Talk:Tyrannosaurus rex/Film

If this article is gonna be the next FA a couple of changes are needed.

kILLS
Is the section of KILLS really needed? I can't see the point of such lists. We also don't add which trees the Brachs eat from. MismeretMonk (talk) 13:16, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

-I've personally never seen the use of them. If we get rid of the one here, there's several others on some of the other dinosaur articles that we should get rid of too, in the name of keeping the Wiki uniform. 20:28, December 29, 2012 (UTC)

Size
Well there is much discussion as to what to put in the Infobox.

First of all: all lengths have to be in meters. Because the the cm -> kilometer system is simple and rational. The inch/feet/yard/mile system is confusing (I think it's just crazy). The UN have sanctioned the meter as the Standard Unit of measurement.MismeretMonk (talk) 09:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Justisaurus:


 * Here's a site that says the T. rex was 20 ft. tall, and the skeleton in the Visitor's Center was 40 ft. long, and to me, it looked like the female T. rex in the movie was bigger:


 * http://www.lost-world.com/Lost_World02/Jurassic_Park.Site/Jurassic_Park.html


 * This site says that the animatronic T. rex in the theme park ride was 50 ft. long, and I believe they based it on the size of the one in the movie:


 * http://www.universalstudioshollywood.com/attractions/jurassic-park-the-ride/


 * And this site isn't from the JP franchise, but talks about Jurassic Park and states the size of some larger Rex specimens at about 50 ft long:


 * http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11592&garpg=19

40 feet is 12 meter (DON'T put 12.192 meter), 50 feet is 15 meter.MismeretMonk (talk) 09:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Jhayk' Sulliy: The Winston Effect book reports that the full sized maquette they created (and molded the foam latex skining from) was 20ft (6 meter) tall.


 * Dinosaur Field Guide says T. rex was 12.5 meter long, and 3.9 meter (argg) high at the hips (page 128).
 * JPIII trading card 56 it was 12 meters long.
 * JPIII poster says 11 meter (37 ft) long, 4.5 meter (14.5 feet) tall.

Since there is so much variation in what JP media says, I think we can better show the values from the quoted scientific papers:
 * Height: 4 meter (13 feet)
 * Length: 12.3 meter (40 feet)
 * Weight: 6.8 metric tons)

Ofcourse there were bigger T. rexes then that but there is always variation. There are humans of 1,5 meter tall and others of 2.3 meter. But 1.8 m would be shown in an article.MismeretMonk (talk) 09:44, August 7, 2012 (UTC)

Tyrannosaurus rex
Many times I see the name: Tyrannosaurus Rex or for short T-Rex. But this is wrong:

It is a law that scientific names should be written in italics.

tyrannosaurus is the genus name, while rex is the species name. Genus names must be written with a capulet but the species name don't.

So it should be written like this:

or for short: MismeretMonk 10:39, December 31, 2010 (UTC)
 * Tyrannosaurus rex
 * T. rex
 * Done. Well, mostly done. Styracosaurus Rider Speak to the Rider! 20:00, December 31, 2010 (UTC)

FA cleanup
Right then. Even though this is an FA, it still needs to be improved. Add or cross out points as necessary. I've made a start at improving. As always, help is needed! Styracosaurus Rider Speak to the Rider! 16:37, January 16, 2011 (UTC)
 * Article has information throughout as "it was this," not "was depicted as."
 * Rather disorganized info...
 * "Eyesight Debate" rather irrelevant to the article, and so is all disproved info, which should be moved to a "Inaccuracies" section

It really needs a clean up. Therefore it will stay the FA next month because this month it wasn't worth to be called it.MismeretMonk 10:33, January 19, 2011 (UTC)

Main Picture
Hi, I was thinking that perhaps we should use a new picture to use in the infobox. The current one is hardly the clearest nor does it show the animal as a whole. I recommend changing it to a picture that shows T. Rex in full. Perhaps a picture showing the Tyrannosaur family at the end of the Lost World. This is just a suggestion of course.

-- Um2k9   - Something Wicked This Way Comes...  16:37, November 4, 2011 (UTC)

they can see very well so....

and they can smell their food

That picture is not a jurassic park picture, is it? Edaphosaurus (talk) 14:56, April 20, 2013 (UTC)

Hello :)

I also think that the main picture should be maybe of the Tyrannosaurus family at the end of the Lost World, I think it's a good suggestion. Another suggestion I have is a good picture of the Tyrannosaurus Rex female in the first Jurassic Park movie. For example of when Tyrannosaurus chases and kills a Gallimimus, or maybe when she fights the Velociraptors in the Visitor Center.

This is a suggestion I have, please leave a response of your comments on my suggestions, thank you! :)

User:Avs94

Why is the picture still this one which is not from the film? Edaphosaurus (talk) 11:09, July 21, 2013 (UTC)

Septic bite
Gregory S. Paul, Phil Currie, and Robert Bakker are against the theory that Tyrannosaurus had an infectious bite. Add that to the fact that the man who came up with the hypothesis that Tyrannosaurus had a septic bite wasn't even a professional paleontologist, and the fact that by his logic, every theropod with serrated teeth would have a septic bite, I think it's reasonable to assume that Tyrannosaurus did not. --Lord of the Allosaurs (talk) 23:01, April 12, 2013 (UTC)

Ah, glad you caught that. Yes, any carnivorous animal that doesn't brush its teeth is susceptable to a build-up of bacteria. The idea that this is something unique to Tyrannosaurus is innaccurate. 00:28, April 13, 2013 (UTC)

Gennaro's death doesn't support Levine's theory
You can't use it. You're saying it didn't eat Doctor Grant out of being hungry, like if it saw Gennaro who was still. Sitting on a toilet seat doesn't make you still, the T-Rex ate Gennaro because despite sitting in one place, he was still moving, he moved his arms quite a bit. So his death supports Grant's theory, when they say don't move, they really mean DON'T MOVE!

Why is the name listed Tyrannosaurus rex? I know Crichton uses that name in the books, but none of the other dinosaurs on this wiki use the species name. For the sake of keeping the wiki uniform, I think we should just keep it Tyrannosaurus.Matt375 (talk) 01:09, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

This is in the wrong section to make this comment, but I do agree. Jhayk&#39; Sulliy (talk) 02:02, July 11, 2013 (UTC)

4 T.rex pages too many
Are 5 pages about T.Rex really necsessary? it seems relatively pointless to have 5 pages about 1 animal. It's like having pages on a wikia called;

Homo Sapiens

Category: Homo Sapiens

Female Homo

Male Homo

Infant H.Sapiens (By the way it's improper for Tyrannosaurus to called T.Rex, thats like saying T.Horridus or S.Armatus)

Juvenille Human

Just looking at it looks wrong, right? and Having a category Called Tyrannosaurus Rex doesn't solve but insted creates problems, I have told that 1 T.Rex page is a big no-no but they never said any proof to help with their argument. There are plenty reasons why 1 is better than 5, less pages about pointless subjects (Don't forget about the other 13 dinosaurs in the trilogy of movies) and more pages about useful topics like the new Mystery Dinosaur in Jurassic Park IV. If the the other 4 pages about T.Rex had seperate names insted of classifying their age and gender, then this would never happen. If for any reason 5 is better than 1, please let me know as a reply. Thank you.

There are several pages about specific T. rex's because they are different animals. Sure, they are the same species, but they are different characters in the franchise; Rexy is the female adult rex from the first novel and first film, the Juvenile Tyrannosaur is the "Little rex" from the first novel, the Tyrannosaur Buck is the male adult from The Lost World: Jurassic Park, etc. They aren't five pages about the same thing, it's like a page on John Hammond and a page on Alan Grant are both pages about humans, but they are still completely different characters. There are also pages about other specific dinosaurs, such as Ralph, a baby Triceratops, and Claire, a baby Stegosaurus. --John Alfred Hammond, CEO (talk) 14:46, September 2, 2013 (UTC)

It works with Rexy but not the other 2 because Rexy is the name given to that specific Dinosaur, not addressing a name makes a pointless page. Raplh and Clarie are separate species, Triceratops and Stegosaurus. Gender and age don't make pages John and Alan are also separate because they also have separate names that go to separate family's (The Hammond and Grant Families) and the fact that we humans are the dominant species and treat humans as an individual, not a long-line brethren. And they are 5 pages all about Tyrannosaurus, like I addressed above, age and Gender don't make useful pages, names do! And I also suggest changing the name to Tyrannosaurus, it's proper we don't say Triceratops Horridus and Stegosaurus Armatus when addressing those dinosaurs.

It is the unfortunate fact that we do not have canon names for these dinosaurus, but they are still incredibly important characters to the films and novels, as much as Rexy or The Big One. We can only work with what the movies/books give us, but to exclude their articles, some of which are invalutably detailed, would be denying invaluable information to the common browser. This would be the equivalent of going to Wookieepedia and deleting the articles of all the unnamed or dubiously titled characters. They would ban the editor that did that in a heart beat! Jhayk&#39; Sulliy (talk) 01:11, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

But none of the dinosaurs are characters because they aren't actors. All the dinosaurs are just CGI and/or Animatronics. As we know humans contain no such thing.

Seriously. Does that mean not a single charachter in toy story is actually a charachter? Edaphosaurus (talk) 16:30, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

Well with Toy Story it works differently, in that movie, everything's CGI and no animatronics or human actors, so that counts, even the people aren't flesh and bone! Plus it's for young kids and mostly comedy, Jurassic park is adventure, fantasy, and Horror. Plus if anyone really should care about Toy Story, this would be called Jurassic Park and Toy Story Wiki, I know you were just using an example, but at least use something directed by Steven Spielberg.

''"But none of the dinosaurs are characters because they aren't actors. All the dinosaurs are just CGI and/or Animatronics. As we know humans contain no such thing." ''This statement is technically false, Stan Winston Studios is "character arts" special effects firm. In fact, Stan Winston himself has been quoted saying "We don't make monsters, we make characters." Jhayk&#39; Sulliy (talk) 20:39, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

If you would like one of us to compare to a Spielberg movie, consider ''Jaws. In the film, Amity Island is terrorised by a 25-foot Carcharodon carcharias'', also known as a "Great White Shark". If what your saying is true, then we'd be saying that the film's most important character, Jaws (nicknamed Bruce by Spielberg himself) isn't even a character being he isn't human, and he's an animatronic. If you try to tell a fan of Jaws, or any Spielberg movie for that manner, that the animals and creatures in the films aren't characters, they'd be outraged. The dinosaurs in Jurassic Park and the shark in Jaws are some of the most important characters in the film franchises, and they deserve their own pages. (Fun fact: if you look closely on Nedry's moniter when Hammond's lecturing him, you can see Dennis watching Jaws on a miniaturized window) John Alfred Hammond, CEO (talk) 23:16, September 3, 2013 (UTC)

A charachter in a film is one who you see and say "Oh yes, that's Rexy/Jaws/Hammond" In the same way when I watch JP2 I say "That's the T.rex Buck/ T.rex baby/ T.rex mother".

This also bring up another point. Does the JP3 Spino deserve its own page?Edaphosaurus (talk) 07:33, September 4, 2013 (UTC)

Well Jaws is a named for mother shark that loves to kill people.(I found out in the 3rd movie that Jaws was a mother) and most of the time it was animatronic when shot with people because no captive Great White ever lasted long enough to make a movie with, and the big risk of someone REALLY getting eaten. And Buck seems inappropriate. As it usually refers to Deer and Lagomorphs(Rabbits, Hares, and Pikas). So this wiki is basically saying that a Tyrannosaurus is comparable to a white-tail, even though the males are smaller than the females? I don't think it sounds right. And I don't think anyone knew for the first which of the adult Tyrannosaurs was captured because they never(At least I never heard them saying which one) said which one it is. And the Spinosaurus doesn't needs another page because it was only in the 3rd film and none of the novels. Plus it doesn't have a name. So it already has it's own page.


 * If I would have my way, I would delete the T. rex articles right away. I never saw the point of them. However, this is a wiki that everyone can edit. Therefore, if there are a enough people to create content for a particular page and are able to maintain it, they can have their way. The T. rex articles have a reasonable body of contributors. BastionMonk (talk) 16:36, September 6, 2013 (UTC)

FINALLY!!! Someone agrees with me! I am so glad that someone else has realized the waste of 4 extra articles! Thank you BastionMonk! You have no idea what I have been through battling disproving comments nearly 4 to 1! Thank you so much!

Gallery
The gallery is FAR TOO BIG. It contains a lot of unnescessary pics too. I'll move it here and we'll have to see which pictures we'll use.

Split up?
The T. rex is such a famous dinosaur, therefore this is a VERY large article. I think that, for the sake of clarity, it is better if we would split-up this article. A similar split-up has certainly improved the Velociraptor article. I think we should at least make a Tyrannosaurus rex (movie) article. Is there someone who disagrees? BastionMonk (talk) 09:26, September 24, 2013 (UTC)


 * This is something I've been thinking about recently, actually. Take a look at the Jurassic Park: Builder article. It uses tabs, and I think we can apply the same thing to many of the larger dinosaur articles on the wiki. Perhaps there can be a separate tab for movie, novel, and game canon?
 * I'll try and put together an example article to see how it looks. Styro (Contact me)  We have a T. rex!  20:43, November 7, 2013 (UTC)
 * I think we should use Tabs once we've solved all the bug issues. But, let us the whole Tab issue on the Forum --> Forum:Tabs. BastionMonk (talk) 09:49, November 12, 2013 (UTC)

If no-one complains against the split-up before sunday, it will split. BastionMonk (talk) 09:49, November 12, 2013 (UTC)