Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 37

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Ever since Madzia et al. published their landmark paper on ornithischians last year, some editors have added "Madzia et al." in the authority field on several ornithischian clade names, following the coining authority. However, I believe that these should be removed, as Madzia et al. never "re-coined" the names, only registering their definitions in a synchronized database. What do you think? Miracusaurs (talk) 07:15, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'd cite the Madzia et al. paper for clade definitions (since they are conveniently all in one place), but I would not say that they defined the clades - that would go to the original clade namers and definers (which is also provided in the Madzia et al. paper). Cougroyalty (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

The whole ICZN/ICPN situation is confusing. By ICPN standards the citation for a name is First speller, year [ICPN definer, year] which is what I did for the Madzia ea clades when I added them. If the clade is first created with ICPN standards, the citation is normal. For ICZN though, the proper citation for a clade is First user, year. A user can be someone who coined the name, or the person who created the associated ranked taxon, like Romer 1966 being the attribution for Heterodontosaurinae (Sereno 2012). Its a weird situation where the codes directly conflict, I just went with the ICPN standards when the clades were being cited mainly to ICPN publications. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 21:53, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Per some discussions on my talk page, I think its worthwhile to open up a discussion about what to do for various intermediate species without a proper article to hold them. "Coelosaurus" antiquus is one, "Ischyrosaurus" manseli is another, and a similar case could be stated for various species that aren't really referrable to their genera. I redirected the article Ischyrosaurus to Ischyrotherium, its proper senior objective synonym, but as this left the sauropod species without a genus or real article, I redirected it to Ornithopsis where it is discussed in a section with other intermediate sauropod species that are at least referred to as Ornithopsis spp. even if they aren't considered to belong to the genus, like Ornithopsis leedsii. Taxa like Cetiosaurus longus or C. glymptonensis or Coelosaurus antiquus are a similar situation, where they aren't part of the genus they are commonly subsumed under, but otherwise have no real place to discuss, as articles like Sauropoda aren't suited to discussing various dubious species without genera. C. antiquus and Acanthopholis platypus are good examples where they can't really be discussed in the genus article, the various english sauropods probably could, and other things like "Gen indet imperfectus sp. nov" (Trachodon imperfectus or Sanpasaurus imperfectus but never named with a genus) don't really have anything above Ornithischia to be placed in. It's probably worth establishing some sort of principles for how to deal with these. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:00, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I think that, in cases where an article of adequate length can be written (i.e. better than a mere stub), it's probably best to give such species their own page, as there exists no other page where they can be handled appropriately. If it turns out that there's a sufficiently large number of such species for which it would be difficult to write more than a stub, another possibility we could consider would be to create an article along the lines of "list of dubious [clade] species" that includes a paragraph-long blurb on every nomen dubium within the clade (using summary style for those species that match the criteria but merit their own page). Ornithopsis (talk) 03:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't forget "Megalosaurus" dunkeri, which was recently revealed to be not Altispinax and definitely not Megalosaurus either. Miracusaurs (talk) 04:28, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Usually we would cover them in whatever article about the higher taxon they have mostly been associated with, I think that's the approach we agreed to once. I don't think it's very useful to start creating a lot of stubs about dubious species. FunkMonk (talk) 07:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that regardless of available information having a variety of species article stubs isn't a good practice. They will not be linked to from anything but the articles (genus or family) where they would otherwise be completely discussed, since species are never listed in infoboxes or taxoboxes. I also think a parallel article to List of informally named taxa is not a solution here either, since the dubious designation is subjective and there is not even the common ground of informality to make the article slightly coherent as a list. I think in the cases where there's a genus article to discuss the species, even if they aren't definitively within the same taxon (M. dunkeri, O. manseli, O. leedsii, C. longus, C. glymptonensis, O. antiquus) they should be discussed there since there is the closest association of their history with those names. Having articles for every ex-Megalosaurus tooth species is not beneficial when they can all be discussed and summarizes in the article of that genus. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 14:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't really get what the widespread resistance to treating species as entities in their own right is about. Note that I explicitly said I only support creating separate pages if it were possible to write more than a stub, so characterizing my suggestion as "creating a lot of stubs" is incorrect. There would be plenty of places where these species articles could be linked to: on the page for the formation they were found, on the biography of their discoverer, on the [year] in paleontology page... just about the only place that they wouldn't be linked is navboxes. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

We have a few of these within Crocodylia as well: "Crocodylus" megarhinus, "Crocodylus" affinis, "Crocodylus" acer, and "Crocodylus" gariepensis. They aren't the largest articles, but they are a bit more than stubs. I think the other real issue is how other articles link to them, so that they don't float unconnected. Notably, the Crocodylus genus article does not link to them. However, there is a common extinct crocodilians navbox - Template:Extinct Crocodilia - which has links to all of them. Also, each clade where they have been found to belong links to each of them in the info box. Crocodyloidea has a link to "Crocodylus" megarhinus, and Crocodilia has links to "Crocodylus" affinis and "Crocodylus" acer. However, Osteolaeminae does not have a link to "Crocodylus" gariepensis (perhaps it should), but a cladogram in the Osteolaeminae page does show "Crocodylus" gariepensis as a member. So yeah, whether or not they should have their own page should depend on the amount of information that can be said about them. But also, there should be appropriate links to them. Just my thoughts. Cougroyalty (talk) 15:38, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I've voiced similar "if there's enough to say" thoughts on species articles in general, so unsurprisingly I throw my hat in there. I think the degree of distance should also be a factor here; Acanthopolis platypus as mentioned above is a sauropod so I think it's unnecessarily obtuse to try and cover it in an article otherwise about a nodosaur. But something like Cetiosaurus longus is, while not likely representative of a Cetiosaurus specimen, perfectly at home in an article about a history-heavy English sauropod. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:35, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Possibly the biggest issue is where is the line here drawn. Camptosaurus amplus for example is only even ?Allosaurus amplus, so is probably worthy of its own article. Acanthopholis platypus is sometimes a synonym of Macrurosaurus and could be discussed there instead of its own page. Ornithopsis leedsii is everything from its own genus to a species of Cetiosaurus to a true species of Ornithopsis. Gen. nov. imperfectus doesn't even have a genus name to classify it under. The Megalosaurus and Iguanodon articles already go into detail about the various species that are known to not be part of those now-well-established genera. Sphenospondylus gracilis should be its own article of dubious genus since its not necessarily Mantellisaurus. If we start opening the can of worms that is "dubious taxa of any rank get their own articles", we are talking about recommending the creation of a very large magnitude of articles that will inevitably be unlinked and inactive and rarely viewed. A start-class article can be written about absolutely any taxon, even Rutellum had one before it was subsumed into the informal taxa list. The possibility that an adequately informative article *can* be written doesn't mean that one *should* be written when it adds nothing that cannot be better discussed elsewhere. We would be talking of new articles for Cetiosaurus rigauxi (plesiosaur), Iguanodon praecursor (sauropdod), Acanthopholis platypus (sauropod), Camptosaurus amplus (possibly, depending on recent sources, allosaurid), Megalosaurus obtusus (archosaur), a plethora of dubious and therefore non-synonym genera (Sphenospondylus, Vectisaurus, Proplanicoxa etc). Or we can discuss dubious genera and species that are possibly part of a valid taxon at the page of that valid taxon, like could be done uncontroversially for the Cetiosaurus, Ornithopsis, Bothriospondylus, Iguanodon, Megalosaurus, Mantellisaurus, etc pages. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the wariness around defining taxonomy-based significance criteria for dubious taxon articles. Personally, I think it should come down to significance to research history, for both the taxon's original position and its current position. If a dubious taxon has been widely discussed (especially with controversy over validity), it probably warrants an article. I would agree with those last examples being discussed at the ostensible "parent" articles. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:44, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

To answer an earlier comment, the resistance to such articles is mainly standardisation and practicality. Wikipedia isn't a database like Fossil Works or something like that. We don't need to cover the minutiae of everything, there needs to be a cut off point if we want any kind of standard. FunkMonk (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Just to establish precedent for this - do we consider appearances in Prehistoric Planet as meeting the bar of notability for In popular culture sections? My inclination is no, especially if the taxa did not receive behind-the-scenes segments or external coverage. Referring ‎Olmagon to this discussion given their recent edits of this nature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't think so, but these kinds of drive by adittions of pop culture sections are nothing new and should be reverted on sight, and we do have a guideline for this.[1] FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I have to wonder if this is worth reconsidering in some capacity. For something like T. rex, a list of random appearances is surely non notable. But can we really say that appearing in Prehistoric Planet is one of the more notable things to ever happen to previous literal who Kaikaifilu? Has the notability and perception of Muttaburrasaurus and Leaellynasaura not been completely shaped by their appearance in Walking With Dinosaurs? Wikipedia isn't just about the science side of a topic even though that's what we value more. I think the issue here is the lack of secondary sources to say much about their appearances beyond "they were in it", but it's something to chew on. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:39, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

But why is it notable in itself that these taxa appeared here and there, if these appearances did not have much cultural impact in themselves? FunkMonk (talk) 02:47, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Well that's what I'm saying: I think these sorts of appearances are in some cases immensely impactful on the taxa themselves as they're propelled into being something well known instead of extremely obscure, not to mention various theories about the taxon being promoted. But of course I recognized it's very nebulous to quantify. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that, at the bare minimum, it needs to be more than a mere "spot-the-dinosaur." There needs to be a reliable source cited (not just the show itself) and it needs to be in some way a significant portrayal of the animal. Leaellynasaura is the protagonist of an episode of Walking with Dinosaurs, but Zalmoxes only appears for a few moments in Prehistoric Planet. Ornithopsis (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

• Not to toot my own horn, but I think I've established a pretty high standard for how to write "culture" sections in for example woolly mammoth, Dilophosaurus, and Gallimimus. If there is not enough coverage in the sources to write something approaching that, I don't think it's necessary to have such a section in an article. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Chicxulub crater/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Recently, the images File:Velociraptor Restoration.png and File:Dromaeosaurs.png, both by Fred Wierum, have been replaced with inaccurate versions by an obvious troll. While their vandalism has been reverted, they continue to appear as the troll versions on the pages Utahraptor, Velociraptor, List of dinosaur genera, and Velociraptor in popular culture, and the proportions of the size chart on the Deinonychus page continue to be effed up. They appear normal on every other page though. I tried removing and re-adding the image on the pop culture page, but it continues to appear as a Jurassic Park raptor. What should we do? Atlantis536 (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly, it only appears that way on my iPad with iOS 10, but not on my Mac running High Sierra. But why? Is it the same for you on your other devices? Atlantis536 (talk) 04:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

It's probably due to image caching, which is unrelated to Wikipedia. Try looking at the page in incognito mode. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

That's what I'm using. Atlantis536 (talk) 11:30, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Lately, it can take quite some time for the cache to refresh. I just double check with different browsers. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Willoughby (2nd nomination). Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I just proposed merging Diplodocimorpha into Diplodocoidea, because the articles are essentially redundant.Ornithopsis (talk) 14:24, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Yikes, one genus difference? Seems clear cut... FunkMonk (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Monolophosaurus#Description date. HFoxii (talk) 09:25, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

There is an ongoing deletion discussion for Titus (dinosaur), a specimen of Tyrannosaurus, feel free to participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There is also a nascent discussion at Talk:Titus (dinosaur) that may be of interest. It is about the self-published "scientific reports" that often accompany auctions or exhibits, and whether or not they can be considered reliable sources. A large portion of the references at Titus, which was predominantly written by editors outside of the project, are currently to its "report". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

• I'm on team merge with this one, as with most stubby specimen articles. FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

More of the same

There is now an article for Titanosaur (New York City), the AMNH specimen of Patagotitan that is on display. It's a glorified stub right now. I'm starting a merge discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Dealing with this issue

I think we will inevitably keep conflicting with external editors about these kinds of articles if we do not have internal notability guidelines. I would like to propose that we expand our guidelines at WP:DINO#Which articles should be created. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

External editors don't and won't care about our internal guidelines. I think in future we should usually attempt to discreetly make merge notices on the article talkpage first, rather than take them to AfD, which usually attracts unwanted outside attention. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Merging is always better, yes, because then at least the redirects have been taken over (perhaps preventing the article from being created again), and article creators won't feel "their" article is deleted. That said, it is good to have specific guidelines that can be pointed to in case such drive-by article creators complain. FunkMonk (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

There has just been a comment from an external editor on the Titus AfD that they are defaulting to general notability guidelines because we lack one of our own. I think there's a reasonable case for codifying our thoughts here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yes, exactly why AFD is a bad idea, it feels like an "attack" on the article creator, and they will fight harder for a keep than if it was just a merge request. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

SchnitzelBratz24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the article creator, has nothing to do with this AfD, it's just ARSholes being ARSholes. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with expanding the guideline so that we have at least have something to point to. I have a fuzzy idea that a specimen needs longer-term significance separate from a single museum exhibit or other event. Also that purported size and/or completeness are not qualifiers of significance. Maybe needing some kind of major impact of the field of paleontology, or very long term (years) of public interest and coverage.

Though yes, redirecting and/or merging such specimen articles seems like a better idea than taking them to AfD, because ARS always seems to get involved. And then the keep side is very loud about claiming that routine coverage is actually indicative of notability. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Merge proposal

At the prompting of IJReid on the WP:PALEO discord. I've gone ahead and created the merge proposal, see Talk:Titus_(dinosaur) Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Velociraptor has received two "Satisfactory" notations on WP:URFA/2020A, and we need one more reviewer to ensure that it still meets the FA standards. Can someone review the URFA/2020 instructions and make a notation indicating if this article meets FA standards? Feel free to ping me with any questions. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I may have a look, perhaps PaleoNeolitic, who has been expanding the article lately, could take a look if issues arise? FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Ye absolutely. Some expansion is required around the Description section. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 13:24, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Notify me when you feel the article is adequate, PaleoNeolitic, then I'll have a read through. Also notifying Z1720 of this. FunkMonk (talk) 23:32, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the article, the skull description seems absurdly short and imprecise, and the feathers which are unknown get a longer section than the entire skeleton... FunkMonk (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the Classification section is also wanting, but lack the time to expand it myself... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

A user has decided that the Titus (dinosaur) discussion was improperly closed, and has now pinged all AfD participants. Feel free to vote if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I have begun an WP:ANI for WP:CANVASsing by the ARS project, to see what administrators and outside opinions think. The discussion can be found here. Ciao. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:31, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Sorry people. Massive can of worms opened by me. Will be more careful in future :( YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@YorkshireExpat: It's not your fault, your prompt to close the merge was fine. It was Bruxton who opened the can of worms, not you. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

@Hemiauchenia: Not a fair characterization of a merge discussion that resembled a Kangaroo court and was closed in a mere two weeks. If it was a benefit to the project to merge the article, there would not be robust opposition. I hope we can work together in the future because the project needs both of us rowing the boat in the same direction. Bruxton (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

A mere two weeks? Two weeks is a courtesy by site-wide standards. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I must say though, my experiences at AfD have not been very positive. Move discussions tend to be a little bit more civilised, and if I'd just have quitely done a merge (which I would have had I realised the 'specimens' page existed), it would have got very little attention, and just quietly got done. I'll chalk it to experience. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that opening a merge rather than an AfD would have been a better first course of action that would have resulted in less controversy, but I don't think that opening the AfD was unreasonable either, as often AfD discussions do agree to merge articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:30, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

To be fair to AfD, both of the recent ones have been absolute poor showings of how they are. Emily Willoughby was poor timing that brought in a lot of meatpuppets, and Titus was targetted for "rescuing" especially as a merge discussion was far more appropriate. However, the personal criticisms for how you handled the merge closure were uncalled for since everything was done by the book apart from the initial notifications of privy editors (which is still only a guideline for courtesy). AfD in general has become a bad apple. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 13:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Aachenosaurus is a plant that was believed (by it's describer) to be a dinosaur. It's long had a WikiProject Dinosaurs talk page banner (and previous discussions here have affirmed that it should have the banner). It's now been moved to Nicolia (plant), as Aachenosaurus is considered a synonym. Nicolia has never been considered to be a dinosaur, but the article discusses the status of Aachenosaurus. Should Nicolia has a dinosaur banner? It currently does. Should the Aachenosaurus redirect have a dinosaur banner? It currently does not. Plantdrew (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

The article is still relevant to WikiProject Dinosaurs, so I think it should keep the banner. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

But if it's now a plant, then it would be relevant to Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 17:53, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Things can be relevant to more than one WikiProject. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Ornithopsis. It was thought at one time to be a dinosaur fossil, and the name Aachenosaurus was given on this assumption, but the fossils are now considered to be (a) fossil wood, and (b) the same genus as the earlier named plant genus Nicolia. Because of its history, it is relevant to WP Dinosaurs; because of its current status it is relevant to WP Plants. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:37, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought you said I wasn't welcome on Wikipedia. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 12:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

I have proposed the redirection of Guaibasauridae to Guaibasaurus at Talk:Guaibasaurus#Merge proposal, please participate if interested. Thanks. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 23:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

The thumbnails of two images on the Velociraptor article, File:Velociraptor Restoration.png and File:Velociraptor mongoliensis.jpg, appear to me as inaccurate Jurassic Park-style raptors ([2], [3]), rather than the accurate feathered depictions seen when the full-size image is viewed. What's going on here? SevenSpheres (talk) 03:34, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

This was resolved months ago. The vandalised images remain in your cache, but have been fixed on the actual server-end. To fix this, see [4]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:38, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

No change after clearing cache. I see this issue in both Chrome and Firefox. SevenSpheres (talk) 03:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Try Wikipedia:Bypass your cache. Given that the problem is clearly on your end and is not an issue for the rest of Wikipedia, I don't see how it's this WikiProjects responsibility to troubleshoot your technical issues. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:48, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I checked on another device (phone) and this issue indeed isn't present there. Very strange that it persists across browsers and after clearing/bypassing the cache. SevenSpheres (talk) 03:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I've started to work on this page in my userspace. What do you think about it? Do you think it would work as a published article (minus the "Comments" section ofc)? Miracusaurs (talk) 06:55, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Gonna be a big old page isn't it? YorkshireExpat (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Assuming I don't delete it before completion because some templates will fail from overuse, that is. Miracusaurs (talk) 12:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

• Why have a separate list from list of dinosaurs? I know the scope is different, but seems it would be better to just have one. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Alternatively, since we already have List of sauropod species, perhaps it would be better to split it into multiple lists if the target is species-level? --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 16:53, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

As the principal author of List of sauropod species, I am inclined to think that more detailed species-level lists are preferable to the very plain genus list, but that (as with the list I made) they should be split into separate lists, not one master list for all dinosaurs. Ornithopsis (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

The formatting of this list is nicer than the genus page, though - why is the genus page just a plain list? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

If I had to choose, I'd rather have a species-level list to showcase the underappreciated species-level diversity of non-avian dinosaurs. But I'm fine with revamping the genus list to be a table (to make it similar to List of African dinosaurs and Enantiornithes for example) Miracusaurs (talk) 07:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

There were some proposals for revamping the page here:[5] FunkMonk (talk) 08:57, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

YorkshireExpat FunkMonk Slate Weasel Lythronaxargestes I'll be taking a break from this page for a while, so I'll invite you to continue adding to my list. Miracusaurs (talk) 09:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I made some corrections on a taxobox on Ubirajara jubatus (there are other problems there I realise). The taxobox was subsequently removed and it was stated that nomina nuda don't get taxoboxes. That is contradicted in few places, although I realise that some of these are not fossil taxa, and in some cases, I added the taxobox, possibly erroneously. Just looking for a steer. Thanks. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

While I agree that they should not have taxoboxes, I've seen taxoboxes used in some weird ways, like in Barbary lion (which is not recognised as a distinct taxon anymore) or Pheasant, which is not a taxon. River dolphin seems to have gone for a custom infobox, as it isn't a taxon either. So perhaps this actually needs a wider discussion at WP:TOL so we can make a guideline; what gets taxoboxes and what does not? FunkMonk (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel like there may be difficulties achieving consensus for a universal guideline at TOL, if BLP articles are any precedent. It's probably worth a shot though. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe taxobox is becoming a bit of a misnomer. Population as a parameter came about from a misuse of {{subspeciesbox}} with cats. Not seen the use at River Dolphin before. Paraphyly is taken care of by {{Paraphyletic group}}, but there's nothing for polyphyly. I guess taxoboxes are just a specific instance of an infobox. I like them, as you may have gathered, so tend to throw them about liberally. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Started a centralised TOL discussion of this here:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Since 2006, we have had a page on "Protrachodon" that was created by Mgiganteus1, which since its inception has been a redirect to Orthomerus, and is noted as such on the List of dinosaur genera page. However, Dr. Brian Curtice has recently noticed that it was never named as a genus (at least intentionally), nor was it ever synonymized with Orthomerus. Instead, as the link seems to imply, Nopcsa only created the family "Protrachodontidae" as a shorthand for primitive "trachodonts", and the only mention of "Protrachodon" appears to be a typo for "Protrachodontidae". In light of this information, what should we do about our "Protrachodon" entries? Atlantis536 (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Since the name exists as a typo in the literature, it is a potential valid search term, so should redirect to whatever makes sense. But yeah, if it was never meant to be a genus, shouldn't be listed as such. FunkMonk (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

1. Acrocanthosaurus
2. Albertosaurus
3. Allosaurus
4. Archaeopteryx
5. Compsognathus
6. Daspletosaurus
7. Deinonychus
8. Dinosaur
9. Diplodocus
10. Iguanodon
11. Lambeosaurus
12. Majungasaurus
13. Massospondylus
14. Parasaurolophus
15. Stegosaurus
16. Styracosaurus
17. Thescelosaurus
18. Triceratops
19. Velociraptor

• This is pretty important. My approach would be to start with articles that have had some significant recent work on them post FAC, such as Compsognathus (worked on by Jens Lallensack) and Velociraptor (worked on by PaleoNeolitic), and review them on their talk pages after asking those who worked on them recently if they would be willing to polish the articles accordingly. That could get the ball rolling, but based on how many there are, I'm sure some will slip through the cracks. I'm not sure if the Dinosaur FAR is even done yet, doesn't seem so, since it's still listed. FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

  I would like to resume work. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  I can take a look at Allosaurus, Diplodocus and Stegosaurus once I'm finished with the GAN for Mymoorapelta. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 20:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Someone from this project may want to take a look at this article. Recent edits have deleted a number of named refs 76.14.122.5 (talk) 22:43, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

It's fine. It was a bunch of WP:SYNTH. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

What do other project editors think? Based on our past run-ins with the editing community at large, my feeling is that we need to distinguish our assessments. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:09, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if the artistic restorations should be included in the taxboxes right under the photos of the fossils. It might to better to have a consistent place for readers to see flesh and blood pictures instead of having them in random places in the article for them to scroll down to. LittleJerry (talk) 22:12, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the places they are usually used, description or palaeobiology sections, random, though (some restorations are randomly placed by drive-by editors, but that shouldn't be the norm). I think the problem with putting them in taxoboxes is that it gives WP:undue weight to what is usually just a snapshot in time of how we think they looked like (or what some researchers think, others may disagree), which changes every few years, where the bare skeletons are more solid and less changeable. FunkMonk (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asifcroco
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bolanicyon
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Buzdartherium
4. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kahamachli
5. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karkhimachli
6. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kilgai
7. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moolatrilo
8. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakitherium
9. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakiwheel
10. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sulaimanitherium
11. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zahrisaurus

Those might interest you. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Should be added to List of informally named dinosaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 11:26, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I just noticed Velociraptor has been selected for TFA again on October 30[7], so we should probably prioritise updating it if we find it lacking somehow. We could maybe make a turbo group peer review. Pinging PaleoNeolitic, who recently worked on it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:25, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I have been very busy this last time, but I'll do my best to add/revise information. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I currently review Apatosaurinae at GAN, and since I think that best approaches to write such subfamily articles have not yet been discussed here, and an GA will serve as example for future articles, I thought it would be prudent to ask for opinion here. What should be included in such an article, how general should it be, what should be the focus? The Apatosaurinae article consists mostly of material copied from the Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus articles, including the full history and discovery and paleobiology. I am not arguing that this approach is necessarily wrong (it might be the most practical indeed); but it would be ideal to agree on the best approach. Opinions? Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:40, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't have good precedents even for families I believe, the closest to this case I can think of is Raphinae. I think higher level articles should be much more simplified, and focus more on classification and other large picture issues, not simply repeat the child articles. But should certainly be discussed, as this will set a standard to follow. FunkMonk (talk) 11:53, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Which, when applied to Apatosaurinae, would mean a much shorter article I guess. One problem I see with that article at the moment is that the information that is actually specific for that clade gets a bit lost (is hard to find in the amount of text), so refocussing it and strictly applying WP:Summary style to aspects that are not in focus (excavation history, paleobiology, paleoecology) might solve this. Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

I would be inclined to agree that a focus on larger topics like evolutionary history, relationships to other clades, paleobiology and paleoecology should be the bulk of these kinds of articles. A section on the History of Discovery should probably focus on the clade, and less on the genera contained within, otherwise these kinds of articles will start getting very long very quick. Raphinae actually seems to be a pretty decent example, though of course thats more recent than most animals we work with. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I like how Raphinae goes into some classification history nitty gritty that the child articles don't get into, because they have a different focus. Perhaps IJReid, who wrote the article, could say something about his thoughts behind it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

What is most appropriate for suprageneric clade articles will depend a lot on the particulars of the clade, so I think we should avoid forming firm guidelines for the most part, at least until more such articles have been expanded and we have a better idea of what works and what doesn't. Apatosaurinae is a particularly tricky example, because the taxonomic histories of its only two genera are closely intertwined (i.e. both genera were near-universally considered synonymous for a century, we really only have the one recent paper to go on supporting their separation, and that paper didn't even find consistent support for either genus being monophyletic). I agree with FunkMonk that higher-level articles should focus on bigger-picture issues; evolutionary history and biogeography are other big-picture topics worth covering. I would consider paleobiology to be another big-picture topic, but on clade articles it should focus on big-picture aspects, not minor ones like the ontogenetic status of individual specimens. Paleoecology could perhaps be rolled into a biogeography section. Ornithopsis (talk) 14:52, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, certainly different clades require different approaches. The approach used in Apatosaurinae works only because the clade is quite stable. An article about a more disputed clade, where it is unclear what genera should be included, should maybe focus on taxonomic technicialities only. The clade Ceratosauridae contains only two genera, Ceratosaurus and Genyodectes, the latter of which is very poorly known. In this case, it makes no sense to copy the entire "paleobiology" section from the Ceratosaurus article. Only when we have at least two stable, well-known genera in the clade, it starts to make sense.

One question remains for me: If I understand correctly, you are all arguing that an article about a suprageneric clade should be more general than the genus articles when summarizing the information of the latter. However, Apatosaurinae is not yet too long. So should we already generalize it, arriving at a shorter article, or do we begin to generalize only once an article becomes too long? Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:59, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the brevity of the article should be seen as an issue. When writing Raphinae, one of the big things to discuss at that page rather than at the genus pages was the history of the classification of the group, especially the various names given. Details like description, or discovery of fossils, aren't as relevant to the clade itself, apart from when the description discusses synapomorphies or autapomorphies. The discovery for Apatosaurinae shouldn't divulge too much into early specimens, especially since Apatosaurinae was only introduced in 1927. In my own view, the history of Apatosaurinae would probably best discuss the synonymy, what taxa have been thought to fall within the subfamily, and where the subfamily has placed/justification for its separation as a clade. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

IJReid: I think that the history of the group before it was formally named is worth discussing. For example, the discovery of the first apatosaurine fossils in 1877, the first recognition of similarities between Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus (Marsh 1881), and the synonymization of Apatosaurus and Brontosaurus by Riggs are all obviously important parts of the history of Apatosaurinae that predate its naming as a suprageneric taxon.

Jens: I don't think that the article necessarily needs to be cut significantly to make it more general, as long as the article doesn't get too long. A few things should probably be cut because they only apply to individual species or specimens and aren't meaningful to the clade as a whole, though. Ornithopsis (talk) 19:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I cut down on the article a bit and added some of the suggestions; is this state better? AFH (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The only consensus seems to be that information specific for Apatosaurinae should have priority (and I was pushing towards more information on clade definition, Amphicoelias/Atlantosaurus already in the review).

However, I personally think that IJReid made a good point that the "History" section is not really about the clade Apatosaurinae. For example, the naming of the clade, and the history of its contents, is not even mentioned there; you provide this information in the "Classification" section instead. One option is to reduce the early history to a single sub-section "Initial discoveries", and then have a section on "Naming of Apatosaurinae" that focusses on the clade, and maybe a third section about new species and the re-separation of Apatosaurus/Brontosaurus, and how the generic content of Apatosaurinae, and its phylogenetic placement, changed over time. However, Ornithopsis feels that the detail currently provided in the history section is justified. So I do not see a clear consensus at the moment, so for the Apatosaurinae GAN, I think that we are not required to make changes regarding focus and generalisation (which should not stop you to implement any suggestion that makes sense to you anyways). Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

On the 6th of September User:LitVidyut changed the parent taxon of Silesauridae from Dracohors to Ornithischia/? This is obviously a controversial change, so I believe it merits discussion here. I for one am undecided; while it does seem to be the consensus in recent studies, the hypothesis is only advanced by one set of researchers (Rodrigo Muller and Mauricio Garcia). What do you think should be done here? Miracusaurs (talk) 10:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

@Miracusaurs: Two studies by the same authors do not make a consensus, obviously. I think we should just revert it back. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:03, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

I've reverted it. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 14:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

The idea here is that there should be an ‘?’ there. I attempted to add that, similar to how Herrerasauridae has an (?) next to Saurischia and Dinosauria. LitVidyut (talk) 21:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The thing is that silesaurids as ornithischians are only proposed by a single set of researchers, while herrerasaurids as saurischians are supported by multiple papers that far outnumber those that consider them non-dinosaurian. Miracusaurs (talk) 22:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It makes sense to group them in the broadest group that they have been attributed to, in this case is clearly Dracohors. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

I've proposed to merge the commercial specimen Big John (dinosaur) into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction, if anyone wants to have their say. FunkMonk (talk) 17:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Hm, but based on what policy could it be merged? It is not a stub, it appears to meet the inclusion criteria due to the extensive news coverage, and merging for organizational reasons won't work because the article is too long. The list List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction can't incorporate much text, so this would technically not be a merge but a deletion, or do I see this wrong? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:36, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

I realistically think that Triceratops would be a better merge target. Hemiauchenia (talk) 17:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

But based on what reason that is listed under Wikipedia:Merging? Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Note that there is now an entire paper on this specimen [8], with nice image material that could be included. I do believe that individual specimens can be notable enough to warrant their own articles, and I have written such myself in the past, e.g. Edmontosaurus mummy AMNH 5060. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Palaeopteryx#Merge with "List of informally named dinosaurs" that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)]]

The merge proposal has been lingering since 23 Jun 2023 with no majority consensus, so let's get some so I can eventually close it and decide what to do from there. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:30, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council § Determining the future of B-class checklists. This project is being notified since it is one of the 82 WikiProjects that opted-in to support B-checklists (B1-B6) in your project banner. DFlhb (talk) 11:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

There is a requested merge discussion at Talk:Barosaurus#Merge proposal for merging the Gordo (dinosaur) page into the Barosaurus page that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:42, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Informally_named_dinosaurs. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:14, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

I just created a new overview article for Dinosaur mummy. Problem here is that this term is only used informally. The article also only mentions the hadrosaurid specimens; this is because fossils such as Borealopelta are rarely called like this in the technical literature (in the media, it is usually a "mummy" though). Still, and I also discussed this with FunkMonk: We need some coverage about this topic. So if anybody has concerns (or even better: alternative proposals), please let me know. If we keep it, we could add a section that discusses the individual mummies on a per-paragraph basis, that could be quite useful as an overview. Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a solid beginning, and regarding how to define the scope, a Google scholar search on mummified dinosaur (rather than dinosaur mummy) gave some additional sources that could maybe be useful. This one[9] provides this definition: "Such specimens often have small patches of skin on different parts of the body, although a few rare specimens, known as “mummified” hadrosaurs, preserve integument over large regions of the body. Although “mummified” specimens tend to provide information on the overall body integument, skin patches can also contribute to understanding the diversity and variation of scale type in a species or an individual." I have created some redirects for the article. FunkMonk (talk) 20:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah excellent, that fits the definition I formulated for the article quite precisely. Except that they talk about "mummified hadrosaurs", not dinosaur mummies. I was thinking if it would be better to name the article "hadrosaur mummy", which is probably more precise (at least for the time being), but "dinosaur mummy" is much more common as a term. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

It could maybe be noted that the term hadrosaur mummy has also been used, because all known specimens are hadrosaurs. But in the (let's hope) event that any other kind of mummified dinosaur is found, it's good to have a broad title. By coincidence when writing Nasutoceratops, I noticed a paper on ceratopsian skin impressions called a Protoceratops specimen with possibly prepared away skin on the head "mummified" in an image caption:[10] FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Added. Also added examples of other dinosaur specimens for which the term "mummy" has been occasionally used. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2024 (UTC)