Talk:Yutyrannus

File:Feathered tyrant by pilsator-d4vbemk.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Feathered tyrant by pilsator-d4vbemk.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Feathered tyrant by pilsator-d4vbemk.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it just me, or does the shape of the nostril on the restoration seem highly unlikely? FunkMonk (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Phylogeny Update

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9271276/

A 2022 study by Naish and Cau found Yutyrannus to be more derived than the proceratosaurids, thus falling outside the grouping. Should probably acknowledge this new development.

Edit War over mass estimate

User:Aliafroz1901 has recently repeatedly changed the mass estimate of this species from "about 1414 kilograms" (an exact quote from the source article) to "1400 kg" (apparently his own, rounded estimate). While it's true that it is often impossible to reach exact estimates, 1) the source does not claim it is exact, hence use of the word "about" and 2) even if it is incorrect, Wikipedia's No Original Research policy prohibits editors from correcting published data without backing it up with a verifiable source. It is not appropriate to change sourced information just because you personally feel it is likely to be wrong. You must cite a source disputing the first source's data. Writing "1400 kilograms" when the source used to verify this fact specifically says "about 1414 kilograms" is lying about the content of the source and is against wiki policy. MMartyniuk (talk) 16:22, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

You've been reverting my edits in which I rounded heavily over precise data about the holotype's scull length, which was crushed and thus could not be safely measured. You also reverted the mass figures to a similarly heavily over precise figure, forgetting that there are as many methods to produce estimates as there are scientists. You also forgot that weight will very due to a number of external variables, which by the way isn't WP:OR since there are many sources to back this up.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 16:51, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

O and 1400 kilograms is about 1414 kilograms. Not to mention that exact quotes are copyright violations.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 17:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

"the holotype's scull length, which was crushed and thus could not be safely measured" Which source says this?

"mass figures...a similarly heavily over precise figure" Which source says this?

"exact quotes are copyright violations" Not if they're short, only if large chunks of text are copied. In many cases exact quotes are necessary. You forget this is Wikipedia. I agree with everything you're saying, but unless you publish it in a verifiable source, we cannot make use of it here. Using a source discussing weight issues in one dinosaur and extrapolating those to apply to a dinosaur which was not addressed by that source is OR or that the very least [Original Synthesis]. From the article: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources." This is exactly what you're doing.

We are here to report what published sources say, not correct what we personally feel, through our own research on the topis, to be errors in published sources. MMartyniuk (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Then Why does the FA Alosaurus have so many rounded figures(chek the ssaurce for Big Al's weight and don't forget to chek the talk page for instences of concensous being to round). Also why arn't imejes speady deleted since they tend to combine one's interpretation of the information present in more then 1 saurce, while my edits are reverted for the same reason.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 04:38, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Images are allowed for the same reason these articles can exist at all rather than having a separate article on individual papers. An overall synthesis is fine--that's what an encyclopedia article is. What's not appropriate is changing one individual piece of data based on your knowledge of other data. If multiple sources exist with slightly different results, rounding is perfectly fine. But this is obviously not yet possible for such a new species. As soon as somebody publishes another size estimate, rounding will become appropriate. But changing a single data point because it doesn't seem right in context is not appropriate. Either it should be left as-is or removed entirely until it is tested by other sources. MMartyniuk (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the over precise information. Aliafroz1901 (talk) 05:11, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Dinoguy why did you revert my edits with your edit summary stateing "no justification what so ever for douting skull length" when we know that the holotype's skull was crushed. You also put the over precise mass figures back in with out provideing a reason in your edit summary, in fact you didn't say or imply that you were putting them back in. I've reverted your edits as for now.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Dinoguy why did you revert my edits once more with out even bothering to provide an edit summary. Though I honestly don't mind as long as you have a reasonable rationale.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Obviously he can answer for himself, but you changed the article away from the consensus version. When someone reverts that change, the burden is on you to justify the change, on the talk page. You have failed to convince us that your changes follow wikipedia policy. Therefore, no explicit reason for the reversion is really needed. de Bivort 16:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Actuelly only 3 people have partisipated in this discussion so you can't really say that my opinion is in the minority. and I've seen mesages on some user talk pages requesting the user to provide a helpful edit summary even when unduing the most obvious tipe of vandelism, leve far when unduing a good faith edit. And to quote from dinoguy's post above "changing a single data point because it doesn't seem right in context is not appropriate. Either it should be left as-is or removed entirely until it is tested by other sources.", I was merely following his proposal and that's exactly the reason I am so desirous of a helpful explanation.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 05:42, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Removing the mass estimate might be appropriate in some cases where there is a dispute. You have not provided any justification for removing the skull estimate other than "the skull is crushed" which is true of pretty much 100% of known dinosaur fossils. Your argument seems to be that we can never know the size of any part of any dinosaur unless it is known from 100% pristine remains which is ludicrous, and the sources in question already state that all these measurements are approximate. I would consider any edits involving ongoing discussions that go against the current consensus of discussion as unjustified and not worthy of the time it takes to write an edit summary. This does not depend on how many people have contributed to the discussion. It's not surprising that many people haven't joined in because your issues with the veracity of a published source are so clearly against wiki policy that it doesn't even really rate any discussion. Sorry, but your disruptive edits are simply creating busywork for the rest of us to clean up and it is becoming incredibly annoying. MMartyniuk (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Well then what about adding about, around or approximately behind the estimates, so as to make it clear that they are only estimates.Aliafroz1901 (talk) 15:05, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

This has already been done. The word "estimated" means the figure is approximate. Each length or weight figure is already clearly stated to be estimated. Except the skull lengths, which while crshed are still articulated and so any crushing is not enough to significantly alter the total measured length. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Yutyrannus. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120417134949/http://www.xinglida.net:80/pdf/Xu_et_al_2012_Yutyrannus.pdf to http://www.xinglida.net/pdf/Xu_et_al_2012_Yutyrannus.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 16:40, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Question

How do people even know that Yutyrannus had feathers?

I mean, seriously. If it had feathers, wouldn’t they have just rotted away eventually?Austin012599 (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC) Austin012599 (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

There are ways to determine or logically assume if a dinosaur had feathers even without actually having unequivocal evidence of feathers, i.e., having closely related or ancestral forms which do have unequivocal evidence of feathers, or anatomy that suggest presence of feathers, etc.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

People know it had feathers because impressions of these feathers are preserved in the fossils. What you're saying amounts to asking how we know Egyptian mummies had flesh. FunkMonk (talk) 08:27, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Either way, these are not forums for discussion on the subject of the article, unless there is an issue with the page itself that needs to be fixed/changed, there is no reason to bring up such questions here (per WP:FORUM). If you're really curious about how integumentary structures like feathers can preserved on extinct animals, you can do research on the relevant wiki pages, like Feathered dinosaur, or Fossil. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 15:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I think there could be a point in that the article kind of waffles around the issue, so it might be hard for the average reader to get it. For example, the beginning of the "feathers" section would be pretty incomprehensible to most readers. Why does it have to start with discussing a completely different genus? It should state outright that feather impressions are known from Yutyrannus, describe them, then go into such sidetracks as their implications. FunkMonk (talk) 15:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That is strange, usually such comparisons with other genera and their history of discovery goes in other sections entirely, some of that stuff shouldn't even be in the description. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 16:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I reorganized this paragraph and added a line to introduce it. Better now? (Feel free to tweak.) -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 18:51, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That definitely works better, I hope this article can be expanded more in the near future, as it represents an important discovery regarding feathered dinosaurs. I'm a bit too busy with Spinosauridae at the moment though, so I won't be contributing much to this one right now. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ 19:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Much better! Also note there is a nice free image of a skull in this paper (fig 6)[1], to whoever wants to expand the article. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Good suggestion--I added the skull to the article (again, please improve the location and caption) and also uploaded the full image to Commons if anyone would like to use it. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Units

One paragraph should not show measurements in meters, millimeters and centimeters. Especially when the measurement in millimeters is larger than that in centimeters (i.e. 905 millimeters being followed by 60 cm). This is best all listed in meters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.167.24.153 (talk) 19:10, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is yutyrannus classed as a tyrannosaur

It shares little traits with them but it looks alot like a carnosaur like neovenator or carcharodontosaurus rather than tyrannosaurus or albertosaurus Jakegaming7788 (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The easiest way to find out is just to look at the original paper, which is linked in the article.[2] FunkMonk (talk) 11:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks can be deceiving, it's not only about exterior features, in classification it's also taken account the bone structure, tooth patterns, as well as other synapomorphies. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much every peer-reviewed phylogenetic analyses places Yutyrannus as a basal tyrannosauroid, unrelated to carnosaurians. The details are a bit too complicated to describe here, but rest assured that its position as a tyrannosauroid is secured by a substantial amount of subtle anatomical traits. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The only real dispute in the literature is if it is a member Proceratosauridae or a more advanced tyrannosauroid. The placement of Yutyrannus as a tyrannosauroid is unequivocal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:44, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Are you a paleontologist? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 23:47, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not but i would like to when im older. Jakegaming7788 (talk) 08:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Exactly Jakegaming7788 just because it looks like something doesn't mean it is that thing. Guanlong sure looks like a raptor but its a tyrannosaur. How does Yutyrannus share little traits? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 16:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Just Externally : Crests, Thin snout, Long arms with 3 didgits. Im not 100% on small details but it could just be convergent evolution Jakegaming7788 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

So that means proceratosaurus, guanlong, those kind of tyrannosaurs are not tyrannosaurs? TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:02, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Its not just external features. Bones and teeth can determine a family too. TigerScientist Chat > contribs 20:10, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Another thing to note is that a thin snout and long arms with 3 digits are plesiomorphic for tetanuran theropods. By that I mean they are ancestral features which do not clarify relationships, since every tetanuran group is expected to have them at least at the start. Tyrannosaurids have certain specializations (broad heads, short two-fingered hands) which they acquired over the course of their evolution, but they had to have an ancestor without those traits. Just like how humans had tailed ancestors, even if we lack external tails. Yutyrannus, proceratosaurids, Dilong, and other early tyrannosauroids have a few subtle features in common with tyrannosaurids, even if they had not yet acquired those obvious specializations such as two-fingered hands. On the other hand, they have no unique shared features with carnosaurs, even if they share some "primitive" features with carnosaurs and many other theropods. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)