Talk:Lourinhanosaurus

Coelurosaur or what?
If, as it says in the article: 'Carrano et al. (2012) found it to be a coelurosaur.', and it is labelled as such in other articles ([|Allosauroidea#Phylogeny]), then why does the taxobox of this article say Lourinhanosaurus is a member of the family Sinraptoridae? If no one argues, I'm going to edit the article, but I'll read the Carrano et al. paper first just to be sure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.29.70 (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so I've read the journal article here: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14772019.2011.630927, ( grumble grumble.) It seems well-stated with evidence, so I guess I my edit is correct.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Lourinhanosaurus. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120420194320/http://www.museulourinha.org/pt/Omateus/Papers/Mateus%20et%20al%20%28proofs%29.pdf to http://www.museulourinha.org/pt/Omateus/Papers/Mateus%20et%20al%20%28proofs%29.pdf
 * Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20070703042902/http%3A//atelier.hannover2000.mct.pt/%7Epr128/lourinha_en.htm to http://atelier.hannover2000.mct.pt/~pr128/lourinha_en.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

reproductions have artistic license, but -
Feathers? Only if it is definitely in the related clade - from the article, it states this is still disputed, and may even be a more primitive form of the relatives of allosaurs - so that is definitely a feathered no-go. I propose a more neutral life reproduction at this time. HammerFilmFan (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * If it is a coelurosaur, as one recent study has found, it would be likely, given its small size too. It could be argued that a restoration would be controversial in any case (whether feathered or not) at this time, since we have so little to go by. FunkMonk (talk) 02:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I restored it as a coelurosaur based on the most recent studies (which means it would have had primitive feathers) and based on the skeletal mount shown in the article. I would argue there is enough fossil evidence to go off of; almost the entire pelvis and lower spine is known and parts of the neck as well... in any case it was on the to-do list for illustrations for a few years. if there is enough for a museum mount wouldn't that merit an illustration? Audrey.m.horn (talk) 21:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)