Talk:Lourinhanosaurus

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Coelurosaur or what?

If, as it says in the article: 'Carrano et al. (2012) found it to be a coelurosaur.', and it is labelled as such in other articles ([[1]]), then why does the taxobox of this article say Lourinhanosaurus is a member of the family Sinraptoridae? If no one argues, I'm going to edit the article, but I'll read the Carrano et al. paper first just to be sure . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.29.70 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I've read the journal article here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2011.630927, ( grumble grumble.) It seems well-stated with evidence, so I guess I my edit is correct.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lourinhanosaurus. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 07:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

reproductions have artistic license, but -

Feathers? Only if it is definitely in the related clade - from the article, it states this is still disputed, and may even be a more primitive form of the relatives of allosaurs - so that is definitely a feathered no-go. I propose a more neutral life reproduction at this time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a coelurosaur, as one recent study has found, it would be likely, given its small size too. It could be argued that a restoration would be controversial in any case (whether feathered or not) at this time, since we have so little to go by. FunkMonk (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I restored it as a coelurosaur based on the most recent studies (which means it would have had primitive feathers) and based on the skeletal mount shown in the article. I would argue there is enough fossil evidence to go off of; almost the entire pelvis and lower spine is known and parts of the neck as well... in any case it was on the to-do list for illustrations for a few years. if there is enough for a museum mount wouldn't that merit an illustration? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]