Talk:Tyrannosaurus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 15:56, 5 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tyrannosaurus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13: 4 months

Tyrannosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.

This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2006.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 22, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
November 24, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
November 28, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
July 24, 2006	Featured article candidate	Promoted
November 22, 2008	Featured topic candidate	Not promoted
May 26, 2019	Featured article review	Kept
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on August 12, 2004, and August 12, 2007.
Current status: Featured article

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

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

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The image titled "Holotype of Nanotyrannus lancensis, now interpreted as a juvenile Tyrannosaurus" is not of the holotype, but a cast of the holotype. The caption also implies that this specimen has been definitively interpreted as a juvenile despite ongoing debate. The debate is discussed in the main article text. I would suggest that the image caption be changed to "Cast of CMNH 7541, the holotype of Nanotyrannus lancensis, sometimes interpreted as a juvenile Tyrannosaurus." Geckologist (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done Charliehdb (talk) 12:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

pre-print cite?

" In a subsequent paper awaiting publication, Paul maintained ... " ref 84 -- I thought the agreement above was not to use pre-prints? 2603:6080:21F0:6000:7DFA:6CB7:3E68:895D (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2024

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Some of the T Rex measurements are outdated and I would like to fix them. The T Rex weight measurements have been changed since Wikipedias last edit. New larger T Rex specimens have been discovered. Tom Friedman (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithomimus Grandis?

Fossil material belonging to Tyrannosaurus that was found in eastern Wyoming in the 1890’s and described in 1896 by Marsh. He thought it belonged to Ornithomimus and named it “Ornithomimus grandis”. Should that be a synonym of Tyrannosaurus, Deinodon, or just not one at all? Smilus32 (talk) 16:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is Marsh (1890) but recent literature considers it similarly to Manospondylys gigas. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 58: / Line 58: @@
 {{DEFAULTSORT:Tyrannosaurus}}
+== Semi-protected edit request on 18 April 2024 ==
-== Tyrannosaurus' Status as Largest Land Predator  ==
+{{edit semi-protected|Tyrannosaurus|answered=yes}}
-The article is very conservative about Tyrannosaurus' status as the largest land predator ever discovered. While the holder of this noteworthy record was hotly disputed as recently as the 2000s, taking on almost the tone of a political argument, the picture has become much clearer over the last 10 years. Thanks in part to more sophisticated and accurate computer models, Tyrannosaurus' body mass estimates have been bumped up significantly, as the article itself reflects. On the other hand, the known fossils of the three only other true contenders--Carcharodontosaurus, Giganotosaurus, and Mapusaurus--have been shown to have had their lengths overestimated, and were not as massive as equivalent tyrannosaurids to begin with. Spinosaurus, the only remaining theropod longer than Tyrannosaurus, has been shown to be less massive still, as well as mostly aquatic, casting doubt on its eligibility for the status of "land predator," or at least "obligate land predator."
+The image titled "Holotype of ''Nanotyrannus lancensis'', now interpreted as a juvenile ''Tyrannosaurus''" is not of the holotype, but a cast of the holotype. The caption also implies that this specimen has been definitively interpreted as a juvenile despite ongoing debate. The debate is discussed in the main article text. I would suggest that the image caption be changed to "Cast of CMNH 7541, the holotype of ''Nanotyrannus lancensis'', sometimes interpreted as a juvenile ''Tyrannosaurus''." [[User:Geckologist|Geckologist]] ([[User talk:Geckologist|talk]]) 14:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
+:{{done}}<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:Charliehdb|Charliehdb]] ([[User talk:Charliehdb|talk]]) 12:19, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
+== pre-print cite? ==
-It's important to note that size is conventionally measured as mass, not length or height, which is why the African bush elephant, not the reticulated python or the giraffe, is uncontroversially considered the largest living terrestrial animal.
-I would further like to note that all of these length and mass estimates are borne out on their respective Wikipedia articles. On the Carcharodontosaurus article, it unselfconsciously describes the animal as the "5th largest theropod overall according to most estimates." The Mapusaurus article calls its subject "slightly smaller in size than (...) Giganotosaurus" at "over 5 metric tons (...) at maximum." The Giganotosaurus article, in turn, admits that Tyrannosaurus "has been considered the largest theropod historically," that "the incompleteness of (Giganotosaurus') remains have made it difficult to estimate its size reliably," and that "some writers have considered the largest size estimates for both specimens exaggerated," listing this allegedly exaggerated estimate for the largest specimen at 8.2 metric tons, which even then is still well below the by far more accepted 8.87 metric tons listed in the Tyrannosaurus article. Finally, the Spinosaurus article puts the maximum weight for its subject's up-to-date reconstruction at 7.4 metric tons, before noting that the newest studies consider even this relatively low mass an overestimate which "cannot be considered a reliable body size estimate."
+" In a subsequent paper awaiting publication, Paul maintained ... " ref 84 -- I thought the agreement above was not to use pre-prints? [[Special:Contributions/2603:6080:21F0:6000:7DFA:6CB7:3E68:895D|2603:6080:21F0:6000:7DFA:6CB7:3E68:895D]] ([[User talk:2603:6080:21F0:6000:7DFA:6CB7:3E68:895D|talk]]) 22:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
-As a result, this otherwise great and cutting-edge Tyrannosaurus article smacks of being unduly cautious and downright dated whenever it comes to placing its subject in the size hierarchy. Especially the following phrase in the otherwise beautiful lead  sounds like it hasn't been updated in a decade: "Although other theropods rivaled or exceeded Tyrannosaurus rex in size, it is still among the largest known land predators (...)." And in the Size section, in "T. rex was one of the largest land carnivores of all time," the qualifier "one of" sounds almost absurd followed by the staggering but uncontroversial updated mass estimates--that comfortably exceed even the most exaggerated estimates of any of the other theropods in the accompanying infographic, as I pointed out above.
+== Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2024 ==
-I suggest that this article be edited to plainly inform the reader about what the majority of scholars seem to have concluded: Tyrannosaurus was (by a nontrivial margin) the largest (i.e. most massive) land predator ever discovered. Only one theropod dinosaur, Spinosaurus, has been discovered that was conclusively longer. However, Spinosaurus was both less massive as well as not an obligate land predator.
+{{edit semi-protected|Tyrannosaurus|answered=yes}}
-At minimum, the awkward, apologetic statement in the lead "(Tyrannosaurus) is still among the largest known land predators" should be revised or omitted so that it doesn't convey the impression that some unexpected recent developments have been eroding Tyrannosaurus' relative size, contradicting popular perception in dramatic fashion along the way. The opposite has been the case: 1. Tyrannosaurus' relative size has increased significantly. 2. The new sensationalist attitude is much closer to trying to "top" Tyrannosaurus, that anything but Tyrannosaurus must be the record holder, whereas Tyrannosaurus itself is "old news." I hope go-to sources like this Wikipedia article haven't added any fuel to the flames here.
+Some of the T Rex measurements are outdated and I would like to fix them. The T Rex weight measurements have been changed since Wikipedias last edit. New larger T Rex specimens have been discovered. [[User:Tom Friedman|Tom Friedman]] ([[User talk:Tom Friedman|talk]]) 15:43, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+: [[File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Not done:''' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a [[WP:EDITXY|"change X to Y" format]] and provide a [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources|reliable source]] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> [[User:RudolfRed|RudolfRed]] ([[User talk:RudolfRed|talk]]) 18:06, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
+== Ornithomimus Grandis? ==
-If this suggested remedy is still too much, then at the barest minimum those other theropod articles should be edited to no longer unanimously defer to the subject of this article as an almost undisputed record holder, in order to make the Wiki more consistent.
+Fossil material belonging to Tyrannosaurus that was found in eastern Wyoming in the 1890’s and described in 1896 by Marsh. He thought it belonged to Ornithomimus and named it “Ornithomimus grandis”. Should that be a synonym of Tyrannosaurus, Deinodon, or just not one at all? [[User:Smilus32|Smilus32]] ([[User talk:Smilus32|talk]]) 16:10, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
-I wasn't bold enough to just go ahead and cut open this beautiful article without consulting the community, so I'm hoping this can be the spark that inspires somebody to make some positive revisions. Needless to say, the question "Which was the largest known land predator?" has taken on historical, almost mythological proportions. Calling public interest "high" would be an understatement.
+:The citation is Marsh (1890) but recent literature considers it similarly to ''Manospondylys gigas''. ''[[User:Lythronaxargestes|Lythronaxargestes]]'' ([[User talk:Lythronaxargestes#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Lythronaxargestes|contribs]]) 16:32, 4 December 2024 (UTC)
-tl;dr:
-Tyrannosaurus is the largest land predator ever discovered by a nontrivial margin; size is measured by mass; the article makes it sound like other land predators approaching or exceeding Tyrannosaurus' body mass have been discovered, even though the articles for those land predators disagree, and the math from all the mass estimates even in the articles themselves contradicts this; the record for the largest land predator of all time is noteworthy and interesting to the public [[Special:Contributions/2001:9E8:8FC:AE00:983:4A5B:7C9:C387|2001:9E8:8FC:AE00:983:4A5B:7C9:C387]] ([[User talk:2001:9E8:8FC:AE00:983:4A5B:7C9:C387|talk]]) 10:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
-== Nanotyrannus valid again? ==
-Nick Longrich has recently published a paper: [https://osf.io/preprints/paleorxiv/nc6tk/?fbclid=IwAR2anhEa67Jo93tggq0bXzmY-E9n2c9cXQ0R11-o244kzcMaenaDlZ3_yrU]https://osf.io/preprints/paleorxiv/nc6tk/?fbclid=IwAR2anhEa67Jo93tggq0bXzmY-E9n2c9cXQ0R11-o244kzcMaenaDlZ3_yrU detailing why Nanotyrannus may, in fact, be a separate genus from Tyrannosaurus after all, and how several specimens conventionally believed to be juvenile Tyrannosaurus are actually Nanotyrannus. Moreover, he points out that many of Nanotyrannus’s features are not similar to those of Tyrannosaurids at all, but group closer to more basal tyrannosaurs.
-Does this mean Nanotyrannus is finally established as a separate genus, and ought to be referred to as such on Wikipedia? [[Special:Contributions/135.135.227.26|135.135.227.26]] ([[User talk:135.135.227.26|talk]]) 21:49, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
-:This isn't a paper, this is a preprint. Their conclusions have not received scientific scrutiny yet. ''[[User:Lythronaxargestes|Lythronaxargestes]]'' ([[User talk:Lythronaxargestes#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Lythronaxargestes|contribs]]) 21:52, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
-::And when do you suppose that might happen? [[Special:Contributions/135.135.227.26|135.135.227.26]] ([[User talk:135.135.227.26|talk]]) 21:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
-:::When/if a journal accepts it. Bear in mind a single paper is by no means an end to the ongoing debate, and it's unlikely to not be contested. Also, it's well-known that juveniles of derived taxa often have similarities with more basal relatives, not sure how this should be news. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 22:24, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
-::::Mostly because I personally talked to Longrich about it, and mentioned several of the commonly-cited reasons why Nanotyrannus is considered invalid, and his reasoning for considering it a valid genus regardless seems solid to me. For example, the Montana Dueling Dinosaurs specimen is a subadult, but its arms are larger than those of adults. [[Special:Contributions/135.135.227.26|135.135.227.26]] ([[User talk:135.135.227.26|talk]]) 22:36, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
-:::::There was a similar paper by Larson (2013), "The case for Nanotyrannus", but that apparently didn't change the consensus. So also in this case, we have to wait until we see some consensus in the scientific literature before moving it back to its own page. [[User:Jens Lallensack|Jens Lallensack]] ([[User talk:Jens Lallensack|talk]]) 23:13, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
-::::::The paper has now been published. We have to keep in mind that the consensus has never been based on good data. ''Nanotyrannus'' shares no autapomorphies with ''Tyrannosaurus'' so there is no strict proof the two are identical. But there is no cogent proof that they are not identical either, so most see it as more parsimonious to assume that there is only a single species. The text presently too much suggests that ''Nanotyrannus'' unproblematically fits the morphology expected for a juvenile in a tyrannosaurid growth series.--[[User:MWAK|MWAK]] ([[User talk:MWAK|talk]]) 18:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::We also need to be aware that this is certainly not a settled argument and will continue for years to come. Representatives from the other camp have already criticized the paper[https://www.newscientist.com/article/2410573-tiny-t-rex-fossils-may-be-distinct-species-but-not-everyone-agrees/], so we can be sure there will be published rebuttals. As usual, there will be no slam dunk case closed before more specimens are found and described. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 19:23, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Forearms ==
-Use as toothpicks has been suggested.  This was a significant historical conjecture, still mentioned as a valid primary or secondary function, especially in the absence of birds that today have a similar symbiotic role for living archosaurs. [[User:Drsruli|Drsruli]] ([[User talk:Drsruli|talk]]) 03:26, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
-:As an example of intraspecific cooperative behaviour? Perhaps that is why the hand claws shortened: adults could no longer reach their mouth anyway!--[[User:MWAK|MWAK]] ([[User talk:MWAK|talk]]) 18:08, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Nanotyrannus vs. Tyrannosaurus ==
-Numerous articles scattered throughout the internet showcase studies suggesting that Nanotyrannus may be a valid genus that coexisted with T.rex. Since the old Nanotyrannus article on this website was subject to deletion I was hoping we could possibly bring it back or make an article about this debate. [[User:FishyGuy77|FishyGuy77]] ([[User talk:FishyGuy77|talk]]) 14:32, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
-:Neither is needed untill more conclusive evidence is presented. Currently there's still ongoing debate, which is covered on the Tyrannosaurus page.  [[User:The Morrison Man|The Morrison Man]] ([[User talk:The Morrison Man|talk]]) 15:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
-::We don't need "scattered articles throughout the Internet", we have scientific papers, and that's what we're already citing. The Nano article wasn't deleted, it was merged into this one. The new paper has already received a lot of criticism from researchers, so it is unlikely to overturn the consensus, but should definitely be cited. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 19:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
-:Already there have been several noted paleontologists who have dismissed this 2024 paper as not being convincing, so, no, this is definitely not the time to be resurrecting a dubious genus. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6080:21F0:6140:459F:17E0:2004:854A|2603:6080:21F0:6140:459F:17E0:2004:854A]] ([[User talk:2603:6080:21F0:6140:459F:17E0:2004:854A|talk]]) 18:35, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
-::But still, it may be a possibility that the genus could be valid. Though, I agree. We should probably wait until we have more evidence. [[User:FishyGuy77|FishyGuy77]] ([[User talk:FishyGuy77|talk]]) 22:07, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
-== New Research Shows Nanotyrannus Is Separate Species, Not “Juvenile T. rex” ==
-Taxonomic Status of Nanotyrannus lancensis (Dinosauria: Tyrannosauroidea)—A Distinct Taxon of Small-Bodied Tyrannosaur
-- https://www.mdpi.com/2813-6284/2/1/1
-(looks credible but this is apparently a new publication)
-- [[Special:Contributions/189.122.84.88|189.122.84.88]] ([[User talk:189.122.84.88|talk]]) 17:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-:This is in the article already and it is ''far'' from settled. ''[[User:Lythronaxargestes|Lythronaxargestes]]'' ([[User talk:Lythronaxargestes#top|talk]] &#124; [[Special:Contributions/Lythronaxargestes|contribs]]) 18:06, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-::Not to mention the fact that its already being discussed in two other places on this talk page [[User:The Morrison Man|The Morrison Man]] ([[User talk:The Morrison Man|talk]]) 19:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
-:What was the point of you ignoring the two previous sections on this, and posting? To 'get your IP address in lights' or something?  PAY ATTENTION to ongoing discussions on Talk Pages. [[Special:Contributions/2603:6080:21F0:6140:459F:17E0:2004:854A|2603:6080:21F0:6140:459F:17E0:2004:854A]] ([[User talk:2603:6080:21F0:6140:459F:17E0:2004:854A|talk]]) 18:33, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
-::It's possible that they missed the other ones, no need to assume ill intent. [[User:The Morrison Man|The Morrison Man]] ([[User talk:The Morrison Man|talk]]) 17:02, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
-::: I think we can make a separate page? But we need to proceed with caution. However I doubt there needs to be any consensus in the scientific community for us to recreate the article since we still have several similar articles still up. Maybe we should rewrite the article if we are going to republish it? Just a thought--[[User:Bubblesorg|Bubblesorg]] ([[User talk:Bubblesorg|talk]]) 17:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::Seeing as the validity of the genus is a highly disputed topic, remaking the page at the current time would be premature, and with a high likelihood that it would need to be merged back into ''Tyrannosaurus''. Best to just wait untill there's conclusive evidence of the distinction rather than jump the gun and give ourselves more work. [[User:The Morrison Man|The Morrison Man]] ([[User talk:The Morrison Man|talk]]) 06:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::::Yeah, the description of the Dueling Dinosaurs specimen may set it straight. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 08:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-== Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis ==
-As of today, [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-47011-0 a new species of Tyrannosaurus] has been described in a paper published by Nature. This species, ''Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis'' predates ''T. rex'' by 6-7 million years yet is about as large. Given the utter depth at which this article goes into ''T. rex,'' how will we fit this new information on this new species into this page? For so long, ''Tyrannosaurus'' has been a monotypic genus, and save for that one little Greg Paul moment that was roundly rejected, no new species have been added til now.
-How are we going to proceed with this?
-[[User:DownAirStairsConditioner|DownAirStairsConditioner]] ([[User talk:DownAirStairsConditioner|talk]]) 17:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-::FWIW relavant references include the following <ref name="SR-20240111">{{Cite journal |last=Dalman |first=Sebastian G. |last2=Loewen |first2=Mark A. |last3=Pyron |first3=R. Alexander |last4=Jasinski |first4=Steven E. |last5=Malinzak |first5=D. Edward |last6=Lucas |first6=Spencer G. |last7=Fiorillo |first7=Anthony R. |last8=Currie |first8=Philip J. |last9=Longrich |first9=Nicholas R. |date=2024-01-11 |title=A giant tyrannosaur from the Campanian–Maastrichtian of southern North America and the evolution of tyrannosaurid gigantism |journal=Scientific Reports |language=en |volume=13 |issue=1 |doi=10.1038/s41598-023-47011-0 |issn=2045-2322|pmid=38212342 |doi-access=free}}</ref><ref name="NYT-20240111">{{cite news |last=Elbein |first=Asher |title=New Origin Story for Tyrannosaurus Rex Suggested by Fossil - Researchers say the species they named Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis predated the dinosaur era’s great predator. |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2024/01/11/science/new-tyrannosaur-species-fossil.html |date=January 11, 2024 |work=[[The New York Times]] |url-status=live |archiveurl=https://archive.ph/qdRJk |archivedate=January 11, 2024 |accessdate=January 12, 2024 }}</ref> - hope this helps in some way - iac - Stay Safe and Healthy !! - [[User:Drbogdan|Drbogdan]] ([[User talk:Drbogdan|talk]]) 16:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-:I dont know how we will proceed. All I know is that I have begun the proceeding by adding the new species to the other species list. [[User:IndoBoy Official|IndoBoy Official]] ([[User talk:IndoBoy Official|talk]]) 18:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-::nevermind we need to talk about it. [[User:IndoBoy Official|IndoBoy Official]] ([[User talk:IndoBoy Official|talk]]) 18:22, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::It is generally commonplace to add new species to dinosaur genus pages without extensive discussion or hesitation. However, given the extreme popularity of ''Tyrannosaurus'', it may be best to discuss the best way to proceed with this study. That said, ''T. mcraeensis'' should probably be left out of the taxobox, as suggested by the current format. It can be discussed in-depth in the [[Tyrannosaurus#Additional_species|body of the page]]. Note that the paper is not without its criticisms—[[Thomas Carr (paleontologist)|Thomas Carr]] has [https://www.reuters.com/science/scientists-conclude-new-mexico-fossil-is-new-tyrannosaurus-species-2024-01-11/ expressed his skepticism] regarding naming the specimen as a new species. Of course, his unpublished opinion should also not be given [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources and undue weight|undue weight]]. -[[User:SlvrHwk|SlvrHwk]] ([[User talk:SlvrHwk|talk]]) 18:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::Leaving a new species out of the tax box is far from the norm for wikipedia articles and I highly advise against it. I believe we should add it into the tax box, move the debated species into their own articles and make a section for the new species to begin. [[User:IndoBoy Official|IndoBoy Official]] ([[User talk:IndoBoy Official|talk]]) 18:35, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-:we need to completely change the other species section, I recommend moving each of the 2 debated species to their own article since both have a lot of studies associated with them and it would take up space for new T.mcraeensis information. [[User:IndoBoy Official|IndoBoy Official]] ([[User talk:IndoBoy Official|talk]]) 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
-:: Not sure what the best way to proceed with this is, but I agree with giving ''mcraensis'' more validity than the other species; it's temporally and spatially well-separated from ''rex'' and not sympatric like ''Nanotyrannus'' or Paul's species. While Carr might have his disagreements, I don't think they should be the end-all be-all. If evidence of the fossil being younger than it is or conspecific with ''rex'' comes out, we can change it, but for now I feel there's good grounds to treat it as valid. [[User:Geekgecko|Geekgecko]] ([[User talk:Geekgecko|talk]]) 05:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::Apparently even the temporal difference is uncertain. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 08:55, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-:::we need to begin reconstructing immediately. I suggest moving the controversial species to their own articles and replacing the additional species section with one for T. mcraeensis. [[User:IndoBoy Official|IndoBoy Official]] ([[User talk:IndoBoy Official|talk]]) 13:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-::::We certainly don't need to do anything drastic at all before the dust has settled. [[User:FunkMonk|FunkMonk]] ([[User talk:FunkMonk|talk]]) 13:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
-{{reflist-talk}}
-== Semi-protected edit request on 12 January 2024 ==
-{{edit semi-protected|Tyrannosaurus|answered=no}}
-Include Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis in the species list [[User:PaleoOuedZem|PaleoOuedZem]] ([[User talk:PaleoOuedZem|talk]]) 02:30, 12 January 2024 (UTC)