Talk:Bistahieversor

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Dinosaurs Stub‑class

	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
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Eversor

An interesting problem. The paper itself states that eversor is Greek, yet this is patently false as it is simply Latin. What is now the correct line of action? Should we follow the source and knowingly provide incorrect information to the reader? Or would it in this case not count as Original Research if we indicated (perhaps in a footnote) it was Latin — which can of course be sourced by any Latin dictionary? Or should we mention the meaning of eversor but leave out the language? Or leave out the etymology completely?--MWAK (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing the problem, and bringing it up here. We can't (knowingly) provide incorrect information to the reader, even if it is in the paper. We could leave out the etymology completely, as you also suggest, but that leaves open the possibility that a later, less careful editor will add in a sentence or two on the etymology without knowing of the error. Better to include the caveat now, IMO. A referenced footnote, as you suggest, seems like a viable solution. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not just not list the source language? "...in reference to the Bisti/De-Na-Zin Wilderness where it was found, and eversor, meaning "destroyer."". Dinoguy2 (talk) 16:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bistahieversor's classification

Most are now claiming Bistahieversor to be an albertosaurine tyrannosaurid (even Mickey Mortimer says so). I have also put a post on my blog explaining this (which I'll put a link below) and second, if you look at the skulls of Albertosaurus "Gorgosaurus" libratus and Bistahieversor sealeyi you can see they were remarkably similar. Actually I even synonymized the two genera, I still don't know, though, to make Bistahieversor a subspecies of A. libratus or a separate species on its own (but if you're a lumper you'd make A. libratus into its own genus, just calling Bistahieversor, Gorgosaurus sealeyi), as you can see taxonomy is complicated.

The link I mentioned earlier: My blog post on the classification, and possible synonymy, of Bistahieversor (with a bit of Sinotyrannus, too)

--Taylor Reints 23:26, 12 October 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeinonychusDinosaur999 (talk • contribs)

Probably right, but has this been published? MMartyniuk (talk) 01:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Again Underestimating weights:

How can a 9 m Bistahieversor weight only 1 metric ton if an Allosaurus 1.5 meters shorter was found to weight over 1,5 tonnes??, if Tyrannosaurids are known from particularly robust body plans compared to Allosaurids?--Dinoexpert (talk) 21:21, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]