Talk:Specimens of Tyrannosaurus

Dinosaurs Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Smithsonian Institution Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of Smithsonian Institution WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Smithsonian Institution and related articles 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.Smithsonian InstitutionWikipedia:GLAM/Smithsonian InstitutionTemplate:WikiProject Smithsonian InstitutionSmithsonian Institution-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Year of AMNH 5027's discovery

Sources seem to disagree on when it was first discovered, excavated, and described. Osborn (1912, p. 4) first says it was "discovered" by Barnum Brown in 1907, but later (1916, p. 763) says it was "secured" in 1908. Larson (2008) and Dingus and Norell (2010) both definitively say it was discovered and excavated in 1908 (the latter spending several pages on the excavation itself), while other sources have stated 1905 or 1906 (can't remember which off the top my head). Also, I found no reference to Brown having first described it in 1908 (as previously stated on this page, uncited). Larson (2008) says Osborn first described it in 1912, and from reading Osborn's 1912 paper that appears to be the case. Hope this clears things up. SaberToothedWhale (talk) 23:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Specimens of Tyrannosaurus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Specimens of Tyrannosaurus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "quinlanetal2007":

From Tyrannosaurus: Breithaupt, Brent H. (2005-10-18). "In Celebration of 100 years of Tyrannosaurus Rex: Manospondylus Gigas, Ornithomimus Grandis, and Dynamosaurus Imperiosus, the Earliest Discoveries of Tyrannosaurus Rex in the West". Abstracts with Programs. 2005 Salt Lake City Annual Meeting. Vol. 37. Geological Society of America. p. 406. Retrieved 2008-10-08. {{cite conference}}: External link in |conferenceurl= (help); Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |conferenceurl= ignored (|conference-url= suggested) (help)
From Tyrannosauridae: Quinlan, Elizibeth D. (2007). "Anatomy and function of digit III of the Tyrannosaurus rex manus". Geological Society of America Annual Meeting — Abstracts with Programs: 77. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) [abstract only]

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 23:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Shouldn't the images show the actual fossils instead of casts?24.36.130.109 (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If such images are available, which they aren't always. FunkMonk (talk) 16:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Samson"

according to this link (Google Books) Samson was excavated in 1992, but already found in 1987 by the Farmer's Son -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 16:00, 20 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

85% or 46% ?

The article currently states two different values for how complete is the Wankel Rex.
The table at the start of the article states 46%
The paragraph specific to the Wankel Rex states it "includes approximately 85 percent of the skeleton"
90.244.140.55 (talk) 09:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, should be 80-85%. Smithsonian states 80-85, I'm not sure where the 46% came from. Sorenoshannessy (talk) 04:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Specimens

Remembering a private lecture of a paleontologist on the complications, systematical difficulties and the reliability of archaeology, I miss an introducing statement like the following one (maybe the numbers from about 10 years ago need to be updated):

Presently there are 29 known different specimens (which? if true, it is just a short list) from 17 different excavation sites (where and when?) considered to be fossils of the Tyrannosaurus rex. Just five of them are more complete than one third of which only one is more than two third complete. Most of these 29 specimens consist of less than three fragments of major bones which means that whole specimen is just one part of a rotten vertebra, one part of a jaw bone or of a skull...

Unlucky, I haven't got any citeable source for this, but the obviously comfirmed statement "Before 1987, Tyrannosaurus rex was thought to be rare. However, the last two decades have seen the discovery and description of over a dozen additional specimens.", which is allready included into the article, suggests, that 29 specimens from 17 sites is not too far wrong. On top we learn, that over a dozen findíngs in two decades is considered to be not rare and implicates that during the hundred years before there must have occured significantly less findings.

My conclusion of this is, and this was the intension of the paleontologist's lecture, that we have got much more confirmed knowledge about the dark side of the moon and black holes in the universe than about the T-Rex and all the other dinosaurs. Probably we know even more about the real lifes of Robin Hood and Lancelot.--46.115.149.189 (talk) 09:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk Pages are for the discussion of Reliable Sources for the improvement of the articles, anon German, not your idle speculation.HammerFilmFan (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Specimens of Tyrannosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Specimens of Tyrannosaurus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Content of "Samson"

This section is extremely messy - formatting errors, references put directly in the body of the text, redundant information, etc. Would love to give it an overhaul, but would like a go-ahead or other voices of agreement first. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 00:14, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think such issues can be fixed on sight. FunkMonk (talk) 06:28, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Trix (dinosaur)

I think Trix is notable enough for a stand-alone article. Please feel free to edit Draft:Trix (dinosaur) to help get it ready for mainspace. -- 1Wiki8........................... (talk) 11:38, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Scale

It seems that the way Stan is drawn in proportion to Sue, it seems that it is under 11 meters long, in the article it says that there is a misconception that Stan is 10.9 meters long when in fact it is between 11.3-11.8 meters long, so isn't that scale inaccurate?73.252.154.119 (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Specimens of Tyrannosaurus. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dinosauria.com/dml/names/dinod.htm
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.carnegiemnh.org/news/06-jan-mar/030206bonevoyage.htm
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130929074932/http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Tyrannosauroidea.html to http://archosaur.us/theropoddatabase/Tyrannosauroidea.html#Tyrannosaurusrex

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) 10:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is this list supposed to be complete?

the page at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyrannosaurus says there are 50 known specimens of Tyrannosaurus. This page lists 11 (in the main table) and 16 (in the text below), which caused me a bit of confusion when i was linked to this page by somebody claiming there were 50 specimens.

So i'm wondering: what is this page? is it meant to be a complete list, and should have the "this list is incomplete, you can help by adding to it" template at the top of the page? or is there some criteria for what specimens are included on this page, and if so can that criteria be displayed at the top of the list? - January 24,2018‎ 70.65.224.201

I think this list has been a bit randomly cobbled together, but I think everyone agress all specimens should be listed if possible. The list also sees to be out of chronological order for some reason. By the way, there's a nice Extinct Monsters blog post about exhibited specimens here, with sources:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About ulnae in B-rex

Excuse me. In, the section of B-rex, we can see the description of "the left ulna" and "ulnae". I think the latter will be mistaken, but I don't have the book which is based on, so I cannnot confirm that. Which is correct?--ノボホショコロトソ (talk) 12:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Titus (dinosaur)

This is taking place at Talk:Titus_(dinosaur). Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Split article for Scotty?

One of the longest sections of the article, and the one with one of the most clear claim to individual notability among those who don't have articles already. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:50, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd oppose such a split, for any individual dinosaurs. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really have much stake in it. On one hand Scotty actually has a good peer-reviewed secondary source. On the other, I have no issue with it just having a longer section here. If splitting is to appease groups that thing byte size matters for an article where half the bytes are references, there's not much point. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I support this vision. It will help to make the entire page more tidy, in line with all the other edits to date. Well done to IJReid and LittleLazyLass for your edits throughout – the page is looking much better and more accessible overall. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been split by Ficaia and now resides at Scotty (dinosaur). I only executed the technical move on their request, and then trimmed and formatted the section in this article as I found appropriate [2]; feel free to tweak further. As an outsider to this discussion, I happen to agree with split, since the section was full of fine details more appropriate for a separate article. No such user (talk) 10:02, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The new Trinity skeletons?

As you probably are aware a completed skeleton, allegedly made out of three individuals went to auction this April 2023. I can't find any information regarding the individuals and I was wondering if they are listed here on the page and if anyone is preparing anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.67.220.216 (talk) 14:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E.D.Cope T. Rex(Copium rex)

Why hasn't anybody put Copium Rex?? Its Specimen Number is BHI6248, it was discovered by Bucky Derflinger. It was determined that it may be hevier than Sue. The fossils are presserved at Black Hills Institute. 5.12.199.136 (talk) 16:05, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have reliable sources for it, feel free to add. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]