Talk:Gallimimus

Diet
Shouldn't it be stated what these animals ate? ScienceApe (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In a perfect world where we knew what they ate, yes. ;) Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking that it ate more on the lines of plants and bugs, and could have also mabe eaten some flowers, because it had lived in the Late Cretaceaus era, in where their had been evolving.(P.S. Did any of you by chance got to see it in the Jurassic Park films.)--Dinonerd4488 (talk) 19:37, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

By what I said above, I'm hinting at the fact that Gallimimus is a omnivour.--Dinonerd4489 (talk) 02:30, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, even though it did eat both plants and animals, it was stiil prone to attack. Galloimimus lived in Late Cretaceous Mongolia, which also meant that it had to deal with almost the most deadly dinosaurs that ever stalked the earth. A cousin of the T.rex, Tarbosaurus could have made an easy meal out of Gallimimus, even a pack of Velociraptors wouldn't have had a hard time at it. The clear evasive technique this omnivore uses is its speed. It is believed that this dinosaur was the fastest of them all.--Dinoexpert129848 (talk) 16:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True, just because an animal is a carnivore doesn't mean it doesn't have predators of its own. However Velociraptor did not coexist with Gallimimus, it lived several million years earlier. MMartyniuk (talk) 23:46, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Meaning of Name
Gallimimus means "cock mimic" (from latin gallus and latin mimus) not "fowl mimic"-122.57.211.254 (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently chicken or rooster would also work. J. Spencer (talk) 22:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, Gallus is masculine, so I'd assume that means Rooster, not chicken? Though I kinda forget how the Romans labelled things with undetermined gender. Interestingly, Gallus can also mean "of Gaul (ancient France, etc.)". Clearly that means this dinosaur imitates French people. 69.249.223.63 (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't let them hear that. The describers intended it to refer to "chicken", i.e. the species, not particularly the female members of said species.--MWAK (talk) 08:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Cladogram under Phylogeny
I'm thinking this section is a little stubby so a cladogram of Ornithomimosauridae or something would help. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Beak is a little too specific- I think just Palaeobiology and Palaeoecology would do. Lythronaxargestes (talk) 22:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Gallimimus
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Gallimimus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "XuQiupalong": From Ornithomimidae: Xu, et al. (2011). From Qiupalong:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:50, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Gallimimus size
This talk is about the Larramendi book. The book suggests a length of 6 m, hip height of 2 m, mass of 500 kg for the specimen IGM 100/11. When compared to Paul's earlier estimate of 440 kg, a 60 kg mass difference wouldn't be a significant difference, especially when other dinosaur species have mass estimates which vary by more than tons based on a single specimen. Also I agree that the book's estimate is questionable when the specimens used for the estimate is fragmentary, but some are actually OK when the estimate is based on well-preserved, complete specimens (of course not all, as with the Velociraptor estimates of the book). I consider this estimate as acceptable, but I guess this needs proper examination, too. Junsik1223 (talk) 16:51, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This book has been discussed and concluded to be problematic as a source already, so further additions of it will be seen as disruptive. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, why does so many articles (including featured ones) use this book? Junsik1223 (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * One reason is that one of the authors of the book has actually been adding it to articles, as you can see from a discussion I linked. And no one has time to check all articles for this,hence why you need to be more cooperative instead of just randomly adding stuff everywhere. In any case, as I already told you, Featured Articles have higher standards than other articles when it comes to citations. FunkMonk (talk) 17:08, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ok. But one question I always wanted the answer. How do you know which edit is made on the featured article so quick? Like honestly I'm surprised and actually amazed by how quick you guys fix errors or wrong edits, etc. Junsik1223 (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they're on our watchlists. In this case, I wrote the article, hence it's on my watchlist. FunkMonk (talk) 17:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)