From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article 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.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2006.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Dinosaurs (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles (Rated FA-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Tyrannosaurus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use amphibians and reptiles resource. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Extinction  
WikiProject icon This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Tyrannosaurus:

Please be bold in editing the article and in editing/adding/striking out items from this list.

  • Parentheses in introduction need to be fixed.
  • Information on hypothesized reproduction, if known, eggs and/or juveniles would be nice.
  • The phrase T.Rex is a fixture in popular culture. needs to be removed from the first paragraph. It has no place in the text before a general description of the species. Furthermore it is paraphrased toward the end of the article anyway. Although T.Rex has appeared in many films and videogames etc, it is not defined by its stasis in 'Pop-culture'. This attitude makes the article frivolous and robs it of its initial scientific merit.
  • The text refs for the books need to be IDed somehow, perhaps in parenthesis.
  • Improve Tyrannosaurus in popular culture and summarise main points here.
  • Figure out status of the image Image:Sue'sBrain.jpg.
  • Don't reference to Jurassic (movie). (I'm not sure what this means, however wrong the name of the movie is it does portray a T-rex well....?)
    That'd be Jurassic Park, most likely. Bob the WikipediaN (talkcontribs) 02:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Need an image of a T-rex as if feathered. (I have emailed Ken Carpenter and Thomsa Holtz for leads...Cas Liber 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)) - getting there - Ken told me of an image in Nov 99 National Geographic so I will email them forthwith Cas Liber 12:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC) I had the issue in question but I seem to have misplaced it. I wasn't aware images from NatGeo were usable here--if so, I've got a ton of scanning to do... At any rate it might be better to ask around to amature paleoartists, browse through the artists on Dinosauricon, etc. There are plenty of great feathered rex illustrations out there.Dinoguy2 21:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Mapping a timeline of geological and evolutionary history to Galactic rotation is linear (though cyclic because of the rotation) and profitable. For instance, T. Rex emerged just after the Andromeda Galaxy lined up with the Galactic Center. The Cambrian was three Galactic rotations ago, plants emerged onto land two, and animals about one.
What the heck? J. Spencer 15:19, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Replace the dino cards references with reliable sources that have a url or isbn
  • Include the word 'partially' in description of Soft Tissue section where it reads fossilized leg bone. Clearly if this contains soft tissue the specimen was only partially fossilized.
Sorry, I think you misunderstand fossilization. Fossils are hard (they're rocks), but they sometimes preserve soft tissues by turning them into hard material, see for example Burgess Shale or Cambrian explosion. Philcha (talk) 00:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Philcha, while most fossils are indeed rock (and may be completely remineralised) "fossils" can be any buried trace of life (except human artifacts), although some definitions do draw the line at the end of the last glacial episode 10,000 years ago - anything more recent is then not a fossil (cf Concise Oxford Dictionary of Earth Sciences). The soft tissue being referred to here is possibly unremineralised connective tissue including proteins (collagen) and amino acids. The T rex was certainly fossilised in the strict sense, but amazingly may retain tiny amounts of original unmineralised tissue - this is what "only partially fossilised" intends here, I believe. It would probably be better to say the fossil apparently includes original connective tissue. This has also been reported in a Hadrosaur.Orbitalforam (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The part about speed needs to be fixed. In order for a Tyrannosaurus to run at 45mph it would need massive legs muscles. The size of the muscles it needed for that kind of speed would be too heavy for it to lift. In comparison, the leg muscles it did have were already heavy enough, so that the combined wieght of the leg muscles and the body forced it to walk straight legged, like an elephant. So much leg muscle would also mean that some muscle would have to actually be taken away from the jaws to add to that(A creature can only have so much muscle in it before it becomes to heavy to move itself). Also that type of speed would be dangerous for a Tyrannosaurus. The skull of T-rex was extremely heavy, and those arms could not support its weight at all, so one fall could be fatal for it. Therefor the Tyrannosaurus could only run at about 15-20 mph. Sorry, I just had to get that out.:) Watch out for the Discovery ChannelMs. dino fanatic (talk) 02:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC) show "Tyrannosaurus- New Science: New Beast". That's where I get all of this from.

  • I think it has been overlooked that the limb structure of the tyrannosaurus is almost identical to a kangaroo. Perhaps it didn't run at all.
  • Add author, journal name and date published for the reference number 26 article "Maximum Bite Force and Prey Size of Tyrannosaurus rex and Their Relationships to the Inference of Feeding Behavior". Here is the missing information. " Historical Biology: A Journal of Paleobiology, Volume 16, Number 1, August 2003 , pp. 1-12(12)". The journal article can be obtained here: [1] or here: [2]
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Taskforce icon
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.

1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5 - 6 - 7 - 8

Tyrannosaur Paleobiology: New Research on Ancient Exemplar Organisms[edit]

Brusatte et al. (2010) Tyrannosaur Paleobiology: New Research on Ancient Exemplar Organisms. Science Vol. 329. no. 5998, pp. 1481 - 1485.doi:10.1126/science.1193304

Tyrannosaurs, the group of dinosaurian carnivores that includes Tyrannosaurus rex and its closest relatives, are icons of prehistory. They are also the most intensively studied extinct dinosaurs, and thanks to large sample sizes and an influx of new discoveries, have become ancient exemplar organisms used to study many themes in vertebrate paleontology. A phylogeny that includes recently described species shows that tyrannosaurs originated by the Middle Jurassic but remained mostly small and ecologically marginal until the very end of the Cretaceous. Anatomical, biomechanical, and histological studies of T. rex and other derived tyrannosaurs show that large tyrannosaurs could not run rapidly, were capable of crushing bite forces, had accelerated growth rates and keen senses, and underwent pronounced changes during ontogeny. The biology and evolutionary history of tyrarovide a foundation for comparison with other dinosaurs and living organisms.

Feathered "Tyrannosaurus"[edit]

Why are we combining features of different Coelurosauria and Tyrannosauroidea into the Tyrannosaurus rex article? The only reported Tyrannoraptora with feathers were the Dilong and the Yutyrannus, not the T-rex. If anything we should add notes regarding feathers to one of the Clade or Superfamily articles, and remove it entirely from this article. If some apples are red, that does not mean that all apples are red simply because they are apples. -Robtalk 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You just answered your own question. The only tyrannosauroids with extensive integuments preserved are Dilong and Yutyrannus, and they show plentiful feathers. Yes, small patches of naked Tyrannosaurus skin impressions are known, but this doesn't indicate anything about entire body covering, as we know some feathered dinosaurs did have scaly parts on the legs and tails. FunkMonk (talk) 15:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

So why is this information listed on this article and not where it belongs? (talk) 04:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

What information? FunkMonk (talk) 05:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't see any problem as this information is properly sourced. Lots of information and knowledge in paleontology are inferred from indirect evidences. You don't need to find a T. rex mummy to prove the T. rex once had skin and muscles covering their skeletons. Big Cats - talk 20:09, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Normally i'd agree, writing here that t. rex had feathers would be like noting that it had skin or breathed air, a bit redundant for such a specific article. but this is THE most high profile dinosaur and the fact that it belonged to a broadly feathered clade is not common knowledge, which is why it's noted here, along with other facts that equally apply to all tyrannosaurids, like carnivory. Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you gentlemen are missing the point of my original statement. While the Tyrannosaurus Rex was never found to have feathers, there is no denying that some of its relatives did indeed have feathers. That is not disputed. What I am saying is that simply because the Tyrannosaurus Rex species is a Tyrannosaur, does not imply it had feathers. There were only two species of Tyrannosaur that were ever found to have feathers and the Tyrannosaurus Rex was definitely not one of them. The information about feathers should be clearly represented in the article about the superfamily of Tyrannosauroidea, and at very most this article about the Tyrannosaurus Rex should have a mention that, while feathers were never found on a rex, other members of the same family were found to have feathers.-Robtalk 04:50, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Phylogenetic bracketing would like to have a talk, Robert (Tyrannosaurus' feathered relatives include the dromaeosaur Velociraptor, the tyrannoraptoran Juravenator, the tyrannosauroids Yutyrannus and Dilong, the ornithomimosaur Ornithomimus, the oviraptorosaur Citipati and many others; pretty much all coelurosaur branches have some evidence of feathers). And actually, didn't Sereno say that he had a T.rex specimen that had naked skin like a plucked bird on parts of it's body? Naked skin like that should indicate feathers, not to mention the average temperature in Hell Creek was a paltry 7-11 degrees Celsius, which is barely any better or even worse than the Yixian's 10 degrees Celsius when Yutyrannus was around; so using Yutyrannus as a integumentary layout for Tyrannosaurus is not only a phylogenetically sound option, but an ecologically sound one, too. And nobody's disputing that Gigantoraptor, Deinonychus, Deinocheirus or Dromaeosaurus have feathers, and none of those genera (to my knowledge) have definite proof of feathers. The evidence of the Hell Creek climate we have points to it being a temperate climate similar to what Yutyrannus resided in; so if anything, using Yutyrannus as a base for Tyrannosaurus integument is logical and supported by evidence, while a naked or scaly Tyrannosaurus is hampered by it's habitat; we don't see naked deer, bears or cougars running around wild, do we? A feathery reconstruction is supported by the evidence now, not a naked or scaly one. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 14:46, 3 November 2014 (UTC)-
Rob, you are also missing the point of my statements. While your statements are all scientifically correct, wikipedia doesn't work that way. If a very reliable source mentions the possibility of a feathered T. rex, the information can be put in the article as long as the information is accurately represented. If you want to mention feathers were never found on a rex, you must include a reliable source for the statement. Wikipedia is not a forum and is not a place for publishing original research, it just summarizes what existing reliable sources say. Big Cats - talk 19:22, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Raptormimus- To be fair, I don't believe phylogenetic bracketing really applies in species that are so distantly related. In the case of raptors as well as many other species you have named, you're essentially comparing animals not only of a different species but also of a different genus and family. They share an (sub)order, but I would have to parallel your comparisons to humans apes and monkeys. While they share the order of primates, humans and apes clearly lack a visible tail. The only difference here is the Dilong, which scientists are still having quite a bit of trouble placing. ...and the Yutyrannus, which clearly states that Tyrannosaurs have scales where the Yutrannus did not, suggesting it was merely due to its habitat.

" scaly skin impressions have been reported from various Late Cretaceous tyrannosaurids (such as Gorgosaurus, Tarbosaurus and Tyrannosaurus) on parts of the body where Yutyrannus was feathered." meaning they almost definitely did not have any feathers, and instead had scales.

That is how the information appears on the wiki, and after checking the source, the source reflects the information also:

As yet, no skin impressions have been found for T. rex, so researchers cannot say with certainty what kind of body covering it had. And some are not ready to abandon the more conventional view. Thomas Carr, a palaeontologist at Carthage College in Kenosha, Wisconsin, argues, for example, that unpublished fossils with skin impressions from close relatives of T. rex show scaly skin. These findings suggest that even though some earlier tyrannosauroids had feathers, the subgroup called tyrannosauridae (which includes T. rex), seems to have undergone an evolutionary reversal from fuzz to scales.

-Robtalk 09:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

One serious problem with that is that formations that preserve scale impressions are not necessarily able to preserve feather impressions. As far as I know, the only dinosaur feather expressions known from all of North America are of a single specimen of Ornithomimus, and they are very faint. Furthermore, feathers can exist on the same patches of skin that are covered in scales, so scaly skin does not mean absence of feathers. See these owl feet, for example.[3] If those were fossilised in the way most North American dinosaurs were, we would only have evidence of the scales, not the feathers. Would that mean it did not have feathers alongside the scales? FunkMonk (talk) 12:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm responding to the DRN post. While I sympathize with Rob's general point - we still have no feathered Tyrannosaurus fossil - the article actually seems quite good as it is. I note that the discussion on feathers does indeed rest on facts relating to the clade not the species, but I also note that reliable sources discuss feathers in Tyrannosaurus by reference to its relatives and it is therefore appropriate for us to do the same.
I would suggest making the first sentence of the section a little more neutral. Presently it is "While there is no direct evidence for Tyrannosaurus rex having had feathers, many scientists". I'd perhaps change it to something like "Fossilized skin of Tyrannosaurus shows scales and no feathers, but some scientists". I would also take out the deviantart picture of Tyrannosaurus with wings - love the picture and thanks to the artist, but the wings make it not quite suitable (suitably boring) for an encyclopedia. I'd leave the picture of the Polish theme park. I hope this helps. Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The scientific consensus has become that Tyrannosaurus had some kind of filamentous integument, which is supported by climatory evidence as well as phylogenetic evidence (and possibly fossil evidence, but that's unpublished ATM). The "wings" of Matt's image are more akin to those of ground birds than songbirds (basically, they're not pennaceous, but a middleground of plumaceous and pennaceous); plus the average temperature of Hell Creek (where Tyrannosaurus is found) was 10 degrees Celsius, not much different to the climate that Yutyrannus, a tyrannosauroid of similar size, was living in with a large covering of plumaceous feathers. Stating that T.rex was fully scaled is only using fossils, which are prone to preservation bias; after all, we didn't know Ornithomimus had pretty bird-like feathers until recently, despite having known about it for centuries at that point, and the material the fossils are preserved in and postmortem decomposition affect extraintegumentary preservation (Hell Creek or the Lance aren't lagerstattes, after all). But considering that Tyrannosauridae is bracketed by groups with known feather impressions (Compsognathidae, Ornithomimidae and most importantly Tyrannosauroidea) makes the assumption that T.rex and all other advanced tyrannosaurids sported some kind of filamentous integument logically sound. Everyone naturally assumes animals like Smilodon had fur despite having no fossil evidence of it at all due to phylogenetics, so saying that T.rex was likely feathered because many of it's relatives were is pretty much the same thing, really. Saying T.rex was exclusively scaled is ignoring the phylogenetic aspect of it's classification; plus the possible naked skin impressions that Sereno has in his lab awaiting description could be the nail in the coffin of a leather-hided T.rex. But again, this is a case of evidence being lacking and palaeontologists needing to make conclusions based on related species. Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
Tyrannosaurus would have no doubt held at least minimal feathering. Phylogenetic bracketing is a major way to determine the appearances of extinct species, and based on possible bracketing, all ornithodirans (pterosaurs and dinosaurs) would have been feathered. A reversal of this is extremely unlikely, as nowadays, are any birds unfeathered? NO! The most minimal feathering now is that of the ostrich and relatives, who live across Asia and Africa and survive in the heat of the savanna. Climate should have nothing to do with it, as extremely close relatives of Tyrannosaurus lived in Alaska, which at any time in the cretaceous was much colder than China. Nanuqsaurus lived in Alaska, and based on phylogenetics, it is the sister taxon of a group including Tyrannosaurus, Tarbosaurus, and Zhuchengtyrannus. It also lived 69 mya, where as Tyrannosaurus lived 67-66. A perfect example of a dinosaur possessing both feathers and scales is the recently described Kulindadromeus. It had very unique scales on its tail, and possessed complete feathering elsewhere. From what I recall, the Tyrannosaurus scales came from the legs, which actually are one of the regions of ostriches and relatives that lack feathers. This provides no evidence that Tyrannosaurus was not still feathered then. Feathers can also grow in the same regions of skin as scales, so this doesn't even provide evidence that Tyrannosaurus had unfeathered legs. Yutyrannus was completely feathered, so any scale impressions would come from parts that it was feathered. Based on all this evidence, Tyrannosaurus definitely had minimal feathering, probably even a more complete coat like Dinoguy2's original fully feathered artwork. IJReid (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

"Fossilized skin of Tyrannosaurus shows scales and no feathers," This is not true--no skin impressions of T. rex have been formally described. There are rumors of scaly skin (from Wyrex) and naked skin (from Sereno) but nothing has been described in any detail (and when photos of the supposed Wyrex skin showed up on Facebook recently, a few people noted that they appeared to be previously-described patches of Edmontosaurus skin!). Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:46, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. Rather than indulge in OR arguments, I would then suggest changing "direct" to something like "definitive". I would still take out the deviantart picture of Tyrannosaurus with wings. At this point I'll take this page off my watchlist. Richard Keatinge (talk) 22:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
The prominent wings may be a bit "in your face", but it appears wings were developed for display, before being co-opted for flight. The older version of the image[[4]] had less "controversial" wings, perhaps they could be "transplanted" onto the new version... Note that people like Gregory S. Paul have actually illustrated tyrannosaurs with only wing feathers[5] for some years! FunkMonk (talk) 22:39, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
And by the way, Richard, that "deviantArt picture" was made by Matthew Martyniuk, who does have legitimate publications under his belt. And like Funk said, people have been putting wings on tyrannosaurids for why make such a deal about it now? Dromaeosaurus is best dinosaur (talk) 13:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Also, to be fair, Thomas Holtz (probably the top researcher on tyrannosaurids in the world) is a strong advocate of tyrannosaurids using their arms for display via the use of feathers. He has said as much on social media on many occations (as well as on the DML iirc). So far you haven't given any counter argument other than that you don't like it. Tomopteryx (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional point, I think the current caption (specifically "absolutely minimal feathers") for Matt's reconstruction is patronizing. I think something along the lines of "Reconstruction of a adult T. rex with a mixed covering of feathers and scales, as suggested by several lines of evidence." Tomopteryx (talk) 00:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I removed "absolutely minimal", we'll never know the extent of plumage coverage, so it's just silly to pretend any such precision is possible. FunkMonk (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Could we add a T-Rex in Pop Culture as the T-Rex in Jurassic Park? Dunkleosteus77 (talk) 23:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC) File:T-rex-jurassic-park.jpg

There shouldn't be any pictures of t.rex without feathers[edit]

T.rex had feathers, this is the consensus reached by scientists, as such there shouldn't be any pictures of t.rex without feathers as this is now considered an outdated reconstruction. There are still at least 2 or 3 pictures on this article that depict t.rex without feathers without any disclaimer that the depiction is outdated and inaccurate. These pictures should be removed and/or replaced with accurate pictures of the t.rex with feathers, keeping them on the article is just delivering false information about what we know the t.rex didn't look like. It's no different than having a depiction of an upright t.rex with its tail dragging on the ground. ScienceApe (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, two things: 1- Most of those images only show heads, and there is absolutely no reason to believe Tyrannosaurus, like countless modern birds, could not have had an unfeathered head and neck. In fact, all of our images of feathered Tyrannosaurus show the heads mostly without feathers! 2- Just because it is most likely that tyrannosaurus had some sort of feathers, there is no consensus that it definitely had them. The consensus is that it probably did, but the extend of coverage is unknown. There's a big difference between that and for example posture, which can be determined through biomechanical studies, etc. There is still a small chance that Tyrannosaurus could have lost its feathers, even if it had feathered ancestors. Phylogenetic bracketing can only take you so far, just look at elephants and rhinos, the extend of their fur varies enormously. If we only knew Sumatran rhinos[6], we'd think African ones[7] had as much hair, no? Or think of humans compared to other apes... FunkMonk (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Well how are we determining what part of the t.rex's body had no feathers? It's also entirely possible that they only had feathers on the head and neck. If that's the case, then pictures depicting t.rex with feathers on the head and neck but none on the rest of its body should also be valid. ScienceApe (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I meant about extent. And perhaps even Greg Paul was right with his old drawing[8] that only shows feathered arms... FunkMonk (talk) 18:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
Yutyranus has a feathered neck (with very long feathers over 20cm long in the smallest specimen) I wonder then why vulture/turkey/cassowary T. rex is so popular when no living predatory dinosaur has naked necks (is there any?) Mike.BRZ (talk) 17:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Dinoguy said this in a now archived discussion: "Do have to agree on the facial feathers--there seems to be good evidence of face biting and head butting in tyrannosaurids, which would at least probably de-feather these areas during life, if they weren't born featherless there." It is also easier to keep the head clean after feeding when it is naked. And modern predatory birds don't need unfeathered mouths, since well, they have beaks... So nobody is saying we should always restore them this way, just that it isn't necessarily incorrect. Even within close relatives among modern birds, head and neck feathering varies widely, so Yutyrannus can't by itself lock down any single arrangement. Check out the weird variation in Guinea fowl, for example FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I would point out too that, since birds often center display colors on the head and wings, and since the feathers of T. rex may have been too simple to bear any really striking display colors, just as in some birds the head might have born at least some flashy patches of bare skin for display. Dinoguy2 (talk) 19:25, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments on Italian T-rex reconstruction[edit]

Could someone please comment on the anatomical accuracy of this reconstruction? Many thanks.

Mariomassone (talk) 08:09, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Several problems here. The spine appears bent upward in front of the hip similar to a therizinosaurid. The arms are in an incorrect pronated position and are too big. The chest is too shallow at the shoulders so it almost looks like the arms grow out of the neck. The lachrymal horns seem to have copied the incorrect ones from Jurassic Park. The lips are in an unlikely wavy position, I guess in an attempt to make it look like it's snarling. The eye position looks too low and too forward. Dinoguy2 (talk) 11:35, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
More importantly, it's in Italy, which does not have freedom of panorama[9], so the image has to be deleted in any case.. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
Would the sculpture however fall under this category though? : Art. 5.3(h): “use of works, such as architecture or sculpture, made to be located in public places” is not mentioned;Mariomassone (talk) 19:09, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
All similar Italian images I have nominated for deletion were deleted instantly, if there was a loophole, you can be sure the Commons people would had noticed it. Just point to that page when you nominate it. Can't see where your quote is from, though... FunkMonk (talk) 19:13, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
It's from the English translation provided here on the Italian "Freedom of Panorama" wikipage. I'll give a try, but I suspect that the Italian wiki has different tag formats. Thanks!Mariomassone (talk) 19:24, 24 February 2015 (UTC)