Talk:Tyrannosaurus/Archive 2

message: Just an aesthetic issue--I noticed that if we changed the taxobox image width to 200 instead of 250, the txbx is about the same width as the paleobox, making them sort of fit one atop the other, without the wider txbx on top of the narrow paleobox. The downside is the main image gets a bit smaller. Any thoughts?Dinoguy2 14:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks great, and good thinking Dinoguy. It is a little bit on the skinny side but it's no biggie. --Every1blowz 03:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I know the paleoboxes are as dead as the things they described, so the issue is no longer the same, but I'd just like to say I prefer wider taxoboxes. If the image is a horizontal aspect ratio 200 pixels is inadequate.John.Conway 20:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Narrower taxobox? 

message: When user  added his image of the "animatronicTRex model" on May 17 he seems to have been editing an outdated page, and thus inadvertently reverted the T. rex page back to a very old version. People have since continued editing the T. rex article as if nothing has happened. Not only are there many mistakes found throughout the article now (page is named "Tyrannosaurus", yet we see "Tyrannosaurus rex" in bold, pronunciation is gone, the "Discoveries" heading doesn't work, spelling mistakes, etc.) but significant amounts of valid information have disappeared. 
User Arpingstone's edits are shown here, notice major the edits throughout.
:I've decided to revert the page to prevent any more collateral damage, and because evidently no one besides me has noticed yet. --Every1blowz 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Better to take the hit than lose all the more recent updates.Dinoguy2 15:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've taken out most of the "T. rexes" and replaced them with either Tyrannosaurus or tyrannosaur. I tried to leave the initial reference to the usage of the term and any actual quotations (such as article titles) or links that use the specific term. Hope I didn't miss any, but it sure was a pain and time-consuming to do. As it stands, the article still needs editing; several paragraphs use Tyrannosaurus a dozen times or more and I probably wasn't as consistant about capitalization as I should have been. One more thing, the picture comparing sizes of a human to the tyrannosaur should mention how big the human is; although the 5'11" used previously was TOO specific and violated significant figure rules. "6-foot" ok with everyone?CFLeon 21:18, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 ft is always the number I see on charts when people are compared to something else, and even though 6 ft is slightly taller than the average male by about 2 inches 6 ft seems to be the standard number on these things. So yes, 6 ft is good. --Every1blowz 05:29, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I also removed a line about the discovery playing an important part of the 'Bone Wars'; by the time Cope described Manospondylus, the Bone Wars were winding down, near the end of the direct involvement of Cope and Marsh. CFLeon 00:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting page 

message: Hi Project - I've uploaded an image of the whiole skeleton - but - I have several others and choosing between them ain't easy. Any advice?
Images to be found at:
*User:Ballista/images/OUMNH
*User:Ballista/images/OUMNH2
I look fwd to receiving comment. - Ballista 19:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is too little writing for the amount of pictures we have. I've removed the lowest quality ones, as the article will never get to FAC with those poor quality pics. I've then rearranged the best pics & resized some. We could allow more pics, if they are of good quality, but for now the pics on the article are sufficient. Spawn Man 23:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Don't know if my response here is pertinent to this discussion but here goes - I rightly or wrongly kept my images on pages of their own (with links to the Project's pages), as they would have swamped any of the Project's pages, had I added them there. If you want to move them, fine by me. Sorry if this is 'off-point'. - Ballista 05:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skeleton images 

message: Musing: why does someone like Davegrupp bother to log in? (don't anyone bother to answer, please) - Ballista 05:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting dinosaur behaviour 

message: Houston, we have a problem, the t.rex's bite force is not 3k psi, it is stronger than that. The documentary, "The truth about killer dinosaurs" says 4 tons psi, via biomechanichal studies.--Triple-Quadruple 01:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, and when they publish that in a scientific journal, it will be cited here. :) Sheep81 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bite force 

message: OK, we should probably figure this out now before an edit war starts. How do we want to link all the various T. rex-related articles to each other? Sheep81 00:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good proposal. I personally feel that it should be kept as simple as possible. It is common that folk not trained in one of the biological sciences would not know that 'Generic' names have an upper case initial and that 'Specific' names start with lower case initial. Therefore, some punters might put in 'T Rex' or variations on that theme while seeking the T. rex dinosaur page. Is there any harm in having all conceivable variations (except, of course, actual article titles) pointing to a single disambiguation page? That was my initial intention, when reconstructing the disambiguation trail on the Tyrannosaurus page, on 28th June - sorry if I've unintentionally sparked a potential edit war. - Ballista 04:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S.: This may, of course, involve some 'double redirects' but I am not sure that is avoidable, in this special case. - Ballista 04:57, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Double redirects are always avoidable, if you use the 'what links here' tool on the toolbox. These should be carefully checked when changing redirects around. It's fine if the plan is to point redirect pages to the disambiguation page, but then they all need to point to the page, not to each other. That creates a double redirect, so people who type in the search term end up getting redirected to a redirect page. And then they don't get any information. If you change a redirect page, just make sure it won't cause a double redirect.--Firsfron of Ronchester 09:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: OK - good point - just not thought it thru' properly. When I re-organised the disambig page, did I avoid 'double redirects' or have I created any? Difficult to check own work thoroughly & accurately. Appreciate you checking thru' to make sure all's well. Thanks - Ballista 05:31, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You created one or two the other day, which I fixed, no problem. Then Sheep made one yesterday, which was also easily fixed. I believe all the T-rex redirects are correctly pointed now.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Great, thanks - Ballista 07:08, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: Hey all, I know that the collaboration for this dinosaur has come and gone (pity I wasn't able to spend more time working on it then), but I still think that we should have an "unofficial" collaboration on this dinosaur. To that end I have written up a list of 37 references which will be useful for the article and posted them here for public perusal. Thanks! Sheep81 17:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey Sheep. Thanks for collecting the refs. Nice work. Although I'm unsure what you want us to do with them. I saw on your sandbox that you were working on the T-rex article. So does this mean you will be adding the refs, and you want us to... do what? Sort out the best references? Or have you abandoned your plan to work on your sandbox article, and you want us to add the references ourselves? Or...? Sorry if this seems obvious, but I don't quite "get" what you want us to do here. Whatever it is, I'm more than willing to give it a go. :) Happy editing. --Firsfron of Ronchester 19:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The sandbox thing is just for experimentation, mainly with organization, although I might end up making text edits there as well, not sure. I certainly don't want to rewrite the entire article myself. You can use the refs to cite assertions already in the article (assuming you can get your hands on them) or rewrite/clean up sections of the article or whatever else you like. The referencing in the article needs a lot of work... I don't think we should be citing news reports or peoples' personal websites when there are scientific papers available.Sheep81 19:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. Understood.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, c'mon... Tyrannosaurus refs? Anyone? *tap tap* Is this thing on? Oh well, I guess I am not as clever as I thought. :) Sheep81 01:04, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, your mike's on. Give me a little time and I'll work on them. One person shouldn't be left with the bulk of responsibility for sorting them, as you had to do with most of the others.--Firsfron of Ronchester 03:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, umm-I sized up the images under the taxobox. Do we think htere are enough references on the page? Cas Liber 03:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've added a t rex skull pic into the article. If sue's brain pic causes concern in the FAC, delete it & replace it with the new skull shot, as it is a good one.... Spawn Man 03:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''Tyrannosaurus'' refs

message: In the third paragraph of Feeding strategies, it begins with "Some evidence..." - would it be nice to add references to this section to substantiate this? --HappyCamper 04:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Minor point, perhaps, but we appear to have no 'link' to Osborn in the body of the article. I didn't want to put one in, in case I'd missed it and created a duplicate. - Ballista 04:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You didn't miss it, it really was missing. Though, as a general rule, if paragraphs and paragraphs go by without a mention, it is ok to add another wikilink to the same article, so people don't have to scroll endlessly to find the wikilink again. They just frown on multiple identical wikilinks near each other.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Osborn was mentioned in the taxobox under the binomial name section.... Just a thought.... Spawn Man 07:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Osborn 

message: I find that the mentioning of 3000 lb bite force somewhat odd...Is this what the reference actually says? I would be under the impression that it might have been in different units of pressure, like 3000 lb / ft^2 or something like that...can someone double check? --HappyCamper 05:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it either, but that's what my ref says... Spawn Man 05:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Force of bite 

message: In the times of Tyrannosaurus, the area that is now North America had both familiar and strange elements. The soft-shelled turtles, crocodiles, pike (Esocidae), and gar (Lepisosteidae) alive at the time were quite similar to those living today. Frogs and monitor lizards were other familiar animals. Ferns, horsetails, palms, magnolias, southern beech, poplars, and shrubs were some of the dominant plants; grasses had evolved but were not yet widespread. Conifers such as sequoias, araucaria, pines, and cypresses were common. The North American T. rex probably lived in many different habitats, because of its broad range but many of the fossil sites in which it is commonly found appear to have been humid, subtropical forests. Birds with beaks were already in existence, including waterfowl. Other inhabitants of the landscape were less familiar. There were birds with teeth and some of the giant pterosaurs still thrived, such as Quetzalcoatlus, which had an estimated wingspan of 12 m. Other theropods included dromaeosaurids, troodontids, and Ornithomimus, all of which appear to have been less than 4–5 meters long. Herds of Triceratops, Torosaurus and duck-billed dinosaurs (hadrosaurs), such as Edmontosaurus, roamed the land. Other dinosaurian herbivores included armored Ankylosaurus, boneheaded Pachycephalosaurus and Stygimoloch and small ornithopods such as Bugenasaura and Thescelosaurus. Mammals (predominantly multituberculates and marsupials) were mostly small, shrew- to rat-sized nocturnal animals. Primitive primates may have been around (this issue is open to debate). Snakes had evolved by this time, very similar to some snakes today.Dorey, M. (1997). Tyrannosaurus. Dinosaur Cards. Orbis Publishing Ltd. D36045907.
Tyrannosaurus is believed to have required extensive geographic feeding ranges. Theropods the size of Tyrannosaurus arose in response to the retreat of the Western Interior Seaway of North America, 69 million years ago, which would have increased the size of the feeding range.Scientific American, 290, no. 2, February 2004 pp. 23-24.
::I have moved this text as per FAC. Looking at it, it has no real relevance to the actual article. However, I'll leave it here for a while just incase anyone has any objections.... Spawn Man 00:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a better place is a spot on a Hell Creek Formation page? Will hava a look Cas Liber 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved text from article -- Environment

message: I have copy-edited as far as 'The neck of ...'. I have purposely stoppped, so there is less to revert, if disliked. Please let me know if this pattern of editing is agreeable, so I can finish it tomorrow. - Ballista 06:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks fine to me. I do prefer "lived in what is now" to "from", and "the skull was" instead of "the skull is", even though the skull is still around. I think I still prefer quotation marks around the meaning of the name, but the rest of the punctuation seems pretty sound. No objection here.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  copy edit - please comment 

message: Is there any work published on whether the attachment points for neck muscles suggest a ripping mode of feeding, or similarly, the ability to execute quick head movements to evade prey defenses or catch fast prey? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neck mucles 

message: one less red link.
..and Maleev done nowCas Liber 22:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yes, spotted that, well done! - Ballista 20:49, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  made a stub for Gilmore.... 

message: The article states "Tyrannosaurus rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time, about 12 to 13 meters (40 to 43.3 feet) long, and 4.5-5 m (14-16 ft) tall, when fully-grown.[1] Mass estimates have varied widely over the years, from more than 7,200 kilograms (8 short tons),[2] to less than 4,500 kg (5 tons),[3][4] with most modern estimates ranging between 5,400 and 6,800 kg (between 6 and 7.5 tons).[5][6][7][8]"
I am seeing some problems with conversion from kilograms to tons.  Am I alone? Goliath74 17:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  T. rex's size 

message: As I said above, this image was to be removed & replaced with my new image. This picture has caused too many problems already, so it has been removed... Spawn Man 02:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This image is my picture of the display of the CT reconstruction at the Field Museum on the second floor next to Sue's skull, which was crushed by the aeons of time. The skull on the first floor of the museum is a lighter replica, unsmashed. The CT scan of the skull was performed at Boeing, as the caption already states. --Ancheta Wis 03:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure if the issue around this image has been solved, but I notice the image is still absent from the article. If it helps, I took another photo of this display. It can be found on my user page.Dinoguy2 20:34, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I reckon this new image is vivid, well-framed and interesting. I would like it to be added to the article. - Ballista 06:21, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed image: 

message: "Famed paleontologist Jack Horner is believed to have found a T-rex skeleton 10% larger than Sue. Dubbed C-rex, this specimen is around 13-15m long(40-48 feet) and 8 tons in weight." - needs citation - Ballista 06:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: I am wondering if there would be any support for removing the warmbloodedness section from the article. The only reason such a section was created was because an FA reviewer thought that the feathers section was too non-specific, and wondered why there wasn't an equal section for endothermy, also a non-specific topic. However, the feathers section has now been expanded and is far more specific to Tyrannosaurus now, while the warmbloodedness section remains sadly non-specific. It just seems out of place to me and you don't see an "[Insert dinosaur name here] warm-blooded?" section on any other dinosaur article. Sheep81 08:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a mention somewhere in the text that, like other dinosaurs, T. rex may have been warm blooded should be enough, along with a link to the appropriate article. Maybe a new article on dinosaur endothermy is in order for this type of thing.Dinoguy2 14:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone had that idea before you. ;) Warm-bloodedness of dinosaurs. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove warmbloodedness section?

message: I've heard of information saying that Tyranosaurus evolved from raptors. Should this be included?
-Izaak
:No, this is false. Tyrannosaurus and its relatives evolved from small, Ornitholestes-like dinosaurs, for example, Dilong and Guanlong.Dinoguy2 15:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming they evolved from anything, that is. Mdotley 14:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evolutionary Origins?

message: In my opinion this image should definitely be incorporated into the article somehow, if not used as the main taxobox image itself. What do you guys think? Mgiganteus1 10:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it is rather striking and I do favour your suggestion, at least for somewhere in the article. However, we are quite crowded. What about moving one over to Tyrannosaurus in popular culture, where there is a bit more room? Thanks for asking, before uploading. - Ballista 19:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I swapped the T Rex Carnegie skull picture for this one. They're effectively analogous, and this one is, from a technical standpoint, a much better photograph. Killdevil 00:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New image for the taxobox?

message: ?__Dragon Helm 18:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it's obviously a reproduction/sculpture or something, I doubt this is modeled after a Tyrannosaurus egg, as none have ever been found, to my knowledge. Maybe it's Tarbosaurus? I recall some eggs that *possibly* belong to Tarbosaurus discovered in Asia.Dinoguy2 17:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll look into it, when I can (won't be soon). - Ballista 03:07, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tyrannosaurus egg?

message: Would tyrannosaurs have been around when the comet struck the earth and wiped its (non-avian) cousins out?  Is there a Wikipedia page listing the very last dinosaurs?
:To answer your question; yes, it would have been around, if a comet did indeed strike the Earth. T rex lived during the late Cretaceous, right about when the comet is said to have hit. However many other theories exsist. I'm not sure if there's a page on here about the last dinosaurs, but maybe if you went to dinosaur & checked out its extinction theories sections, maybe you might find a link there.... Have a nice day. Spawn Man 02:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Present at the comet strike?'''

message: ". T. rex had the greatest bite force of any animal."
From the current version. Is this defended? Is it defensible?
Gcolive 01:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This appears to be based on the link to the Stamford press release that talks about their part in the experiment that was published by Nature(). That gives a very wide range for the force of the bite, with the upper end slightly stronger than the bite of an American Alligator (which apparently has the strongest living animal's bite). However, they finish (before the press release gets bizarrely truncated) with a statement that the estimate for the T. rex is a "feeding" bite, not a "snapping" bite. A snapping bite would, supposedly, put it significantly ahead of the alligator. Doesn't sound like the most convincing argument, but we aren't here to question Stamford's press release, so I guess that makes this statement defensible. Kayman1uk 12:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strongest bite?

message: I see that T. rex is up there on the main page today - great news. - Ballista 04:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's pretty cool. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:28, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's being heavily vandalized. Can an admin lock it for today? Evertype 09:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not protect articles while they're on the main page as a matter of principle. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I guess we just tidy up, when the s--t has died down a bit - not a great incentive for being on the main page tho'? - Ballista 17:49, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but the problem will hopefully be resolved soon. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:56, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  MAIN PAGE! 

message: The bones themselves were massive, as were the serrated teeth which, rather than being bladelike, were oval in cross-section. Like other tyrannosaurids, T. rex displayed marked heterodonty, with the premaxillary teeth at the front of the upper jaw closely-packed and D-shaped in cross-section.
So, were the teeth oval or D-shaped?
Tjunier 06:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it (could be wrong), most of the teeth were oval-cross-section, but the front teeth were D-section, with the flat sides toward the "back" or "inside" of the mouth (a little like human incisors). This is supposed to have helped the critter bite chunks out of its prey. -- Writtenonsand 15:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Teeth cross-section  

message: 29.9 kg is not 130 lb, plz correct
:The article is editable, please help to improve it. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:58, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scales  

message: "However, this rarity may also be due to the incompleteness of the fossil record or to the bias of fossil collectors towards larger, more spectacular specimens.[28]"  The former is much more likely, as any Tyrannosaurs beyond infancy would all be "spectacular" specimens relative to all but a few species of dinosaurs. It is not as though paleontologists are leaving anything but the most spectacular findings in the field. Also, positive identification in the field of partial finds (extremities, isolated ribs, vertebrae, etc.) is often not possible until the specimens are removed and taken into the laboratory for analysis. It is doubtful that any collecting bias behavior accounts for the paucity of juveniles among known fossils. Jerry picker 13:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, up until the last few decades, it was the primary goal of many museums to excavate large, spectacular specimens for exhibit. Most institutions today dig more comprehensive and science-based manner, but there are still many occasions where a museum (or private company) will be called in specifically to excavate a T. rex someone has found. Preservation bia s is most likely the major factor, but collection bias is also significant and deserves to be mentioned.Sheep81 08:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rarity of Juvenile fossils 

message: Why does the very first sentence have to mention popular culture, as if it was the most important thing about this dinosaur? I'm moving it forther in the lead paragraph. Rain74 14:00, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope your edits are spelled better than this, though.  :-)  Mdotley 14:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Bad formatting, spelling mistakes, no source. --204.193.132.7 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, cut the vandal some slack. At least he spelled Tyrannosaurus correctly, which is more than we can say for most of them. 137.48.216.67 18:17, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True. I was also impressed by the little smiliey icon, I've yet to find the keycode for that. --204.193.132.7 19:45, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

text: This dinosaur has had nearly as much (perhaps even more, until recently) of a cultural impact as a scientific one in the United States as well as other countries. In my opinion, that IS one of the most important things about the animal. Sheep81 09:13, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popular culture 

message: I recently watched either National Geographic or Discovery, but it was showing marathons on dinosaurs. One of the programs had info on the T-Rex, stating that Juveniles had longer leg bones and something else, enabling it to run faster than adults. It also said they could've huntd like lions, the faster ones herding the prey into the slower yet more powerful ones. I doubt I can really cite the source, though. So, should this be in the article, or just leave it alone until there's some news article on it? Abby724 23:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About Locomotion section... 

message: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/feathered_dinosaur/images/primary/feathery_dino1.jpg
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/photogalleries/feathered_dinosaur/
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1006_041006_feathery_dino.html
There's some extra info I posted just in case... Abby724 23:06, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These are all pictures of Dilong paradoxus, not T. rex. Though they'd be cool on the Dilong page if we could use them.Dinoguy2 00:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found the feathered image. 

message: I'd rather not edit somebody else's work, but in the Life History section it says:
weighed only 29.9 kg (130 lb),
Isn't 29.9 kg more like 65 lbs rather than 130?
:Good catch. 29.9 kg = ~65.9 lbs. I'll correct it.Dinoguy2 23:59, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight issue 

message: I assume the former is the actual term.  Is this true?  If so, and if no one else does, I will change instances of the latter to the former as I see them. Paul Haymon 01:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course it is Tyrannosaurids. Good catch. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, thanks for the confirmation (and for fixing it, I assume). Paul Haymon 15:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I ran spell-check on it, searching for all variants of "Tyrannosau", but the current revision contains only correct spellings and derivations. Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 22:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks-- Paul Haymon 06:23, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tyrannosaurids vs. Tyrannosauids 

message: The intro to the article now includes the cumbersome phrase "Known colloquially in the Anglo-Saxon countries as T. rex (by convention the genus name is abbreviated as the first letter)". Unless I'm mistaken, the convention of shortening a Linnean binomial by abbreviating the generic name is used in all countries, not merely the "Anglo-Saxon" ones, whatever that means. Can't we just change this to "Known by the abbreviation T. rex..."?Dinoguy2 21:54, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes please! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:29, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hope no-one minds - I've made the suggested alteration, as I was here & had the time. Excellent proposal and can't think why I haven't suggested it myself! - Ballista 03:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''T. rex'' 

message: Could we please get a reference for the statement "Tyrannosaurus are the dinosaurs most often featured in popular culture." ? (That may be so, but Sauropoda have certainly given a century of significant competition.) Wondering, -- Infrogmation 22:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Most featured?

message: This text exists within the article:
"In this light, scavenger hypothesis adherents have suggested that the size and power of tyrannosaurs allowed them to steal kills from smaller predators.[44]
...
Scientists who think that Tyrannosaurus was able to run slowly point out that hollow Tyrannosaur bones and other features that would have lightened its body may have kept adult weight to a mere 5 tons or so, or that other animals like ostriches and horses with long, flexible legs are able to achieve high speeds through slower but longer strides."
Note the capitalization of "Tyrannosaur" in the second block of text and the uncapitalization in the first block.
My question: Is "Tyrannosaur" always supposed to be capitalized or not? Paul Haymon 06:22, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor proofreading 

message: Under Discoveries, do we really add anything by listing all the paleontologists that examined each specimen?  If there is a dispute, listing the experts on each side might be useful, but otherwise, I don't see the point of it. Mdotley 14:38, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Examiners 

message: This BBC News article suggests that despite the common belief that T. Rex was a predator, it may have actually been a scavenger instead. The article cites Dr. Jack Horner of the Museum of the Rockies in Bozeman, Montana, US. --JHP 15:26, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, you're right but this is well-covered (& referenced) in the article, under "Feeding strategies". - Ballista 05:39, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predator or scavenger? 

message: Is it possible to be more specific about when T. rex lived?  This would seem to be a pretty important fact about a prehistoric animal. Nareek 15:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto that.  This appears to be (one of the few) dinosaur articles that does not list when the species lived.  --Kralizec! (talk) 21:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time frame of T. rex 

message: Can someone include this in article????
http://www.calacademy.org/science_now/headline_science/T-rex_soft_tissue.html
''
"when scientists found a massive Tyrannosaurus rex thigh bone in a remote region of Montana a few months ago, they were forced to break the bone in two in order to fit it into the transport helicopter. This act of necessity revealed a startling surprise: soft tissue that had seemingly resisted fossilization still existed inside the bone. This tissue, including blood vessels, bone cells, and perhaps even blood cells, was so well preserved that it was still stretchy and flexible."''
:This is already in the article.Dinoguy2 22:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW Flesh of T-Rex uncovered