text:
Talk:February 14

Missing listing
Someone needs to add the Battle of Cape St Vincent, 1797.
 * Done. -- PFHLai 17:04, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Is water wet? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.176.141 (talk) 19:06, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Relevance
Does this really merit a spot in the history of February 14?

2006 - United Kingdom: Samantha Cameron, wife of Conservative Party leader, David Cameron, gives birth to their third baby at Saint Mary’s Hospital, London.
 * It should definitely be excluded, as should all births of non-notable people. Notability is not inherited. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 19:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

1843 – The event that inspired the Beatles song Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite! is held in England. Different user from above, but similar doubts about relevance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.157.172.28 (talk) 16:28, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong dates?

 * 1803 "1803 - Chief Justice John Marshall declares that any act of U.S. Congress that conflicts with the Constitution is void."
 * This is a reference to Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), which, acccording to Lexis, was decided on February 24th Forhall (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC) forhall

 * 1575 - Henry III of France marries Louise de Lorraine-Vaudémont.
 * That was on February 13. --172.176.43.156 19:09, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Moved. By all means if you find factual errors change them.  Thanks for the heads up. -- Death  a horseman for a better tomorrowTM  19:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

The entry 1945 - Chile, Ecuador, Paraguay and Peru join the United Nations. must be wrong as the UN wasn't even formed until October of 1945 MyNameIsClare  talk  08:58, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Checked United Nations Member States page and none of these joined on this date. Fitzharry 13:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Not globally notable
I do not feel that these two have sufficient notability or achievement to be listed in the birthday section. They have no awards or major acting roles in productions of notability. Failing any well-reasoned dissent I will remove them. --Drappel 17:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1994 - Paul Butcher Jr., American actor
 * 1994  - Allie Grant, American actress

Why no mention of 2008 shooting?
Someone requested the NIU shooting be left off the page. Why? April 16 lists the Va Tech shooting. The St Valentine's Day massacre is mention on this day for 1929. What makes this shooting any different? --Eaglescout1984 4:19, 15 February 2008 (GMT)
 * School shootings are becoming common enough that they can't reasonably be considered globally notable.   Unless a particular shooting is markedly different from a previous one, involves methods that are particularly unique or unless it leads to changes such as nationwide legislation, they are not distinct enough for inclusion and do not have an impact beyond the logal region or country.  This has been discussed at WP:NGS.  Virginia Tech and Columbine were more widely covered and impactful.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This one was is just about equally notable, and I subsequently restored it. After two days now, it remains the top story across the United States, and was the top story around the world (all the way in Australia and Argentina, even) when it occurred...it still remains as a major world news story. This should not be written off as "just another school shooting". Its coverage is right up there with Columbine and VA Tech. Abog (talk) 18:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Globally newsworthy does not mean globally notable. In five years, this shooting will just be lumped in with all the other school shootings.  It will not change any lives beyond those directly affected.  If and only if this particular shooting leads to radical changes in school security in the US, then it might be notable.  Otherwise, it is no different than any of the others.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 19:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wow, pretty bold future-predicting there. Who are you to say what's notable and what's not, anyways? From the looks of it now, it appears that this, along with Virginia Tech is synonymous with college shootings, while Colubmine and Jonesboro are synonymous with high school shootings. Abog (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, some food for thought: The Jonesboro Massacre, where casualties were less than those at NIU, is listed under March 24. But, the NIU Shootings can't be listed here? There can be multiple notable school shootings, you know. This incident has already pushed the national and global gun control debate even further into escalation and ranks as one of the deadliest college shootings ever. That alone in itself is notable.Abog (talk) 20:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I was hoping that we could discuss the notability of this item without engaging in an edit war. When I asked that we discuss it until we could form a consensus, I was hoping that you would allow a consensus to be reached before adding the item back.  I fear that you will not engage in discussion as long as the item is included in the article - but I will try nonetheless.

 * Please elaborate on what you mean by "future-predicting". I don't understand.  Asking "who are you" seems to indicate to me that you feel that since I disagree with you I am not worthy to edit here.  Notability is determined by consensus and that is what we're trying to do here.  The event happened about two days ago.  It is difficult to assign long term notability to an item that occurred so recently.  You are in Illinois so this particular event is hitting closer to home for you so I can see how you would believe that it deserves inclusion.  From your contribution history, I can see that you are not a regular contributor to the date articles so this leads me to believe that you have a particular interest in this one event.  The question remains, what impact will this particular event have on the world in 5 years?  Please do not bring Columbine or VT into this discussion because this item needs to be evaluated on its own merits. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying that you are not worthy to edit here. With my "future predicting" and "who are you" statements, I am saying that it appears that you seem to be very bold in your predictions for the future, by saying things like "It will just be lumped in with the other school shootings" and "It will not change any lives..." How do you know? Do you have a crystal ball? I still remember the Jonesboro Massacre of ten years ago which only killed like 4 people, and I'm sure people will remember this as well. Also, I checked the Notability page on Wikipedia, and most of it suggests that the item receive significant coverage in reliable, independent sources...which it has. It never really said anything about too many like incidents happening, and only the deadliest gets included. Also, remember that Wikipedia is constantly evolving, and Wikipedia is not paper, and therefore, if this notable event is not talked about and not notable five years from now, and it all of the sudden becomes insignificant and not remembered, then we can always remove it at a later date. But, right now, within the context of the past and the present, it is a globally-notable event. And unless that changes, and the event is somehow not included in future publications on school shootings and significant events of the 2000s decade, then we can remove it at that time. But right now, like Virginia Tech, Montreal, and the University of Texas Clock Tower Shootings (which are all referenced under their date), this ranks as one of the worst college shootings and a notable event that has affected world society. Also, I do periodically make edits to date and year pages. It's not the main focus that I spend all my WP efforts on, but it is something I do from time to time. Finally, I may be from Illinois, but I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know what is notable and what isn't. Abog (talk) 21:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you did a fine job of making my argument for me in your first sentence when you said "How do you know?" That is the point.  For something to be long-term globally notable, we need to know that it has long term impact.  These events are meant to be permanent (except for broken records).  They cannot be added with the intention that if they fall out of notability, they will be removed.  That isn't how it works.  Your reference to Notability brings up an important distinction.  The Wikicalendar has more strict notability requirements than the run-of-the-mill articles.  These articles are meant to contain the absolutely most notable events that ever occurred.   Have a look at WP:DAYS and WP:NGS for what are considered the accepted practices for these articles.  The goal of the project is to provide lists that are a step above everything else in Wikipedia. (And believe me, I know there is a lot of junk that hasn't been sifted out yet but there are only so many hours in the day and the newest items get the first attention.)  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:15, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was saying, how do you know that it won't be notable? Because as of now, it looks pretty clear that this event will be notable for a long long time. I don't know what other objective methods you use to try and gauge an event's long-term notability, besides reliable sources like print media and massive coverage? I will take a look at the guidelines you presented me, though, and see what they have to say. Abog (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I took a look at the WP guidelines you sent me. WP:DAYS really didn't give me much info, other than the fact that it needs to be notable on a global scale. WP:NGS I can't really take too seriously yet, as it has only been edited about 10 times and the entry about not including school shootings because they are "fairly common" was added by you within the past few days, and is something I doubt that many people would agree with. Wars, airplane crashes, and major terrorist attacks are also fairly common, so maybe we should not include those in the calendar too? Abog (talk) 22:10, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

 * I'm not having much luck making myself clearly understood but I will continue to try. The intent of the Wikicalendar is to list items that have been shown (past tense) to have long-term global notability.  Speculating that an event will be notable does not cut it.  The articles that I pointed out list guidelines that have reached a reasonable level of consensus and are widely practiced.  Perhaps I should have directed you to the talk pages of those articles so that you could see the pages of discussion that went into making (in one case) the 10 edits to make up the articles.  Number of edits does not impact the credibility of an article.  In fact there is a current discussion on school shootings here.  While they are off the topic, "Wars [most battles], airplane crashes [most], and major [minor] terrorist attacks" should not all be included as has been discussed on those project pages.  If you wish to argue for wider inclusion the best place is on the project pages.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 05:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While I posted my comments, I did go back and look at the talk pages immediately afterward, but I still disagree with the consensus of the three people or so on that issue. Also, speculating that an event will not be notable doesn't cut it either. History shows us that when an event receives as much global attention as this event has, it is notable and likely to make a significant difference for years to come. As a result of this incident already, there has been talk of organized measures to permit concealed carry on campus, proposals from government officials to make it harder for mentally ill people to acquire weapons, and so forth. I mean, what more do you want? Abog (talk) 06:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 * It could very well be likely to make a significant difference but it hasn't made a significant difference yet. Waiting for an event to be established as notable before adding it has been "cutting" it up until now.  That is, has been, and will be the practice.  If you wish to argue against the practice, please participate in the project.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 07:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It already has made a significant difference. You're just basically ignoring reality. And history shows us that when something receives as much international coverage as this has, it translates into global notability. How do you not see that? Abog (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 * What significant difference has it made? What new law can be attributed to it (not a proposed law)?  What tangible change in policy has been made as a result (not new talks)?  Can the impact of this event prevent future events today?  The answer to those questions is undeniably none, none, none, and no.  The bottom line is, what is different about the world today vs. February 13 because of this event?  Just because something receives media attention does not indicate long term global notability (history does not show us that).  I am absolutely certain that the death of Anna Nicole Smith received much more attention than this event ever will and her death is not a notable event, it is still just a death and is listed as such only because there is an article about her.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 18:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, going by your standards, the Virginia Tech shootings haven't changed any laws yet either. And also, this event received much more global attention than Anna Nicole Smith's death. I'm pretty sure people in foreign countries don't care about the death of an American entertainer who had little impact outside of America and as a result I doubt international coverage of her death was more significant than the coverage of this shooting. However, people around the world do care that troubled adolescents are shooting up schools and the effect that has on world society. You really need to take the blinders off and realize the impact this shooting has on global society, and quit lumping it in with minor incidents and the deaths of attractive white women. It's already one of the top 5 deadliest college shootings ever...is that not enough for you? To me, that's notable. Abog (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

 * It is clear that you are entirely unwilling to entertain the notion that this event might not warrant inclusion. Am I right?  That is troubling because it undermines the spirit of the project.  You are mistaken if you think this got more exposure than Anna Nicole Smith.  And a better example would have been her baby.  This event will be out of the news cycle in 1 month.  You really need to join the discussion here because the real decision on whether this event is included will be made there.  Preliminary consensus exists that school shootings might not warrant inclusion unless they involve extraordinary circumstances.  Your opinion needs to be heard there.  I suggest that you and I cease discussion on this topic for a week to let others chime in.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 21:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

1- I am personally in favour of mentioning school shootings as much as possible. I consider them notable because they index and sign a change in the relationship between young people and instructing institutes and in general their living environement, not just because people remember them or because they cause any legislations (most of them are in america, true, but what happens in america has got a special global meaning and effect). if what I say about "being notable" sounds arbitrary I should say that being arbitrary about such events is better than being Wikipedially conversative and just consider events notable if they cause some legislations or ... . it is too soon too consider school shootings common or minor events and thus not notable events.so ...

2- ... so I suggest a double standard for recent years' events and older years' events. we must be much less severe about recent years' events and consider many of them suitable for the "events" section.

3- so give the 2008 shooting a chance. Lenin1870to1924 (talk) 23:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Anna Howard Shaw's Birthday
Though the date is 1847, so is not a centennial, I'll suggest Anna Shaw Howard's birthday, sometimes called Anna Howard Shaw Day (but be careful linking to this - it's to a 30 Rock TV episode that's having a 1 year anniversery), because it is an alternative to Valentines Day. Smallbones (talk) 21:32, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Is this a commonly celebrated observance? For the most part observances should have their own article, per the guidelines. It doesn't matter whether it is a centennial or not, any entry in the Holidays and Observances should be observed every year to be included. Winston365 (talk) 03:03, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * It is originally a Methodist observance - celebrating their 1st American woman minister, probably women's rights issues as well, and maybe on the edge as an alternative to Valentines Day. The more modern interpretation probably goes along with the 30 Rock episode - folks need an alternative to the slick commercialism of the "holiday."  How widely observed?  It's hard for me to say - I'm not a methodist, nor a 30 Rocker.  Smallbones (talk) 03:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd say unless the observance has it's own article it probably shouldn't be included in the Holidays and Observances section. The only supporting article Anna Howard Shaw places the holiday on February 14 or the nearest Sunday (at least by the Methodist Church), and Holidays and Observances are restricted to observances that occur on the same day each year. I don't think a 30 Rock episode is enough to establish a new holiday, especially if the date of celebration was rather ambiguous before it was mentioned on the show. Winston365 (talk) 05:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * 2011 – As a part of Arab spring, the still ongoing 2011–2012 Bahraini uprising (protests pictured), began.

I would appreciate if someone can fit this into this years 14 February.  Bahraini Activist  Talk to me 15:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

 * This event is already listed on this page. What are you asking?  Adding a picture isn't appropriate.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 23:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

This text should say 'on the second day' not 'first day', as the bombing already began 1 day ago? #1945 – World War II: On the first day of the bombing of Dresden, the British Royal Air Force and the United States Army Air Forces begin fire-bombing Dresden, the capital of the German state of Saxony.#

Inaccurate information regarding Henry IV's excommunication
In this article we see that in 1076 on February 14, "Pope Gregory VII excommunicates Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor". However, in Henry IV's article, it's clearly stated that the excommunication happens on "22 February 1076". Which is correct? I see no source for either. -- BreachReach talk 04:37, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

25th anniversary of Pale Blue Dot
It will be soon 25 years since Voyager 1 took the iconic photograph of planet Earth from outside the solar system. Could be an idea for OTD. --Deeday-UK (talk) 20:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Lois Maxwell & Kitten Natividad
Lois Maxwell's article says death was in 2007, not in 1960.

Kitten Natividad's page says birthdate is February 13, so she should be off this page. 85.76.73.204 (talk) 00:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Emperor Sigismund
The 14 February page credits that date for his birth. The linked article on Sigismund gives the date of birth as 15 February.

--Vicedomino (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Valentine's Day
@StAnselm - I don't get it. In your edit summary, you say "not actually needed" but then you go and reinstate your edit. I'm reverting it again, as per my previous edit summary - there is no citation given as per WP:DOYCITE, and it does not follow the style guide for DOY articles (WP:DOYSTYLE). Also, as per WP:BRD, you need to discuss things first before you edit again. Thanks, Kiwipete (talk) 08:02, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

 * I meant, of course, that the *citation* was not needed. StAnselm (talk) 08:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And what do you mean when you say there was no citation given? StAnselm (talk) 14:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:February 14


text:
Talk:February 15

Microsoft
how about adding that it's national refund day for microsoft products? http://www.vcnet.com/bms/features/teaparty.shtml

Trivia
I don't think that an episode of Naruto is noteworthy. Would someone take care of that since the page is protected?171.161.160.10 19:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

 * Done. -- Borameer ™ 15:22, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Intelsat 708 satellite pictures
I don't think these pictures are necessary on the date page. They don't add anything useful to the description of the event. I have removed them. Grouf(talk • contribs) 16:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Great Ormond Street
What is the source for the first patient being admitted on the 15 February 1852? Everything I can find on the website talks about opening on Valentines day. Thryduulf (talk)

Removal of entries
I've removed from the births section of this article: I don't think any of these can be considered to be of international significance. Deb (talk) 13:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Musicians who don't even have entries in a "Year in Music" article.
 * Tennis players who've never had a top 100 world ranking.
 * Minor celebrities who don't have multiple wikipedia articles in other languages.

Birth and death entries
Continuing the ongoing effort to reduce the size of the Births and Deaths sections to make them manageable, I've removed some celebrities with few or no articles in other wikipedias, moving the entries to the appropriate Year in Topic article if they were not already present. This is in accordance with the guidelines.Deb (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Noticed last year that somebody thought it necessary to label a number of people as "Jewish" even if it had no bearing at all on what that person had accomplished. Does it really matter if an actor or noted doctor was Jewish? NO IT DOESN'T. To me it reeked of anti-semitism and I am not even Jewish. Most of the "Jewish" listings have already been removed since last year at this time, but I saw no more than a half dozen for this day's entry and I have removed them. Don't like it? Too bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A9B0:5270:5899:7E88:9733:9CC9 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Re: "Jewish" - They're baaack! Stuartkau (talk) 19:21, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey Editors or whatever you people are called, how about unprotecting the page for a little bit to get rid of the "Jewish" labels that some jerk put back in again. As I stated above in 2018, unless it really has something to do with their accomplishments, and being a well known Rabbi is the only thing I can think of where it would matter, labeling these people as Jewish makes no damn difference and is probably the work of anti-semites and doesn't belong here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A9B0:527F:F522:82AC:4BE2:5E12 (talk) 07:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

St Vardan?
Why is St Vardan mentioned on this day? The Wiki article of saints of the Armenian Apostolic Church lists him on this date for last year. The article on the man says his date moves, and this article gives different dates (including a different date for last year) https://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/armenia/saint-vartan-feast --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 * @Richardson mcphillips -- It doesn't belong on any specific date, as per article:"'[C]ommemoration day in the official Armenian Church calendar is usually in the month of February and on very rare occasions may fall in the first week of March. The actual Saint Vardan day is a moving day, as it always has to fall on Thursday...' Quis separabit? 16:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)"

International Childhood Cancer Day
Suggest this should have its own page. At the moment, it has a section on the International Society of Pediatric Oncology page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annasdottir (talk • contribs) 12:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * @Annasdottir: It needs an article to be included. No redlinks or redirects, please. Thanks. Quis separabit?  22:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 August 2019
Birth: 1995 - Megan Thee Stallion, American rapper and songwriter Mifti95 (talk) 23:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Melmann 13:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Lupercalia in holidays and observances
Holidays and observances is not for historical things that no longer exist. Lupercalia should be removed from here. --142.163.195.167 (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree and have deleted it. Deb (talk) 14:34, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2021
add megan thee stallion to births 68.205.221.54 (talk) 05:43, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:February 15


text:
Talk:February 18

Birth and death entries
Continuing the ongoing effort to reduce the size of the Births and Deaths sections to make them manageable, I'm removing celebrities with few or no articles in other wikipedias, moving the entries to the appropriate Year in Topic article if they were not already present. This is in accordance with the guidelines. Deb (talk) 15:06, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * with which guidelines? where can they be found? -- -- -- 04:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * See the big beige box above? Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:February 18


text:
Gallimimus

Gallimimus is a genus of theropod dinosaur that lived in what is now Mongolia during the Late Cretaceous period, about seventy million years ago (mya). Several fossils in various stages of growth were discovered by Polish-Mongolian expeditions in the Gobi Desert of Mongolia during the 1960s; a large skeleton discovered in this region was made the holotype specimen of the new genus and species Gallimimus bullatus in 1972. The generic name means "chicken mimic", referring to the similarities between its neck vertebrae and those of the Galliformes. The specific name is derived from bulla, a golden capsule worn by Roman youth, in reference to a bulbous structure at the base of the skull of Gallimimus. At the time it was named, the fossils of Gallimimus represented the most complete and best preserved ornithomimid ("ostrich dinosaur") material yet discovered, and the genus remains one of the best known members of the group.

Gallimimus is the largest known ornithomimid; adults were about 6 m long, 1.9 m tall at the hip and weighed about 400 - 490 kg. As evidenced by its relative Ornithomimus, it would have had feathers. The head was small and light with large eyes that faced to the sides. The snout was long compared to other ornithomimids, although it was broader and more rounded at the tip than in other species. Gallimimus was toothless with a keratinous (horny) beak, and had a delicate lower jaw. Many of the vertebrae had openings that indicate they were pneumatic (air-filled). The neck was proportionally long in relation to the trunk. The hands were proportionally the shortest of any ornithomimosaur and each had three digits with curved claws. The forelimbs were weak while the hindlimbs were proportionally long. The family Ornithomimidae is part of the group Ornithomimosauria. Anserimimus, also from Mongolia, is thought to have been the closest relative of Gallimimus.

As an ornithomimid, Gallimimus would have been a fleet (or cursorial) animal, using its speed to escape predators; its speed has been estimated at 42–56 km/h (29–34 mph). It may have had good vision and intelligence comparable to ratite birds. Gallimimus may have lived in groups, based on the discovery of several specimens preserved in a bone bed. Various theories have been proposed regarding the diet of Gallimimus and other ornithomimids. The highly mobile neck may have helped locate small prey on the ground, but it may also have been an opportunistic omnivore. It has also been suggested that it used small columnar structures in its beak for filter-feeding in water, though these structures may instead have been ridges used for feeding on tough plant material, indicative of a herbivorous diet. Gallimimus is the most commonly found ornithomimosaur in the Nemegt Formation, where it lived alongside its relatives Anserimimus and Deinocheirus. Gallimimus was featured in the movie Jurassic Park, in a scene that was important to the history of special effects, and in shaping the common conception of dinosaurs as bird-like animals.

History of discovery
Between 1963 and 1965, the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Mongolian Academy of Sciences organised the Polish-Mongolian palaeontological expeditions to the Gobi Desert of Mongolia. Among the dinosaur remains discovered in sand beds of the Nemegt Basin were numerous ornithomimids at different growth stages from the Nemegt, Tsaagan Khushuu, Altan Ula IV and Naran Bulak localities. Three partially complete skeletons, two with skulls, as well as many fragmentary remains, were collected. The largest skeleton (later to become the holotype of Gallimimus bullatus) was discovered by palaeontologist Zofia Kielan-Jaworowska in Tsaagan Khushuu in 1964; it was preserved lying on its back, and the skull was found under its pelvis. One small specimen was also found in Tsaagan Khushuu the same year, and another small specimen was found in the Nemegt locality. A small skeleton without forelimbs was discovered in 1967 by the Mongolian palaeontological expedition in Bugeen Tsav outside the Nemegt Basin. The fossils were housed at the Mongolian, Polish and USSR Academy of Sciences. The Polish-Mongolian expeditions were notable for being led by women, some of whom were among the first women to name new dinosaurs. The fossils discovered in these expeditions shed new light on the interchange of fauna between Asia and North America during the Cretaceous period. Some of the skeletons were exhibited in Warsaw in 1968, mounted in tall, semi-erect postures, which was accepted at the time, though more horizontal postures are favoured today.

In 1972, palaeontologists Halszka Osmólska, Ewa Roniewicz and Rinchen Barsbold named the new genus and species Gallimimus bullatus, using the largest collected skeleton, specimen IGM 100/11 (from Tsaagan Khushuu, formerly referred to as G.I.No.DPS 100/11 and MPD 100/11), as the holotype. The generic name is derived from the Latin gallus, "chicken", and the Greek mimos, "mimic", in reference to the front part of the neck vertebrae which resembled those of the Galliformes. The specific name is derived from the Latin bulla, a gold capsule worn by Roman youth around the neck, in reference to the bulbous capsule on the parasphenoid at the base of the dinosaur's skull. Such a feature had not been described from other reptiles at the time, and was considered unusual. The holotype consists of an almost complete skeleton with a distorted snout, incomplete lower jaw, vertebral series, pelvis, as well as some missing hand and foot bones. The other partially complete skeletons were juveniles; ZPAL MgD-I/1 (from Tsaagan Khushuu) has a crushed skull with a missing tip, damaged vertebrae, fragmented ribs, pectoral girdle and forelimbs, and an incomplete left hind limb, ZPAL MgD-I/94 (from the Nemegt locality) lacks the skull, atlas, tip of the tail, pectoral girdle and forelimbs, while the smallest specimen, IGM 100/10 (from Bugeen Tsav), lacks a pectoral girdle, forelimbs and several vertebrae and ribs. Osmólska and colleagues listed twenty-five known specimens in all, nine of which were only represented by single bones.

At the time it was named, the fossils of Gallimimus represented the most complete and best preserved ornithomimid material yet discovered, and the genus remains one of the best known members of the group. Ornithomimids were previously known mainly from North America, Archaeornithomimus being the only prior known member from Asia (though without a skull). Since the first discoveries, more specimens have been found by further Mongolian-led international expeditions. Three of the Gallimimus skeletons (including the holotype) later became part of a travelling exhibit of Mongolian dinosaur fossils, which toured various countries.

Fossil poaching has become a serious problem in Mongolia in the 21st century, and several Gallimimus specimens have been looted. In 2017, Hang-Jae Lee and colleagues reported a fossil trackway discovered in 2009 associated with a clenched Gallimimus foot (specimen MPC-D100F/17). The rest of the skeleton appeared to have been removed previously by poachers, along with several other Gallimimus specimens (as indicated by empty excavation pits, garbage, and scattered broken bones in the quarry). It is unusual to find tracks closely associated with body fossils; some of the tracks are consistent with ornithomimid feet, while others belong to different dinosaurs. In 2014, a slab with two Gallimimus specimens was repatriated to Mongolia along with other dinosaur skeletons, after having been smuggled to the US.

In 1988, the palaeontologist Gregory S. Paul concluded that the skulls of ornithomimids were more similar to each other than previously thought and moved most species into the same genus, Ornithomimus, resulting in the new combination O. bullatus. In 2010, he instead listed it as "Gallimimus (or Struthiomimus) bullatus", but returned to using only the genus name Gallimimus in 2016. The species involved have generally been kept in separate genera by other writers. An ornithomimid vertebra from Japan informally named "Sanchusaurus" was reported in a 1988 magazine, but was assigned to Gallimimus sp. (of uncertain species) by the palaeontologist Dong Zhiming and colleagues in 1990. In 2000, the palaeontologist Philip J. Currie proposed that Anserimimus, which is only known from one skeleton from Mongolia, was a junior synonym of Gallimimus, but this was dismissed by Kobayashi and Barsbold, who pointed out several differences between the two. Barsbold noted some morphological variation among newer Gallimimus specimens, though this has never been published. Barsbold informally referred to a nearly complete skeleton (IGM 100/14) as "Gallimimus mongoliensis", but since it differs from Gallimimus in some details, Yoshitsugu Kobayashi and Barsbold proposed in 2006 that it probably belongs to a different genus.

Description
Gallimimus is the largest known member of the family Ornithomimidae. The adult holotype (specimen IGM 100/11) was about 6 m long and 1.9 m tall at the hip; its skull was 330 mm long and the femur (thigh bone) was 660 mm. It would have weighed about 400 - 490 kg. In comparison, one juvenile specimen (ZPAL MgD-I/94) was about 2.15 m long, 0.79 m tall at the hip, and weighed about 26 - 30.2 kg. Based on fossils of the related Ornithomimus, it is known that ornithomimosaurs ("ostrich dinosaurs") were feathered, and that the adults bore wing-like structures as evidenced by the presence of quill-knobs on the ulna bone of the lower arm, bumps that indicate where feathers would have attached.

Skull
The head of Gallimimus was very small and light compared to the vertebral column. Due to the length of its snout, the skull was long compared to other ornithomimids, and the snout had a gently convex sloping upper profile. The side profile of the snout differed from other ornithomimids in not narrowing towards its front half, and the lower front margin of the premaxilla at the front of the upper jaw rose upwards, instead of being horizontal. Seen from above, the snout was almost spatulate (spoon-shaped), broad and rounded at the tip (or U-shaped), whereas it was acute (or V-shaped) in North American ornithomimids. The orbits (eye sockets) were large and faced sideways, as in other ornithomimids. The temporal region at the side of the skull behind the eyes was deep, and the infratemporal fenestra (the lower opening behind the orbit) was nearly triangular and smaller than that of the related Struthiomimus. It had deep muscle scars at the back part of the skull roof, along the parietal bone. The parasphenoid (a bone of the braincase, at the underside of the skull's base) was thin-walled, hollow and formed a pear-shaped, bulbous structure. The structure had a shallow furrow which opened towards the front. The internal nares (internal openings for the nasal passage) were large and placed far back on the palate, due to the presence of an extensive secondary palate, which was common to ornithomimids.

The delicate lower jaw, consisting of thin bones, was slender and shallow at the front, deepening towards the rear. The front of the mandible was shovel-like, resulting in a gap between the tips of the jaws when shut. The shovel-like shape was similar to that of the common seagull, and the lower beak may have had a shape similar to that of this bird. The retroarticular process at the back of the jaw (where jaw muscles attached that opened the beak) was well developed and consisted mainly of the angular bone. The surangular was the largest bone of the lower jaw, which is usual in theropods. The mandibular fenestra, a sidewards-facing opening in the lower jaw, was elongated and comparatively small. The lower jaw did not have a coronoid process or a supradentary bone, the lack of which is a common feature of beaked theropods (ornithomimosaurs, oviraptorosaurs, therizinosaurs and birds), but unusual among theropods in general. The jaws of Gallimimus were edentulous (toothless), and the front part would have been covered in a keratinous rhamphotheca (horny beak) in life. The beak may have covered a smaller area than in North American relatives, based on the lack of nourishing foramina on the maxilla. The inner side of the beak had small, tightly packed and evenly spaced columnar structures (their exact nature is debated), which were longest at the front and shortening towards the back.

Postcranial skeleton
Gallimimus had 64–66 vertebrae in its spine, fewer than other ornithomimids. The centra (or bodies) of the vertebrae were platycoelous, with a flat front surface and a concave hind surface, except for the first six caudal (tail) vertebra—where the hind surface was also flat—and those at the end of the tail—which were amphiplatyan with both surfaces flat. Many of the centra had foramina (openings which have also been called "pleurocoels"), and were therefore probably pneumatic (with their hollow chambers invaded by air sacs). The neck consisted of 10 cervical vertebrae, which were all long and wide, except for the atlas bone (the first vertebra that connects with the back of the skull). The atlas differed from that of other ornithomimids in that the front surface of its intercentrum was slanted downwards towards the back, instead of being concave and facing upwards to support the occipital condyle. The neck appears to have been proportionally longer in relation to the trunk than in other ornithomimids. The neck was divided into two distinct sections: the cervical vertebrae at the front had centra which were nearly triangular in side view and tapered towards the back, as well as low neural arches and short, broad zygapophyses (the processes that articulated between the vertebrae); the cervical vertebrae at the back had spool-like centra which became gradually higher, and long, thin zygapophyses. The pneumatic foramina here were small and oval, and the neural spines projecting outwards from the centra formed long, low and sharp ridges, except for in the hindmost cervical vertebrae.

The back of Gallimimus had 13 dorsal vertebrae, with spool-like centra that were short, but tended to become deeper and longer towards the back. Their transverse processes (processes articulating with the ribs) slightly increased in length towards the back. The two first dorsal centra had deep pneumatic foramina, while the rest only had shallow fossae (depressions), and the neural spines were prominent being somewhat triangular or rectangular in shape. The sacrum (fused vertebrae between the pelvic bones) consisted of five sacral vertebrae which were about equal in length. The centra here were spool-like, flattened sideways and had fossae which appear to have continued as deep foramina in some specimens. The neural spines here were rectangular, broad, and higher than those in the dorsal vertebrae. They were higher or equal in height to the upper margin of the iliac blade and were separate, whereas in other ornithomimids they were fused together. The tail had 36–39 caudal vertebrae with the centra of those at the front being spool-shaped, while those at the back were nearly triangular, and elongated across. The neural spines here were high and flat, but diminished backwards, where they became ridge-like. The only sign of pneumaticity in the tail were deep fossae between the neural spines and the transverse process of the two first caudal vertebrae. All the vertebrae in front of the sacrum bore ribs except for the atlas and the last dorsal vertebra.

The scapula (shoulder blade) was short and curved, thin at the front end, and thick at the back. It was connected relatively weakly with the coracoid, which was large and deep from top to bottom. Overall, the forelimbs did not differ much from those of other ornithomimids, all of which were comparatively weak. The humerus (upper arm bone), which had a near circular cross-section, was long and twisted. The deltopectoral crest on the upper front part of the humerus was comparatively small, and therefore provided little surface for attachment of upper arm muscles. The ulna was slender, long and weakly curved, with a nearly triangular shaft. The olecranon (the projection from the elbow) was prominent in adults, but not well developed in juveniles. The radius (the other bone in the lower arm) was long and slender with a more expanded upper end compared to the lower. The manus (hand) was proportionally short compared to those of other ornithomimosaurs, having the smallest manus to humerus length ratio of any member of the group, but was otherwise similar in structure. It had three fingers, which were similarly developed; the first (the "thumb") was the strongest, the third was the weakest and the second was the longest. The unguals (claw bones) were strong, somewhat curved (that of the first finger was most curved) and compressed sideways with a deep groove on each side. The unguals were similarly developed, though the third was slightly smaller.

The pubis (pubic bone) was long and slender, ending in a pubic boot which expanded to the front and back, a general feature of ornithomimosaurs. The hind limbs differed little from those of other ornithomimids, and were proportionally longer than in other theropods. The femur was nearly straight, long and slender, with a sideways flattened shaft. The tibia was straight, long, with two well developed condyles (rounded end of a bone) on the upper end and a flattened lower end. The fibula of the lower leg was flat, thin and broad at the upper end narrowing towards the lower end. The lower half of the third metatarsal was broad when viewed end on, partly covering the adjoining two metatarsals to each side, but narrowed abruptly at mid-length, wedging between those bones and disappearing (an arctometatarsalian foot structure). The third toe was proportionally shorter in relation to the limb than in other ornithomimids. As in other ornithomimids, the foot had no hallux (or dewclaw, the first toe of most other theropods). The unguals of the toes were flat on their lower sides; the outer two declined slightly outwards from their digits.

Classification
Osmólska and colleagues assigned Gallimimus to the family Ornithomimidae in 1972, with the North American Struthiomimus as the closest relative, while lamenting the fact that comparison between taxa was difficult because other ornithomimids known at the time were either poorly preserved or inadequately described. In 1975, Kielan-Jaworowska stated that though many dinosaurs from Asia were placed in the same families as North American relatives, this category of classification tended to be more inclusive than was used for modern birds. She highlighted that while Gallimimus had a rounded beak (similar to a goose or duck), North American ornithomimids had pointed beaks, a difference that would otherwise lead taxonomists to place modern birds in different families. In 1976, Barsbold placed Ornithomimidae in the new group Ornithomimosauria. In 2003, Kobayashi and Jun-Chang Lü found that Anserimimus was the sister taxon to Gallimimus, both forming a derived (or "advanced") clade with North American genera, which was confirmed by Kobayashi and Barsbold in 2006.

The following cladogram shows the placement of Gallimimus among Ornithomimidae according to Li Xu and colleagues, 2011:

Ornithomimosaurs belonged to the clade Maniraptoriformes of coelurosaurian theropods, which also includes modern birds. Early ornithomimosaurs had teeth, which were lost in more derived members of the group. In 2004, Makovicky, Kobayashi, and Currie suggested that most of the early evolutionary history of ornithomimosaurs took place in Asia, where most genera have been discovered, including the most basal (or "primitive") taxa, although they acknowledged that the presence of the basal Pelecanimimus in Europe presents a complication in classification. The group must have dispersed once or twice from Asia to North America across Beringia to account for the Late Cretaceous genera found there. As seen in some other dinosaur groups, ornithomimosaurs were largely restricted to Asia and North America after Europe was separated from Asia by the Turgai Strait.

In 1994, the palaeontologist Thomas R. Holtz grouped ornithomimosaurs and troodontids in a clade, based on shared features such as the presence of a bulbous capsule on the parasphenoid. He named the clade Bullatosauria, based on the specific name of Gallimimus bullatus, which was also in reference to the capsule. In 1998, Holtz instead found that troodontids were basal maniraptorans, meaning that all members of that clade would fall within Bullatosauria, which would therefore become a junior synonym of Maniraptoriformes, and the clade has since fallen out of use.

Palaeobiology
The cervical vertebrae of Gallimimus indicate that it held its neck obliquely, declining upwards at an angle of 35 degrees. Osmólska and colleagues found that the hands of Gallimimus were not prehensile (or capable of grasping), and that the thumb was not opposable. They also suggested that the arms were weak compared to, for example, those of the ornithomimosaur Deinocheirus. They agreed with the interpretations of ornithomimid biology by palaeontologist Dale Russell from earlier in 1972, including that they would have been very fleet (or cursorial) animals, although less agile than large, modern ground birds, and would have used their speed to escape predators. Russell also suggested that they had a good sense of vision and intelligence comparable to that of modern ratite birds. Since their predators may have had colour vision, he suggested it would have influenced their colouration, perhaps resulting in camouflage. In 1982, palaeontologist Richard A. Thulborn estimated that Gallimimus could have run at speeds of 42–56 km/h (29–34 mph). He found that ornithimimids would not have been as fast as ostriches, which can reach 70–80 km/h (43–49 mph), in part due to their arms and tails increasing their weight.

In 1988, Paul suggested that the eyeballs of ornithomimids were flattened and had minimal mobility within the sockets, necessitating movement of the head to view objects. Since their eyes faced more sideways than in some other bird-like theropods, their binocular vision would have been more limited, which is an adaptation in some animals that improves their ability to see predators behind them. Paul considered the relatively short tails, which reduced weight, and missing halluxes of ornithomimids to be adaptations for speed. He suggested that they could have defended themselves by pecking and kicking, but would have mainly relied on their speed for escape. In 2015, Akinobu Watanabe and colleagues found that together with Deinocheirus and Archaeornithomimus, Gallimimus had the most pneumatised skeleton among ornithomimosaurs. Pneumatisation is thought to be advantageous for flight in modern birds, but its function in non-avian dinosaurs is not known with certainty. It has been proposed that pneumatisation was used to reduce the mass of large bones, that it was related to high metabolism, balance during locomotion, or used for thermoregulation.

In 2017, Lee and colleagues suggested various possible taphonomic circumstances (changes during decay and fossilisation) to explain how the Gallimimus foot discovered in 2009 was associated with a trackway. The trackway is preserved in sandstone while the foot is preserved in mudstone, extending 20 cm below the layer with the tracks. It is possible the fossil represents an animal that died in its tracks, but the depth of the foot in the mud may be too shallow for it to have become mired. It may also have been killed by a flood, after which it was buried in a pond. However, the layers of mud and sand do not indicate flooding but probably a dry environment, and the disrupted sediments around the fossil indicate the animal was alive when it came to the area. The authors thus suggested that the tracks had been made over an extended amount of time and period of drying, and that probably none of them were produced by the individual that owned the foot. The animal may have walked across the floor of a pond, breaking through the sediment layer with the tracks while it was soaked from rain or contained water. The animal may have died in this position from thirst, hunger, or another reason, and mud then deposited on the sand, thereby covering and preserving the tracks and the carcass. The foot may have become clenched and disarticulated as it decomposed, which made the tendons flex, and was later stepped on by heavy dinosaurs. The area may have been a single bone bed (based on the possible number of poached specimens) representing a Gallimimus mass mortality, perhaps due to a drought or famine. The fact that the animals seem to have died at the same time (the empty excavation pits were stratigraphically identical) may indicate that Gallimimus was gregarious (lived in groups), which has also been suggested for other ornithomimids.

Feeding and diet
Osmólska and colleagues pointed out that the front part of the neck of Gallimimus would have been very mobile (the hind part was more rigid), the neural arches in the vertebrae of that region being similar to chicken and other Galliformes, indicating similar feeding habits. They found the beak of Gallimimus similar to that of a duck or goose, and that it would have fed on small, living prey which it swallowed whole. The mobility of the neck would have been useful in locating prey on the ground, since the eyes were positioned on the sides of the skull. They assumed that all ornithomimids had similar feeding habits, and pointed out that Russel had compared the beaks of ornithomimids with those of insectivorous birds. Osmólska and colleagues suggested that Gallimimus was capable of cranial kinesis (due to the seemingly loose connection between some of the bones at the back of the skull), a feature which allows individual bones of the skull to move in relation to each other. They also proposed that it did not use its short handed forelimbs for bringing food to the mouth, but for raking or digging in the ground to access food. The hands of Gallimimus may have been weaker than for example those of Struthiomimus, which may instead have used its hands for hooking and gripping, according to a 1985 article by palaeontologists Elizabeth L. Nicholls and Anthony P. Russell.

In 1988 Paul disagreed that ornithomimids were omnivores that ate small animals and eggs as well as plants, as had previously been suggested. He pointed out that ostriches and emus are mainly grazers and browsers, and that the skulls of ornithomimids were most similar to those of the extinct moas, which were strong enough to bite off twigs, as evidenced by their gut content. He further suggested that ornithomimids were well adapted for browsing on tough plants and would have used their hands to bring branches within reach of their jaws. Palaeontologist Jørn Hurum suggested in 2001 that due to its similar jaw structure, Gallimimus may have had an opportunistic, omnivorous diet like seagulls. He also observed that the tight intramandibular joint would prevent any movement between the front and rear portions of the lower jaw.

In 2001, palaeontologists Mark A. Norell, Makovicky, and Currie reported a Gallimimus skull (IGM 100/1133) and an Ornithomimus skull that preserved soft tissue structures on the beak. The inner side of the Gallimimus beak had columnar structures that the authors found similar to the lamellae in the beaks of anseriform birds, which use these for manipulating food, straining sediments, filter-feeding by segregating food items from other material, and for cutting plants while grazing. They found the Northern shoveller, which feeds on plants, molluscs, ostracods, and foraminiferans, to be the modern anseriform with structures most similar in anatomy to those of Gallimimus. The authors noted that ornithomimids probably did not use their beaks to prey on large animals and were abundant in mesic environments, while rarer in more arid environments, suggesting that they may have depended on aquatic food sources. Makovicky, Kobayashi, and Currie pointed out that if this interpretation is correct, Gallimimus would have been one of the largest known terrestrial filter feeders.

In 2005, palaeontologist Paul Barrett pointed out that the lamella-like structures of Gallimimus did not appear to have been flexible bristles like those of filter-feeding birds (as there is no indication of these structures overlapping or being collapsed), but were instead more akin to the thin, regularly spaced vertical ridges in the beaks of turtles and hadrosaurid dinosaurs. In these animals, such ridges are thought to be associated with herbivorous diets, used to crop tough vegetation. Barrett suggested that the ridges in the beak of Gallimimus represented a natural cast of the internal surface of the beak, indicating that the animal was a herbivore that fed on material high in fibre. The discovery of many gastroliths (gizzard stones) in some ornithomimids indicate the presence of a gastric mill, and therefore point towards a herbivorous diet, as these are used to grind food of animals that lack the necessary chewing apparatus. Barrett also calculated that a 440 kg Gallimimus would have needed between 0.07 and 3.34 kg of food per day, depending on whether it had an endothermic or an ectothermic ("warm" or "cold"-blooded) metabolism, an intake which he found to be unfeasible if it was a filter feeder. He also found that ornithomimids were abundant not only in formations that represented mesic environments, but also in arid environments where there would be insufficient water to sustain a diet based on filter-feeding. In 2007, palaeontologist Espen M. Knutsen wrote that the beak shape of ornithomimids, when compared to those of modern birds, was consistent with omnivory or high-fibre herbivory.

David J. Button and Zanno found in 2019 herbivorous dinosaurs mainly followed two distinct modes of feeding, either processing food in the gut—characterized by gracile skulls and low bite forces—or the mouth, characterized by features associated with extensive processing. Ornithomimid ornithomimosaurs, Deinocheirus, diplodocoid and titanosaur sauropods, Segnosaurus, and caenagnathids, were found to be in the former category. These researchers suggested that ornithomimid ornithomimosaurians such as Gallimimus and deinocheirids had invaded these niches separately, convergently achieving relatively large sizes. Advantages from large body mass in herbivores include increased intake rate of food and fasting resistance, and these trends may therefore indicate that ornithomimids and deinocheirids were more herbivorous than other ornithomimosaurians. They cautioned that the correlations between herbivory and body mass were not simple, and that there was no directional trend towards increased mass seen in the clade. Furthermore, the diet of most ornithomimosaurians is poorly known.

Development
The shape and proportions of the skull changed significantly during growth. The rear of the skull and the orbits decreased in size, whereas the snout became relatively longer; similar changes occur in modern crocodiles. The skull was also proportionally larger in the younger specimens, and the sloping of the snout's upper profile was less distinct. The ribs in the neck were fused to the vertebrae only in adults. The forelimbs appear to have become proportionally longer during growth, whereas the proportional length of the bones in the hind limbs changed very little. In 2012, palaeontologist Darla K. Zelenitsky and colleagues concluded that, since adult ornithomimosaurs had wing-like structures on their arms whereas juveniles did not (as evidenced by specimens of Ornithomimus), these structures were originally secondary sexual characteristics, which could have been used for reproductive behaviour such as courtship, display, and brooding.

A 1987 study by the biologists Roman Pawlicki and P. Bolechała showed age-related differences in the content of calcium and phosphorus (important components in the formation of bone) of Gallimimus specimens. They found that the ratio was highest in young to middle aged animals, decreasing with age. In 1991, they reported that the bones of old individuals contained the highest amounts of lead and iron, while those in younger animals were lower. A study of the bone histology of various dinosaurs in 2000, by biologists John M. Rensberger and Mahito Watabe, revealed that the canaliculi (channels which connect bone cells) and collagen fibre bundles of Gallimimus and other ornithomimids were more akin to those in birds than mammals, unlike those of ornithischian dinosaurs, which were more similar to mammals. These differences may have been related to the process and rate at which bone formed.

Palaeoenvironment
Gallimimus is known from the Nemegt Formation in the Gobi Desert of southern Mongolia. This geologic formation has never been dated radiometrically, but the fauna present in the fossil record indicate it was probably deposited during the early Maastrichtian stage, at the end of the Late Cretaceous about 70 million years ago. The sediments of the Gallimimus type locality Tsaagan Khushuu consist of silts, siltstones, mudstones, sands, as well as less frequent thin beds of sandstones. The rock facies of the Nemegt Formation suggest the presence of river channels, mudflats, shallow lakes and floodplains in an environment similar to the Okavango Delta of present-day Botswana. Large river channels and soil deposits are evidence of a significantly more humid climate than those found in the older Barun Goyot and Djadochta formations, although caliche deposits indicate that periodic droughts occurred. Fossil bones from the Nemegt Basin, including of Gallimimus, are more radioactive than fossils from surrounding areas, possibly because uranium accumulated in the bones, transported there by percolating ground water.

The Nemegt rivers, where Gallimimus lived, were home to a wide array of organisms. Occasional mollusc fossils, as well as a variety of other aquatic animals like fish, turtles, and crocodylomorphs, including Shamosuchus, have been discovered in this region. Mammal fossils are rare in the Nemegt Formation, but many birds, including the enantiornithine Gurilynia, the hesperornithiform Judinornis, as well as Teviornis, a possible anseriform, have been found. Herbivorous dinosaurs discovered in the Nemegt Formation include ankylosaurids such as Tarchia, the pachycephalosaurian Prenocephale, large hadrosaurids such as Saurolophus and Barsboldia, and sauropods such as Nemegtosaurus and Opisthocoelicaudia. Predatory theropods that lived alongside Gallimimus include tyrannosauroids such as Tarbosaurus, Alioramus and Bagaraatan, and troodontids such as Borogovia, Tochisaurus and Zanabazar. Herbivorous or omnivorous theropods include therizinosaurs, such as Therizinosaurus, as well as oviraptorosaurians, such as Elmisaurus, Nemegtomaia, and Rinchenia. Other ornithomimosaurs, including Anserimimus and Deinocheirus, are also found, but Gallimimus is the most common member of the group in the Nemegt.

Cultural significance
Gallimimus was featured in the 1993 movie Jurassic Park by director Steven Spielberg; a similar scene in the original 1990 novel instead featured hadrosaurs. Spielberg had wanted a stampede sequence with animal herds in the movie, but did not know how to achieve it, and it was initially going to be visualised through stop-motion animation. At the time, there was little faith in creating animals through computer animation, but the visual effects company Industrial Light and Magic was given a go-ahead by the movie's producers to explore possibilities. ILM created a Gallimimus skeleton in the computer and animated a test showing a herd of running skeletons, and later a Tyrannosaurus chasing a fully rendered Gallimimus herd. The production team became very enthusiastic as nothing similar had previously been achieved, and Spielberg was convinced to write the scene into the script, and to also use computer graphics for other dinosaur shots in the movie instead of stop motion. The Gallimimus were animated by tracing frames from footage of ostriches, and footage of herding gazelles was also referenced. Kielan-Jaworowska, who discovered the holotype specimen, called it a "beautiful scene". The movie's dinosaurs were one of the most widely publicised applications of computer-generated imagery in film, and were considered more lifelike than what had been previously accomplished with special effects.

Emphasising the bird-like flocking behaviour of the Gallimimus herd was a point in Jurassic Park's story, as they were supposed to represent the precursors to birds. The herd was shown moving as a whole, rather than individual animals running around, and the smaller Gallimimus were shown in the middle of the group, as though they were being protected. During the scene, the palaeontologist Alan Grant says that the herd moves with "uniform direction changes, just like a flock of birds evading a predator" as he watches the movements of the fast, graceful Gallimimus. This contrasted with how dinosaurs were traditionally depicted in mass media as lumbering, tail-dragging animals, and the movie helped change the common perception of dinosaurs. This and other scenes reflected then-recent theories of bird evolution encouraged by the movie's scientific advisor, the palaeontologist John R. Horner, ideas which were still contentious at the time. Despite such theories, Gallimimus and other dinosaurs of the movie were depicted without feathers, in part because it was unknown at the time how widespread these were among the group.

It has been claimed that the Lark Quarry tracks (one of the world's largest concentrations of dinosaur tracks) in Queensland, Australia, served as inspiration and "scientific underpinning" for the Gallimimus stampede scene in Jurassic Park; these tracks were initially interpreted as representing a dinosaur stampede caused by the arrival of a theropod predator. The idea that the tracks represent a stampede has since been contested (the "theropod" may instead have been a herbivore similar to Muttaburrasaurus), and a consultant to Jurassic Park has denied the tracks served as inspiration for the movie.

title: Gallimimus


text:
Folland Gnat

The Folland Gnat is a British compact swept-wing subsonic fighter aircraft that was developed and produced by Folland Aircraft. Envisioned as an affordable light fighter in contrast to the rising cost and size of typical combat aircraft, it was procured as a trainer aircraft for the Royal Air Force (RAF) as well as by export customers, who used the Gnat in both combat and training capacities.

Designed by W. E. W. Petter, the Gnat has its origins in the preceding private venture Folland Midge. The issuing of Operational Requirement OR.303 by the British Air Ministry served to motivate the type's development; the Gnat was later submitted to meet this requirement. Its design allowed for its construction and maintenance tasks to be carried out without specialised tools, making it suitable for use in countries that had not yet become highly industrialised. The Gnat has been viewed as a major motivating factor towards the issuing of the NATO NBMR-1 requirement, which sought to make available a common strike/attack light fighter with which to equip the air forces of the various NATO members.

Although never used as a fighter by the Royal Air Force (RAF), the Gnat T.1 jet trainer variant was adopted and operated for some time. In the United Kingdom, the Gnat became well known due to its prominent use as the display aircraft of the RAF's Red Arrows aerobatic team. The Gnat F.1 was exported to Finland, Yugoslavia and India. The Indian Air Force became the largest operator and eventually manufactured the aircraft under licence. Impressed by its performance during combat, India proceeded to develop the improved HAL Ajeet, a modified variant of the Gnat. In British service, the Gnat was replaced by the Hawker Siddeley Hawk.

Origins
In October 1950, W. E. W. "Teddy" Petter, a British aircraft designer formerly of Westland Aircraft and English Electric, joined Folland Aircraft as its managing director and chief engineer. Almost immediately upon joining the firm, Petter conducted a study into the economics behind modern fighter manufacturing, and concluded that many combat aircraft entailed far too great a cost in terms of man-hours and material to be readily mass-produced during a major conflict. While the British Air Staff emphasised quality over quantity, the economics involved in the anticipated vast wartime production of many of the RAF's aircraft of the time, such as the Hawker Hunter and the Gloster Javelin interceptors, were viewed as questionable.

Petter examined the prospects for producing a more affordable but capable "light fighter", including a survey of available modern engines to power the type. Having identified suitable powerplant arrangements along with methods of making multiple key design aspects, such as the manufacturing of the fuselage and wings, more affordable, Folland promptly commenced work upon this lightweight fighter concept, financing the project using existing company funds. The light fighter project soon received the Fo-141 designation along with the name Gnat. Development of the Gnat and the specifics of its design were heavily influenced by the issuing of Operational Requirement OR.303, which sought a capable lightweight fighter aircraft. Work to develop the Gnat went ahead, irrespective of any external orders or financing; there was no funding provided to support the type's early development from any British government department, such as the Ministry of Supply.

Petter believed that a compact and simplified fighter would offer the advantages of low purchase and operational costs, and that the Gnat should be capable of being manufactured both cheaply and easily. The emergence of new lightweight turbojet engines, several of which were well advanced in their own development process, also enabled the envisioned light fighter concept to be realised. The Gnat was initially intended to be powered by a Bristol BE-22 Saturn turbojet engine, capable of generating 3,800 lbf (16.9 kN 1,724 kgp) of thrust. However, development of the Saturn was cancelled; in its place, the more capable but not immediately available Bristol Orpheus turbojet engine was adopted instead.

In order that the project would not be delayed before reaching the prototype stage, Petter's unarmed proof-of-concept demonstrator for the Gnat was instead powered by the less powerful Armstrong Siddeley Viper 101 turbojet engine, capable of generating 1,640 lbf (7.3 kN / 744 kgp) of thrust. While using a different powerplant from later-built prototypes and production aircraft, the demonstrator still used a nearly identical airframe along with similar onboard systems so that these could be proved in advance of the Gnat itself being built. This demonstrator was designated Fo-139 Midge. On 11 August 1954, the Midge performed its maiden flight, piloted by Folland's chief test pilot Edward Tennant. Despite the low-powered engine, the compact jet was able to break Mach 1 while in a dive and proved to be very agile during its flying trials. On 20 September 1955, the Midge was destroyed in a crash, which had possibly been due to human error by a pilot from a potential overseas purchaser.

The Midge, partly due to its nature as a private venture, had only a short lifespan, however had served as a proof-of-concept demonstrator for the subsequent aircraft. It had failed to interest the RAF as a combat aircraft at that time, but officers did issue encouragement of the development of a similar aircraft for training purposes. The larger Gnat, which was being developed in parallel with the Midge, was an improved version of the original fighter design; it was differentiated by larger air intakes to suit the Orpheus engine, a slightly larger wing, and provision for the installation of a 30 mm ADEN cannon in each intake lip. The first prototype Gnat was built as a private venture by Folland. Subsequently, six further aircraft were ordered by the British Ministry of Supply for evaluation purposes. On 18 July 1955, the Folland prototype, serial number G-39-2, first flew from RAF Boscombe Down, Wiltshire.

Although the evaluation by the British brought no orders for the lightweight fighter, orders were placed by Finland and Yugoslavia. India placed a large order for the type, which included a licence for production by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL). Although the Gnat's development is considered a factor which motivated the Mutual Weapons Development Team to issue the NATO NBMR-1 requirement for a low level strike/attack light fighter, the Gnat itself was not evaluated in the competition, which was won by the Fiat G.91. However, the Gnat was evaluated in 1958 by the RAF as a replacement for the de Havilland Venom, as well as other light aircraft such as the BAC Jet Provost. The Hawker Hunter was selected as the eventual winner of the fly-off competition.

Trainer
Although RAF interest in the possibilities for using the Gnat as a fighter had waned, Folland identified a potential use for the type as a trainer aircraft. Accordingly, the aircraft was modified to conform with the requirements of Specification T.185D, which had called for an advanced two-seat trainer aircraft that could transition pilots between the current de Havilland Vampire T 11 and operational fighters, such as the supersonic English Electric Lightning.

Folland proposed the two-seat Fo. 144 Gnat Trainer. The trainer model featured several changes, including the adoption of a new wing with additional fuel capacity, which in turn allowed for more internal space within the fuselage to be allocated for additional equipment. A more powerful variant of the Orpheus engine was also used, while the length of the forward fuselage area was increased, and the tail surfaces were enlarged. The inboard ailerons of the fighter variant were reconfigured to an arrangement of outboard ailerons and conventional flaps. On 7 January 1958, an initial contract for 14 pre-production Gnat trainers was issued.

On 31 August 1959, the prototype Gnat Trainer conducted its maiden flight from Chilbolton airfield, Hampshire. The Ministry did not at first place a production order as they were concerned about the size and ability of the company to take on a large order. Following the take over of Folland by Hawker Siddeley Aviation (becoming the Hamble division), further orders for 30, 20 and 41 trainers were placed between February 1960 and March 1962, receiving the designation ''Gnat T Mk. 1''. The final Gnat T.1 for the RAF was delivered in May 1965.

Further development
Folland sought to develop more capable versions of the Gnat; one of the more substantial of these proposals was tentatively designated as the Gnat Mk.5. This model was to be capable of supersonic speeds and was intended to be made available in both single-seat and twin-seat configurations, enabling its use in the trainer and interceptor role. The Gnat 5 was to be powered by either a pair of Rolls-Royce RB153R engines or two Viper 20 engines; in the interceptor role, it would be also equipped with a Ferranti AI.23 Airpass radar and armed with a pair of de Havilland Firestreak air-to-air missiles. Featuring an estimated maximum speed around 2 Mach and a time to 50,000 ft of 3 minutes, Folland estimated that a prototype could be flown as early as the end of 1962 and that the Gnat 5 could be readied for operational service within four or five years.

In 1960, Maurice Brennan joined Folland as its chief engineer and director. Hawker Siddeley wanted to use his knowledge of variable-geometry wings in future designs. Under his direction, a variable geometry wing was applied to the basic Gnat 5 design to produce two different configurations – one tailless and one with a conventional tail – for a multipurpose fighter/strike/trainer, designated the Fo.147. The design used a unique mechanism to sweep the wings; this mechanism used a combination of tracks positioned on the fuselage sides, the centerline, and on the underside of the wings, and was actuated by hydraulically-driven ball screws positioned at the inner ends of the wings. The wings could be swept from 20 degrees to 70 degrees; at the 70-degree position, longitudinal control was maintained by wing tip-mounted elevons, and at the 20-degree position by a retractable canard arrangement. Auto-stabilisation was also to be used. By providing trimming with the canard, a large tailplane was not needed, as would have been on designs without a canard configuration.

The Fo.147 was to have been capable of speeds in excess of Mach 2, with the speed limit set by the temperature of the structure as a result of kinetic heating. It had a maximum all-up weight of 18,500 lb, comparing well with the Gnat 5's more restrictive 11,100 lb maximum. According to aviation author Derek Wood, the Fo.147: "would have provided a first-class flying test-bed for variable geometry theories...even a VG conversion of the standard Gnat Mk 2 fighter would have been an invaluable research tool". However, neither the Fo.147 nor its successor, the Fo.148, would be developed to the prototype stage; the RAF showed little interest in the need for a variable-geometry trainer, although it intended to procure the General Dynamics F-111K strike aircraft.

Design
The Folland Gnat was a purpose-built light fighter aircraft, suitable as both a trainer and a combat aircraft in ground-attack and day-fighter roles. The cockpit offered many features expected in standard fighter aircraft: full pressurisation, climate control, and an ejection seat. According to Folland, the Gnat offered advantages over conventional fighter aircraft in terms of cost, man-hours, handling, serviceability, and portability. Its tricycle landing gear let it operate from austere grass airstrips, thanks to the aircraft's low weight.

The Gnat design used a conventional metal stressed-skin structure, with extensive flush-rivetting. To reduce workload and cost, intensive fabrication methods such as machining, forging, and casting were minimised. The airframe could be constructed using simple jigs without any specialised skills or tooling. The wing (for example) could be produced at a quarter of the cost, with less than one-fifth the labour, required for the wings of other contemporary fighter aircraft. Similarly, the layout and construction techniques used allow the airframe to be rapidly disassembled into its major subsections, without the use of cranes or ladders; the Gnat was vastly easier to service than most other aircraft.

Finland

The Finnish Air Force received the first of its 13 Gnats (11 fighters and 2 photo-reconnaissance planes) on 30 July 1958. It was soon found to be a problematic aircraft in service and required a lot of ground maintenance. In early 1957 a licence agreement was reached to allow Valmet to build the Gnat at Tampere in Finland, although, in the end, none were built. On 31 July 1958, Finnish Air Force Major Lauri Pekuri, a fighter ace of the Second World War, became the first Finnish pilot to break the sound barrier while flying a Gnat at Lake Luonetjärvi.

Gnat F.1 proved initially problematic in the harsh Finnish conditions. Finland was the first operational user of Gnat F.1, and the plane still had many issues yet to be resolved. All Gnats were grounded for half a year on 26 August 1958 after the destruction of GN-102 due to a technical design error in its hydraulic system, and the aircraft soon became the subject of severe criticism. Three other aircraft were also destroyed in other accidents, with two pilots ejecting and one being killed. Once the initial problems were ironed out, the plane proved to be extremely manouevreable and had good performance in the air, but also to be very maintenance intensive. The availability of spare parts was always an issue, and its maintenance a challenge to the conscript mechanics. The Gnats were removed from active service in 1972 when the Häme Wing moved to Rovaniemi, and when the new Saab 35 Drakens were brought into use.

India

In September 1956 the Indian government signed a contract for the production of the aircraft and Orpheus engine in India. The first 13 aircraft for the Indian Air Force (IAF) were assembled at Hamble-le-Rice, they were followed by partly completed aircraft and then sub-assemblies as Hindustan Aircraft slowly took over first assembly, and then production of the aircraft. The first flight of an Indian Air Force Gnat was in the United Kingdom on 11 January 1958, it was delivered to India in the hold of a C-119, and accepted by the Air Force on 30 January 1958. The first Gnat squadron was the No. 23 (Cheetah), which converted from Vampire FB.52 on 18 March 1960 using six Folland-built Gnats. The first aircraft built from Indian-built parts first flew in May 1962. The last Indian-built Gnat F.1 was delivered on 31 January 1974.

The Gnat was an extremely difficult aircraft to handle in the early stages of training. Unlike the RAF, the IAF did not buy a trainer version. Inductees were brought in from Hunter aircraft squadrons, having gained experience on powered controls. They then flew dual checks on the Hunter trainer. The pilot would do a brief full throttle run on the runway before flying solo. The Gnat had a tendency to pitch up sharply on raising the undercarriage; almost all new pilots would find it difficult to control the anticipated pitch up. With sufficient experience, pilots would exploit the nimble mini-sized aircraft to its limits.

The Gnat is credited by many independent and Indian sources as having shot down seven Pakistani North American F-86 Sabres in the 1965 war. During the initial phase of the 1965 war, an IAF Gnat, piloted by Squadron Leader Brij Pal Singh Sikand, landed at an abandoned Pakistani airstrip at Pasrur and was captured by the PAF. Two Lockheed F-104 Starfighters claimed to have forced the Gnat down. Sikand — who had a complete electrical failure on his Gnat while he got separated from the IAF flight to fight a Sabre — had to make an emergency landing at the PAF field at Pasrur. This Gnat is displayed as a war trophy in the Pakistan Air Force Museum, Karachi. After the ceasefire, one Pakistani Cessna O-1 was shot down on 16 December 1965 by a Gnat. The Gnats were used again by India in the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971. The most notable action was the Battle of Boyra where the first dogfights over East Pakistan (Bangladesh) took place. The Indian Air Force (IAF) Gnats shot down two PAF Canadair Sabres and badly damaged one. Another notable dogfight involving a Gnat was over Srinagar airfield where a lone Indian pilot held out against six Sabres, shooting two Sabres in the process, before being shot down. Gnat pilot Nirmal Jit Singh Sekhon was posthumously honoured with the Param Vir Chakra (India's highest gallantry award), becoming the only member of the IAF to be given the award.

By the end of 1971, the Gnat proved to be a frustrating opponent for the larger, heavier and older Sabre. The Gnat was referred to as a "Sabre Slayer" by the IAF since most of its combat "kills" during the two wars were against Sabres despite the Canadair Sabre Mk 6 being widely regarded as the best dogfighter of its era. Tactics called for Gnats taking on the Sabres in the vertical arena, where the Sabres were at a disadvantage. As the Gnat was lightweight and compact in shape, it was hard to see, especially at the low levels where most dogfights took place. Apart from air defence operations, in the Bangladesh Liberation War, Gnats flew anti-shipping operations, ground attack, bomber/transport escort and close air support operations.

The IAF was impressed by the Gnat's performance in the two wars but the aircraft had many technical problems including hydraulics, a temperamental pair of Aden 30 mm cannons which often failed in-flight, significant 'bent thrust' on take-off, leading to many aborted take-offs and an unreliable control system. To address these failings, the IAF issued a requirement for an improved "Gnat II" in 1972, at first specifying that the new version was to be optimised as an interceptor but then expanding the specification to include ground-attack. Over 175 of the Hindustan Aeronautics Limited-built licensed version, the Ajeet ("Unconquerable"), were produced in Bangalore. Several Gnats remain in use in private hands. Some IAF Gnats, one of which had participated in the 1971 war in East Pakistan (now Bangladesh), were presented to the Bangladesh Air Force.

United Kingdom
The first production Gnat T.1s for the Royal Air Force were delivered in February 1962 to the Central Flying School at RAF Little Rissington. The major operator of the type was 4 Flying Training School at RAF Valley, the first aircraft being delivered in November 1962. In 1964 4 FTS formed the Yellowjacks aerobatic team with all-yellow painted Gnats. The team reformed in 1965 as part of the Central Flying School as the Red Arrows which operated the Gnat until 1979 as the RAF aerobatic demonstration team. On 14 May 1965 the last Royal Air Force Gnat T.1 to be built was delivered to the Red Arrows.

Once pilots graduated from basic training on the BAC Jet Provost and gained their wings they were selected for one of three streams: fast jet, multi-engined, or helicopter. Those selected for fast jets were posted to RAF Valley for advanced training on the Gnat T.1, typically 70 hours of flying. Students would then move on to operational training using the Hawker Hunter, followed by a posting to an operational conversion unit for the type of aircraft to be flown.

Following the introduction of the Hawker Siddeley Hawk into the training role as a replacement the Gnats were withdrawn from service. The largest operator 4 FTS retired its last Gnat in November 1978. Most of the retired Gnats were delivered to No. 1 School of Technical Training at RAF Halton and other training establishments to be used as ground training airframes. When the RAF had no need for the Gnats as training airframes they were sold off. Many were bought by private operators and a number are still flying today.

Yugoslavia
Yugoslavia ordered two Gnat F.1s for evaluation; the first aircraft flew on 7 June 1958 and both were delivered to Yugoslavia by rail. The aircraft were flown by the flight test centre but no further aircraft were ordered. One aircraft was destroyed in a crash in October 1958 while the other is preserved and on display in Serbia.

Variants

 * Fo.140 Gnat
 * Private-venture prototype fighter, one built.

 * Fo.141 Gnat
 * Gnat F.1
 * Single seat lightweight fighter exported to Finland, India and Yugoslavia, 50 built by Folland at Hamble. This was also built in India under licence as the HAL Gnat.

 * Gnat FR.1
 * One aircraft for Finland was built with three nose-mounted 70mm Vinten cameras and designated FR.1, it was joined by a Ministry of Supply aircraft purchased by Folland and modified to the same standard. Both aircraft were delivered to Finland on 12 October 1960.

 * Fo.142 Gnat / Gnat F.2
 * This was to be an improved F.1 using a wing with a 6% thickness-to-chord ratio and powered by a Bristol Orpheus with simplified reheat (BOr.12SR), developing 8000 lbF (35.6 kN) thrust. A prototype wing was built but not mated to a fuselage or engine. It was anticipated that this would be capable of M 1.5 and have a "marked increase in rate of climb" Development was ended because Bristol declined to back development of the reheat.

 * Fo.143 Gnat / Gnat F.4
 * Proposed improved F.2 with air intercept radar and ability to carry guided weapons, not built.

 * Fo.144 Gnat Trainer / Gnat T.1
 * Two-seat advanced trainer aircraft for the Royal Air Force, 105 built by Hawker Siddeley.

 * Gnat F.5
 * Proposed development from January 1960, with larger wing (and flap) area. It was to be powered by two Rolls-Royce RB153 engines with reheat. The design also considered operation from aircraft carriers.

 * Fo.146
 * This was a two-seat design with variable geometry wings based on a combination of the Gnat Mk5 and the Gnat Trainer. It was to be powered by two Rolls-Royce RB153 engines with reheat and thrust-reversers. it was to be produced as either an advanced trainer with weapons capability or as a fighter. This, and later studies were led by Maurice Brennan.

 * HAL Ajeet
 * Indian development of the Gnat F.1

 * HAL Ajeet Trainer
 * Two-seat tandem trainer version for the Indian Air Force. This version was derived from the HAL Ajeet and differed considerably from the Gnat T.1 used by the RAF.

Operators

 * Finnish Air Force
 * Häme Wing
 * HävLLv 11
 * HävLLv 21
 * Indian Air Force
 * No.2 Squadron
 * No.9 Squadron
 * No.15 Squadron
 * No.18 Squadron
 * No.21 Squadron
 * No.22 Squadron
 * No.23 Squadron
 * No.24 Squadron
 * Royal Aircraft Establishment operated one former Royal Air Force Gnat T.1 from Bedford for trials work.
 * Royal Air Force
 * Central Flying School
 * Yellowjacks aerobatic team
 * 4 Flying Training School, RAF Valley
 * Red Arrows aerobatic team
 * SFR Yugoslav Air Force two aircraft for evaluation.
 * 4 Flying Training School, RAF Valley
 * Red Arrows aerobatic team
 * SFR Yugoslav Air Force two aircraft for evaluation.
 * SFR Yugoslav Air Force two aircraft for evaluation.

Accidents and incidents

 * 31 July 1956 the prototype G-39-2 crashed at Stockbridge and was destroyed after structural failure caused by tailplane flutter.7
 * 26 August 1958 Finnish Air Force GN-102 was destroyed near Tampere due to a technical design error in its hydraulic system. The pilot ejected.
 * 15 October 1958 a development F.1 XK767 fatally crashed at Stapleford, Wiltshire following presumed control failure.
 * 13 April 1966 RAF Gnat T.1 XP507 of 4FTS flew into the sea on approach to RAF Valley.
 * 23 August 1967 RAF Gnat T.1 XP512 abandoned overhead RAF Valley at 3000 ft following seizure of Hobson Unit in tailplane during previous roller landing. Instructor seriously injured; student pilot uninjured. Aircraft flew on for about five minutes in large circle before crashing on Rhosneigr beach amongst bathers but inflicted no injuries on the public.
 * 26 March 1969 RAF Gnat T.1 XR573 of the Red Arrows crashed into tree during formation display practice.
 * 20 January 1971 RAF Gnat T.1s XR545 and XR986 of the Red Arrows collided and both crashed during practice display flying at RAF Kemble.
 * 3 September 1975 RAF Gnat T.1 XS103 of the CFS collided with an Italian Air Force Lockheed F-104 Starfighter near Leck in Germany; both aircraft landed safely but due to damage the Gnat was written off.
 * 28 October 1975 RAF Gnat T.1 XR571 of the 4 FTS RAF had a hard landing and declared a write off at RAF Valley, Anglesey.
 * 30 April 1976 two RAF Gnat T.1s XP536 and XR983 of 4FTS collided and both crashed over North Wales.
 * 30 June 1976 RAF Gnat T.1 XM707 of the Red Arrows was abandoned near RAF Kemble following loss of control of tailplane.
 * 8 October 1976 RAF Gnat T.1 'XR996' of 4FTS crashed on approach at RAF Shawbury. Both crew killed.
 * 10 January 1991 Shreveport, LA N3XR crashed, attributed to fuel starvation. 2 fatalities. NTSB Id: FTW91FA028
 * 29 July 2013 Gnat T.1 XS105 (N18GT) crashed near Georgetown, SC, USA. The aircraft was destroyed.
 * 1 August 2015, Gnat T.1 XP504 (though labelled XS111) of a Gnat display team crashed at the 'CarFest North' motoring festival at Oulton Park in Cheshire, during a display at the event; no ground injuries. Pilot Kevin Whyman died in the incident.

Surviving aircraft
Several Gnats survive including some airworthy examples (particularly in the United States and the United Kingdom) and others on public display.

Notable appearances in media
Four privately owned Gnat T.1s together with an Ajeet portrayed the fictional carrier-based "Oscar EW-5894 Phallus" tactical fighter bombers flown by US Navy pilots in the 1991 comedy Hot Shots!.

title: Folland Gnat


text: User talk:81.129.100.67

title: User talk:81.129.100.67


text:
Talk:February 19

Requirements
Survivor and American Idol contestants? Maybe if they were the winners (maybe) they would belong on this page, but just competing in a popular American tv show does not make you notable. Djibouti (talk) 22:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I add Black On This Day to Wiki's External links only to get it removed. Why is being removed? Bradhemmings (talk) 15:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

 * A new external link is considered a layout change and needs to be discussed at WP:DAYS. In order to preserve consistency over all of the date articles, changes like new sections and new external links need to be applicable to all of the articles and must be applied to all of the articles.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 16:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I am just wondering what exactly it takes to get a mention on this page? I mean I think more then 7 people have died since 2000. And I know better then just adding random people on here. Does it have to be international? (rapper Pimp C died on dec 4 07, but he doesn't appear on the list) Tydamann (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

 * According to these guidelines, at an absolute minimum people need their own Wikipedia article, although it says there are also more stringent notability requirements (presumably to keep the list manageable and worth reading); those requirements don't seem to be written down there. But Pimp C wouldn't be on this list because it's for February 19, when as you said, he died on December 4, and he's on that list. =) • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 14:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nicolaus Copernicus
Please use Nicolaus Copernicus, mathematician and astronomer, and remove claims of nationality. -- Matthead Discuß   14:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

 * Please don't make unilateral declarations which go against standard policy and practice. Your undiscussed--and unjustified, really--change has been reverted. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 14:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:CalendarWatcher removed reference and added statement, which is contrary to facts Nicolaus Copernicus is clearly described on the portrait as Borussus (in other portraits and descriptions as Prussus) that means Prussian mathematician. Observing how 'modern history is pushed and finagled in Wikipedia' which differs from (f)actual history as it happened.(71.137.206.160 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC))
 * To what portrait are you referring? He was born in Torun, which is in Poland.  If you have reliable sources that you can cite that invalidate this claim, please provide them.  Otherwise, the item stays as it is.  Nothing is being "finagled".  We deal in concrete, sourced claims here.  -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 04:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

 * This and many other portraits Nicolaus Copernicus Borussus or Prussus Mathematicus, see Portrait . Also Copernicus was born in Thorn, Kulmerland, Prussia and died in Frauenburg, Ermland/Warmia Prussia, that is why for centuries he was referred to as Prussian Mathematician. He was never Polish.  (71.137.206.160 (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2009 (UTC))

 * This is a discussion we had over the years; see here. I think no mention of his nationality is strictly necessary here. Lectonar (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on February 19. 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://archive.is/20121209030340/http://www1.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/on_this_day?mth=Feb&day=19 to http://www1.sympatico.ca/cgi-bin/on_this_day?mth=Feb&day=19

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) 14:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:February 19


text:
User:Quacha

Hi, As a knowledge and science addict, I love the concept of Wikipedia. No contributions yet, but as my involvement grows, I guess this page will as well.

title: User:Quacha


text:
Talk:February 20

--81.226.178.105 (talk) 05:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)opa== Mardi Gras deserves to be listed here? How is Easter handled? ==

Someone deleted Mardi Gras on the gounds that it's not singular to 2007. But I think the date of Mardi Gras moves around the way Easter does, so maybe it does belong here. How is Easter handled in these lists? --Coppertwig 14:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Lunar Eclipse?
These happen at least 2 times each year. This is not significant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.171.36 (talk) 18:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Netscape Navigator 9.0.0.6
See Netscape Navigator 9 wiki and you should see that it is realeased in feb 20, 2008.91.110.172.127 (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2009 (UTC) Should it be onthis list or not?91.110.172.127 (talk)

Indian Independence
Indian Freedom was declared on this day in 1946. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.187.46.109 (talk) 09:02, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Hoodie Hoo day
Hoodie Hoo day is supposedly celebrated on the 20th of February in the northern hemisphere. On this winter day, people go out at noon, wave their hands over their heads and chant "Hoodie-Hoo". It is a day to chase away winter blahs, and bring in spring.

 * A National Hoodie-Hoo Day is February 20 - People
 * Hoodie-Hoo Day, February 20 - Holiday Insights

title: Talk:February 20


text:
Talk:February 21

Martyred?
With regards to Severianus:

Is the verb "martyred" neutral? I feel like it should say he was killed and is considered a martyr by (insert name of the group that considers him a martyr). But I don't know enough to make the edit right, it could be Catholics, Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Christians as a whole, etc. Aozeba (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit confused. Is your conjecture that noone should be called a martyr or just this person?   Toddst1 (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
 * He seems to have been removed. see http://www.boston-catholic-journal.com/roman-martrylogy-in-english/roman-martyrology-february-in-english.htm#February_21st  St Severian for this day. Should  be added back.  The question of the word 'martyr' is a good one.  Is it neutral? 142.163.195.93 (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

holidays and ob servances Feralia
as Feralia is not currently celebrated, it should not be here, as per Wikipedia policy on this matter. --142.163.195.93 (talk) 21:21, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:February 21