Talk:Gigantoraptor

A fact from Gigantoraptor appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 June 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that Gigantoraptor, a bird-like dinosaur discovered in Inner Mongolia, is thirty-five times larger than its peacock-sized relative, Caudipteryx?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/June.

Wikipedia

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

Might hunt like secretary bird.

Although Sagittarius serpentarius weighs something like 4 kilos and Gigantoraptor about 1,400 kilos.-- 201.51.250.178 13:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really?[edit]

Is it really accurate to describe T rex as 'ponderous'? I myself think not... Spinodontosaurus (talk) 19:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. That statement needs evidence to back it up. Perhaps we should add a ^{[citation needed]} tag to that part. Chris 17:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

It does need a source, but it's not incorrect. Note that it says more ponderous. Certainly T. rex was heavier and less spry than the much lighter-built Gigantoraptor. MMartyniuk (talk) 15:09, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're saying, it's certainly not incorrect. Should I add the tag anyways? Chris (talk) 17:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, why don't we trying toying around with a different wording? Perhaps describing Tarbosaurus as being larger and therefore less agile, instead of calling it "ponderous?" While it technically is more "ponderous" than Gigantoraptor, I think that term gives the impression that Tarbosaurus was a slow and cumbersome animal. Chris (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heavens no, T. rex can never be referred to as anything other than awesome, and he can never be portrayed in a negative light. The King must not be de-throned, that's the unwritten rule, right? -- Myrrdin_Wyllt 4/6/12 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.234.242.12 (talk) 15:24, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, an adult T.Rex (like "Sue"), certainly, but juveniles of the same size of an adult Gigantoraptor would have been very quick on their feet, and probably faster or as-fast. And as far as the anon's comment above, getting science right is not the same as some sort of twisted dinosaur-worship you seem to think editors here have. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image[edit]

I discovered this image and was wondering which environment Gigantoraptor lived in. Did it live in an arid, barren environment like in this image, or a humid environment like the one portrayed in the image in the article? Iainstein (talk) 02:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, the image in the article has higher res, and drawings don't blend too well with photos, so I think we should keep it. And it doesn't show the entire environment anyway, only a couple of trees. FunkMonk (talk) 06:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Xu et al.[edit]

Are we sure that Xu et al. has received proper credit in this article? I mean, perhaps he / they could have been mentioned a few hundred more times. That is just ridiculous. Mention someone once, and then move on. That's what the reference tags are for. There is no need to keep mentioning a researcher time and time again throughout an article. It breaks the flow of the article and makes it more difficult to focus on the subject, which is the Gigantoraptor, not the researcher(s). I'm sure they would disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.39.86 (talk) 02:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]