Jump to content

Talk:Tyrannosaurus in popular culture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Three fingers forelimb

[edit]

It seems the Tyrannosaurus did in fact had 3 fingers. T. Rex's Missing 3rd Finger Found --Astrowob 13:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I cut

[edit]

From "television appearances":

From "Computer and video games":

  • 3D Monster Maze
  • Banjo-Tooie - In this Nintendo 64 game, Banjo the bear is able to become either an infant Tyrannosaurus rex or an adult Tyrannosaurus rex, depending on the size of Humba Wumba's wigwam at the time of transformation.
  • Crash Bandicoot: Warped - Crash is able to ride a baby Tyrannosaurus after he jumps on its egg in the levels Dino Mite! and Eggipus Rex.

from "Toys": [[:Image:Csmegatronii2.jpg|thumb|240px|right|Megatron in the form of a Tyrannosaurus rex.]]

and from "other":


In several instances, the name of something was simply cited without saying why, or a subject was mentioned that isn't necessarily Tyrannosaurus (just looks like a large theropod). I don't think half of what remains is probably necessary, either, but it's a start. If the rest of the article looked like the first couple of sections, it would be easier to work with, and if it wasn't a list, it would be less tempting for someone to add things to. Proceed as you will. J. Spencer 02:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rex actually was in Walking with Beasts. Not as an actual creature in the episode but it shows clips from WWD. So, in that sense, not only was Tyrannosaurus in the episode, but also, Ankylosaurus, Didelphodon, and two unidentified mammals (one using the same model as Leptictidium and another that I think was live acted by a squirrel). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Jurassic Park screenshot 4.jpg

[edit]

Image:Jurassic Park screenshot 4.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Kong vs T-Rex.jpg

[edit]

Image:Kong vs T-Rex.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

nomenclatural oddity

[edit]

Someone pointed out that there are only two formal "species" names known to the general public: E. coli and T. rex. Quite a pair, a microscopic bacterium and maybe the biggest carnivore ever.WHPratt (talk) 19:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really—whoever pointed that out was simply making things up off the top of their head. Plenty of other formal species names are well-known to the general public...take Homo sapiens, for example. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 22:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except that people don't generally say "H. sapiens," which emphasizes the species part of the name. I think that was the point being made. Other examples?WHPratt (talk) 14:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some Google results I just ran off:

Results 1 - 10 of about 11,300,000 for "T. Rex". (0.19 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 22,600,000 for "E. coli" [definition]. (0.13 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 3,070,000 for "H. sapiens". (0.12 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 55,200 for "C. familiaris". (0.17 seconds)
Results 1 - 10 of about 13,600 for "F. domestica". (0.29 seconds)
... Respectively dinosaur, bacterium, human, dog, cat.WHPratt (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I guess I misunderstood your first message and didn't realize you were referring just to the species name. You may have a point about T. rex and E. coli, but I'm still not sure it is worth mentioning in the article. First of all, if it's not something you can cite to a reliable source, we can't include it; even if you can make a convincing case for it with Google results, etc., it's against Wikipedia policy to write about theories you came up with through original synthesis and need to "prove" with google results (and google results alone don't prove anything: notice that C. familiaris gets more hits than T. rex and E. coli combined). Secondly, even if it is mentioned in a good source, it seems a bit like an arbitrary piece of trivia. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 16:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As for "notice that C. familiaris gets more hits than T. rex and E. coli combined," you misread the figures, probably because they're not right-justified. In fact, C. familiaris has half of one per cent as many hits as T. rex. (Sorry to note this so late, but it bothered me.) WHPratt (talk) 04:26, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It may indeed be too trivial. My excuse is that the topic is "popular culture," and my "non-scientific" exercise attempted to measure common usage, however taxonomically incorrect it may be.WHPratt (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting point...and has me thinking about whether there are other names known like this. I suspect there are some plants or fungi but none come to mind. The issue with inclusion here is that another source must have mentioned it somewhere. Casliber (talk · contribs) 18:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess that it is too trivial, and can't reasonably be accomodated until we've tracked down every appearance by a bipedal dinosaur in every medium, ever, for this article! ;) WHPratt (talk) 16:50, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Trinity college (Hartford, Conn.) has their Thesis Instructions online. When they needed an example of the use of binomial nomenclature, what two examples do they choose?
"N.b. Even such commonly used abbreviated binomials as E. coli and T. rex should be identified properly (with unabbreviated generic names) the first time they appear in the text."
(It's at http://www.trincoll.edu/Academics/MajorsAndMinors/Biology/Pages/ThesisInstructions.aspx).
But, never mind etymology: I saw a T-Rex on Sponge Bob! Stop the presses! WHPratt (talk) 04:01, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Future

[edit]

There is an article in the 2008 Tyrannosaurus volume that may be of use in this article ("Tyrannosaurus rex: a century of celebrity", Donald F. Glut). My question is if it is worth doing anything for this article, instead of sending a couple of the more useful paragraphs to Tyrannosaurus and putting this up for AfD again. Really, what's the point of deleting one fan's "Spot the Dinosaur" moment when the majority of the article is "Spot the Dinosaur"? J. Spencer (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hate separate "In popular culture" articles. I'd use the Glut book with a short cultural section in the main one and longer in this. I doubt this will get deleted as it is pretty noteworthy though...don't lose sleep over it...Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:45, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you guys are just racist against dinosaurs. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rexist ?
86.25.122.183 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"we don't need every minute detail"

[edit]

overlooking the fact that the added piece was hardly full of "minute" details, and that it corrected a factual error in the existing phrasing, and the fact that 2000AD ( here incorrectly called "Flesh comics" ) is probably as significant to British comics as Stan Lee is to US comics... the fact the plot idea appeared some 12 years before the most-commonly known usage is somewhat... notable, surely... ?
86.25.122.183 (talk) 13:07, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's notable. Anyway, if you need to correct a factual error then do so, but there's no need to include a plot summary or list of the various dinosaurs' ages, attributes, and how they came to be. rʨanaɢ (talk) 13:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film Appearances

[edit]

Re: The Lost World: " ... this 1925 film changed Allosaurus to Tyrannosaurus for a more dramatic and spectacular effect."

The version of film I saw had it: "an Allosaurus, a meat-eater--the most vicious pest of the ancient world." It all depends upon the title cards. Earlier, we see notebook sketches labeled "Allosaurus," and this creature, shown to scale with a human, does appear close to the acknowledged size, without the exaggeration that would take over in later films. WHPratt (talk) 12:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean there's not a single Tyrannosaurus in the 1925 film The Lost World? it's all the time an Allosaurus? Kintaro (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say! It's not as if you could tell the difference on sight. Movies usually exaggerate the size of any dinosaur, so the size of the model isn't much of a clue. (Though, I think that the carnosaur in the movie does seem relatively small as compared to the other dinosaurs depicted.) The detail of the forelimbs and claws was still in dispute back in the 1920s, and for some time thereafter.
I'm only saying that the copy of the film that I last saw did specify Allosaurus in its title cards, but these are often re-created when an old film is restored. I'll check the other versions that I have and urge others to do likewise. WHPratt (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The current situation, for now, is that Allosaurus is officially the carnosaur seen in the film... but you're right to look for more data, I'll be looking forward for them. Take your time dude, and see you soon. Kintaro (talk) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed my tape/DVD-R copies of the 1991 restoration (Lumivision/Eastman House/Scott MacQueen) and the 2000 restoration (Serge Bromberg & David Shepard: This version added Conan Doyle in a prologue).
Both feature Maple White's notebook with a sketch of "Carnivorous beast Allosaurus," to scale with a human, suggesting that it's about 15 feet tall. (A similar sketch of a brontosaurus suggests that it's 50-60 feet long. I'd say that this film avoids the size exaggerations of later cinema.) That sounds about right for the allosaur, but too small for a tyrannosaur. Later, these beasts battle ceratopsian dinosaurs somewhat more massive then themselves.
In both versions, Challenger says "An Allosaurus--a meat-eater--the most vicious pest of the ancient world." The title card has been re-lettered, but the text is the same.
If there's a mention of a Tyrannosaurus, I must have missed it.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised if some other version along the way wrote T. rex into its title cards, but I'd regard that as revisionism. WHPratt (talk) 02:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your answer. I just brought a reference, a 2005 documentary, which states that even if Allosaurus was in the movie Tyrannosaurus also was in. The documentary states: T. rex didn't actually featured in the book but O'Brien made sure there was a role for him in the film. The documentary (T. rex: A Dinosaur in Hollywood) is on Youtube. What do you think? Kintaro (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I found what purports to be a script online, and a find command detects "Allosaurus" often and "Tyrannosaurus" not at all. I'd say that direct evidence would be a title card with the T-word in it; and that indirect evidence would be the appearance of an allosaur variant dinosaur with smaller forelimbs but made to look larger overall in relation to the sets. I'd suggest that anyone who wants to find a T. rex here carefully review variant copies of the film. I don't think that film reviews are evidence, as the reviewer is bringing in his own popular zoology -- and the species depicted isn't really relevant to the film 's place in history. Happy hunting! WHPratt (talk) 12:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, this 2005 documentary is wrong (T. rex didn't actually featured in the book but O'Brien made sure there was a role for him in the film)? Kintaro (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't say "wrong," just "unproven," until someone shows more tangible evidence. The film has a dinosaur stampede with lots of background creatures, so one of them could be Ol' Rex. WHPratt (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some confusion?

[edit]

I think that on this article there's some confusion between this T. rex painting (1919, by Charles R. Knight, for the National Geographic Society) and this one (1927, also by Charles R. Knight, but this time for a mural in the Chicago Field Museum). I'm I right? Kintaro (talk) 03:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second image definitely looks more anatomically accurate despite the fact that it is in the classic "living tripod" pose. As such, it looks more like something you'd see in a museum. So, yes, I think that's the one that started the idea that T-rex and Trike were arch nemeses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.148.242 (talk) 05:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's not the point. The original text said: In 1942, Charles R. Knight painted a mural incorporating Tyrannosaurus facing a Triceratops in the Field Museum of Natural History for the National Geographic Society, establishing the two dinosaurs as enemies in popular thought;
I fixed the year of the mural, since it's 1927 and not 1942, but the point is that this sentence confuses both paintings: the mural for the Field Museum (1927) and the illustration for National Geographic (1919). The sentence "In 1942 [in fact 1927], Charles R. Knight painted a mural incorporating Tyrannosaurus facing a Triceratops in the Field Museum of Natural History for the National Geographic Society" can only be true if there was some relation between both institutions, the Field Museum and National Geographic, but I think that there's simply a confusion: the National Geographic illustration is the one painted in 1919, not related to the mural. Can anybody confirm that? Kintaro (talk) 15:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article. End of the story. Kintaro (talk) 18:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletions

[edit]

I have deleted large segments of this article which not only made no mention of why certain appearances in culture are relevant or notable (i.e. proving that anybody cares by citing a source discussing a given appearance), but almost all lacked any sources, period, in blatant violation of Wikipedia policy. Please do not re-add anything without proving notability and verifiability. MMartyniuk (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed... except for a segment I added myself, the one mentioning Phil Tippett's Prehistoric Beast. This short film was certainly the first film showing Tyrannosaurus in proper posture (horizontal backbone and tail, for balance). In any case if it wasn't the first it was one of the first... I'll look for references, can you bring some help? Kintaro (talk) 21:39, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Tyrannosaurus in popular culture. 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:

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) 09:58, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literature

[edit]

Tyrannosaur Canyon, by Douglas Preston? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.153.40.58 (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tyrannosaurus_in_popular_culture&oldid=1201671811"