, if so, which species (there are currently one or two new species of Daspletosaurus awaiting names). MMartyniuk (talk) 23:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

text: You seem to be misinterpreting a lot of stuff there, but I'm sure Dionoguy can make a more eloquent explanation as to why. FunkMonk (talk) 21:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

text: You are confusing the rule for spelling variants with that for nomina oblita. Dapletosaurus is not a spelling variant of Aublysodon. Aublysodon is not a nomen oblitum as it has been used in the literature as a valid name on occasions later than 1899.--MWAK (talk) 07:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxonomy 

message: Any chance that we can find more details for the Pathology section? Or merge it elsewhere? Chris857 (talk) 01:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathology 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Daspletosaurus. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071025221456/http://app.pan.pl/acta48/app48-227.pdf to http://app.pan.pl/acta48/app48-227.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070704183838/http://app.pan.pl/acta51/app51-435.pdf to http://app.pan.pl/acta51/app51-435.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Daspletosaurus. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080227134632/http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/12.pdf to http://www.mnhn.ul.pt/geologia/gaia/12.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified