Talk:Tyrannosaurus/to do

message: Please be bold in editing the article and in editing/adding/striking out items from this list.
*Parentheses in introduction need to be fixed.
*Information on hypothesized reproduction, if known, eggs and/or juveniles would be nice.
* The phrase meaning "tyrant lizard", from the Ancient Greek tyrannos (τύραννος), "tyrant", and sauros (σαῦρος), "lizard" is misleading, if not plainly wrong. "Tyrannos" did not mean "Tyrant" but "King", as can be seen in the Tyrant article from Wikipedia. If you follow the reference mark for the binomial name of the saurus, it is discussed the "rex" part using "Oedipus Rex" ("Oedipus the King") when the original title was "Οἰδίπους Τύραννος" (Oidipous Tyrannos), and was translated both to Latin and to English as "King", not "Tyrant". Furthermore, Osborn, who named T. Rex, only wrote I propose to make this animal the type of the new genus Tyrannosaurus, in reference to its size, which greatly exceeds that of any carnivorous land animal hitherto described, which clearly points to the hierarchy of the animal due to its size, and not to its illegitimacy as a ruler. 
*The phrase T.Rex is a fixture in popular culture. needs to be removed from the first paragraph. It has no place in the text before a general description of the species. Furthermore it is paraphrased toward the end of the article anyway. Although T.Rex has appeared in many films and videogames etc, it is not defined by its stasis in 'Pop-culture'. This attitude makes the article frivolous and robs it of its initial scientific merit.
*The text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis.
*Improve Tyrannosaurus in popular culture and summarise main points here.
*Figure out status of the image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg.
*Don't reference to Jurassic (movie). (I'm not sure what this means, however wrong the name of the movie is it does portray a T-rex well....?)
*:That'd be Jurassic Park, most likely. Bob the WikipediaN (talk • contribs)  02:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: What the heck? J. Spencer 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I think you misunderstand fossilization. Fossils are hard (they're rocks), but they sometimes preserve soft tissues by turning them into hard material, see for example Burgess Shale or Cambrian explosion. Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Philcha, while most fossils are indeed rock (and may be completely remineralised) "fossils" can be any buried trace of life (except human artifacts), although some definitions do draw the line at the end of the last glacial episode 10,000 years ago - anything more recent is then not a fossil (cf Concise Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences). The soft tissue being referred to here is possibly unremineralised connective tissue including proteins  (collagen) and amino acids. The T rex was certainly fossilised in the strict sense, but amazingly may retain tiny amounts of original unmineralised tissue - this is what "only partially fossilised" intends here, I believe. It would probably be better to say the fossil apparently includes original connective tissue. This has also been reported in a Hadrosaur.Orbitalforam (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: Never been scientifically suggested, as far as I know. --Slate Weasel (talk | contribs) 19:44, 7 October 2018 (UTC)