Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 37

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37

Ornithischian attributions

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)

Species without proper genus name

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)

Prehistoric Planet

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)

Featured Article Save Award for Chicxulub crater

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)

Velociraptor images replaced by troll

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)

Emily Willoughby up for deletion again

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

Merge Diplodocimorpha into Diplodocoidea

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)

Description date of Monolophosaurus

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

Titus (dinosaur)

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)

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)

Reviewer needed for Velociraptor

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)

Titus (dinosaur) merger discussion reopened

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

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)

Merge proposal

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)

Bizarre issue with Velociraptor images

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)

User:Miracusaurs/List of non-avian dinosaur species

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)
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)

Taxoboxes for nomina nuda

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)

The bizarre case of "Protrachodon"

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)
Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

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
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 !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

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

Lesothosaurus

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)

Project-independent quality assessments

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)

Should artistic restorations be included in the taxboxes?

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)

Malkani, again

See also: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 35 § Taxa named by Malkani, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 26 § What do we do about Malkani's dinosaurs
  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)

Velociraptor reused at TFA

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)

How to write subfamily articles

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)

Parent of Silesauridae

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)

Big John (dinosaur) proposed for merging

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)

Requested move at Talk:Palaeopteryx#Merge with "List of informally named dinosaurs"

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)

B-checklist in project template

 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)

Requested merge at Talk:Barosaurus#Merge proposal

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)

Merge proposal at Talk:Coelurosauria#Merge_proposal_for_Tyrannoraptora_and_Maniraptoromorpha

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

List of informally named dinosaurs at RSN

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

Dinosaur mummy

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)

Requested move at Talk:Anzu wyliei#Requested move 20 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Anzu wyliei#Requested move 20 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Cultural depictions of dinosaurs

Cultural depictions of dinosaurs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Caenagnathoidea into Oviraptorosauria

I've added a merge proposal to Talk:Caenagnathoidea to merge it with Oviraptorosauria for the following reasons:

  1. The vast majority of constituent taxa are shared by both clades.
  2. The taxa excluded from the smaller clade are ambiguous due to conflicting taxonomies.
  3. Any new information added to caenagnathoidea would need to also be added to oviraptorosauria for that reason.
  4. Portions of text from both pages are copy/pasted onto one another.
  5. Similar merges occurred recently for Tyrannoraptora and Maniraptoromorpha for reasons that apply equally to this merge.

Thank you for your time. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:32, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Notability discussions

Two discussions that might be of interest to the project: Wikipedia talk:Notability#Biology and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Species notability. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:24, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

And a subsequent related discussion on the Paleo project[11], where we should probably centralise discussion if we want to. FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
Another discussion has appeared on the radar, under the proposal talk page for the new guideline (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(species)#Fossil_taxa). It could use comments from all WP:DINO editors. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Dinosaur! (1985 documentary): relevant content deleted

I disagree with the suppression of two sections in the article "Dinosaur! (1985 film)" so I started the discussion section titled "Relevant content deleted" on the talk page: Talk:Dinosaur! (1985 film). Thank you in advance. Kintaro (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

You've been told three times now on three different talk pages by three different editors that it doesn't comply with WP:unsourced and WP:synth. Give it a rest. It doesn't matter how many different places you bring it up, it's not an opinion, it's Wikipedia-wide policy. FunkMonk (talk) 18:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Mass merge proposal for redundant clade pages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
A mixed set of out comes for a complex omnibus proposal, looking to consolidate small clades into their nearest parents, on the basis of short text and context. Many were implemented (see list under Subproposal, Merges Ready to Execute); some were opposed; those remaining are probably best discussed separately, as this discussion has been stale since May. Klbrain (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

As inspired by the above merge proposal for Caenagnathoidea and having been thinking about a similar case at Cerapoda the other day, and so I decided to dig through the entire tree of dinosaur articles to find how many similar cases there might be. Below the list of articles I think should be merged into their nearest parent clade, all grouped here as opposed to opening well over a dozen separate merge requests across many talk pages. I'm happy to elaborate on my reasoning for individual cases, but as a rule I'm targeting clades which have little to say about them distinct from the larger group they are apart of. Their anatomy, biology, biogeography, etc provides little unique material and even with work on expansion there would be little to say about these clades aside from a taxobox list, a few diagnostic traits, and some phylogenetic trees. Clades which simply exist to name a node that unites two other clades (such as the example of Cerapoda) are prime candidates here, especially when multiple of these are nested sequentially. The list is as following, with question marks denoting cases I feel less certain about:

Open to opinions on any of the above or nomination of any further clades. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:39, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

We could maybe get rid of Avebrevicauda and Ornithothoraces, which are both very similar to Pygostylia in content. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Off-topic but where could I propose something similar for pterosaurs (or any other group of organisms)? I apologize; I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia talk. 74.101.255.131 (talk) 09:16, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
At WT:PAL. For non-extinct animals it would be at WT:TREE I assume, although I'm not certain. I have a rough proposal in the works already, but I wasn't going to bring it up until after we're done with all the dinosaurs. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
To follow-up on my earlier comment, I have a rough draft of what I think the pterosaur pages would look like after merging a number of the redundant nodes. You can see it here. Basically, there would only need to be 6 pages for clades above the family level - Pterosauria, Pterodactyloidea, Archaeopterodactyloidea, Pteranodontia, Azhdarchoidea, and Ornithocheiromorpha, which is many fewer than currently exist. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:45, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: Caenagnathoidea (obviously), Heterodontosaurinae, Huayangosauridae, Nodosaurinae, Thescelosaurinae, Averostra, Neotheropoda, Orionides, Saltasaurini, Furileusauria, Carnotaurini, Neovenatoridae, Pennaraptora, Daspletosaurini, Gravisauria, Ankylosaurinae

Support, but not right now: Saurornitholestinae, Dromaeosaurinae, Velociraptorinae: Merging all three of these is gonna be a big undertaking and there's some major literature thats going to be published soon that I suspect will change a lot of this.
Oppose:

  • Sinovenatorinae and Troodontinae: Both are relatively stable for the time being and they are sister taxa, so they are not superfluous.
  • Hadrosauromorpha: I oppose on practical grounds unless its possible to introduce collapsible text nested in multiple tiers to the infoboxes because the infobox for Hadrosauroidea would be insanely long and would mess with the layout of the page.

My main concern is that this is gonna be a lot of busy work. Do we have people willing to get this done and are there specific design/scientific guidelines that should be followed? --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It will require a bit of work, but I think for something with such a big impact it will be worthwhile, and it will ease work in the future as work can be focused on a smaller number of more meaningful clade-level articles. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

General Comment - I wonder if it's possible to, on certain articles, make the entire taxonlist in the taxobox collapsible? This could solve taxobox length issues holding back several merges such as Hadrosauromorpha and Lithostrotia. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

We could also just put "see below" and have a subsection of the article listing the genera if the infobox becomes too unwieldy. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
A collapsible list would be a more elegant solution, in my opinion. Should be possible The Morrison Man (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm against the collapsible lists, because when expanded they tend to have an ugly and problematic cascading effect of pushing images down which can also impact images and cladograms on the other side of the page creating gharish whitespaces. If the taxon list is unreasonably long thats probably a sign that the article when finished would also be unreasonably long, and maybe more subgroups need to be split (eg, Diamantinasauria, Lirainosaurinae, Saltasauroidea, Colossosauria, Eutitanosauria (even Andesauridae/oidea) would take up much of the genera of the titanosaur article). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:29, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
That was my suggestion in the sub-proposal below for sauropods. Eutitanosauria as I recall is just a node for Colossosauria + Saltasauroidea so it would probably be unnecessary as an article, but I agree with the other suggestions here. Generally, the fact that the lists are collapsible mostly circumvents the formatting issues. Most of these merges will not require long lists of genera. The exceptions will be taxa like Hadrosauriformes, Macronaria, and I think we can make a different accommodation in those cases. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I like the collapsible lists because they prevent the need to create articles just for arbitrary taxonlist divides. Lithostrotia and Hadrosauromorpha remain the foremost examples of articles that lack strong reason to exist for content reasons but would need to if we lack a workaround for absurdly long lists of genera. To me, preventing the splitting of whole other articles just to split up taxobox space is more of a priority than avoiding a collapsible list. I don't think the cascading effect is a noteworthy concern because they can simply be collapsed again when the reader isn't actively looking at the list, causing minimal obstruction. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Make what is concluded into guidelines

  • As I mentioned on Discord, since this discussion has now gotten far, I think we should try to formulate some of the conclusions into general guidelines, so we don't end up with the same mess down the line anyway because drive-by editors undo some of these changes. Something about the number of taxa included in a clade determines if it should be an article, what to do with basal or indeterminate taxa, etc. FunkMonk (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree. I'll draw up a spreadsheet and see what the commonalities between the suggested merges have been and see if that can be used to inform policies going forward. I'm going to restrict this to ornithischians and theropods, because the consensus for how to approach the sauropods seems to be less resolved. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 23:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place to give feedback, but I do not like the guidelines. I think the logic behind these merging decisions is very case by case and building a cage of precedent with such specific rules as numbers of taxa and publications is going to lead to nothing but trouble down the line. I've been advocating for the merging of subfamily and tribe level articles on the understanding they could be considered for reinstatement in the future if someone finds enough to write about them and these guidelines would make that in direct opposition to policy. Rule two in particular I don't like - how much unique material there is to say about a given group is a key consideration and there's no saying that will always necessarily be the same for two sister taxa. Dipldocinae and Apatosaurinae is an already cited example that should, in my opinion, break this rule, as the latter is commented on far more for its large scale taxonomy and anatomical distinctiveness. The third rule seems redundant as it includes an exception based on an entirely undefined level of "compelling morphological distinction" which just brings it back to "use judgement on a case by case basis" instead of having a guideline. I personally would prefer not creating guidelines at all but if we do I do not like this first draft of them. The node rule seems irrelevant to our concern; Maginocephalia and Averostra both have two subclades considered worthy of articles but they have each received opposition here; and if you think Marginocephalia is article worthy, then Cerapoda also meets this rule, despite being used as a counterexample in the rule itself. What matters is whether the combination of those subclades adds up to a clade that is worth discussing as its own article, which doesn't seem to correlate to the criteria of this rule to me. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:34, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Instead of firm rules based on arbitrary criteria I would prefer an explanation behind the general philosophy of what we're looking for when we decide on these merges/splits to act as guidelines. I think this would achieve the desired role of having guidelines without restricting our choises using inflexible rules that can't accomodate the actual motivating factors behind these decisions. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Please put your suggestions for any proposed guidelines in the appropriate subproposal, so we can make sure they're all in one place if we want to try and reach some kind of consensus. I have no strong opinions about guidelines, I just made my proposal as an exercise in trying to retroactively apply rules to decisions we seem to have come to by vibes only, and those were what I came up with. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Subproposal, Ornithischian taxonomy

  • Support for the ornithischian clades (I'll maybe look into the other groups later. Below is my idea for taxonomic organization, bold is clades with current articles: (Alternatives: Pachyrhinosaurini [incl Pachyrostra] is acceptable if there is enough about the anagenesis to write about; Hadrosauromorpha is okay if the genus list at Hadrosauriformes becomes too long)

Ornithischia (incl Saphornithischia, Genasauria)
Silesauridae (incl Sulcimentisauria)
Heterodontosauridae (incl Heterodontosaurinae)
Thyreophora (incl Thyreophoroidea, Eurypoda)
Stegosauria (incl Huayangosauridae?)
Stegosauridae (incl Dacentrurinae, Stegosaurinae)
Ankylosauria (incl Euankylosauria)
Parankylosauria
Polacanthinae
Nodosauridae (incl Nodosaurinae, Struthiosaurini, Panoplosaurini)
Ankylosauridae (incl Shamosaurinae)
Ankylosaurinae (incl Ankylosaurini, Euoplocephalini)
Neornithischia (incl Cerapoda, Marginocephalia?)
Thescelosauridae (incl Jeholosauridae, Orodrominae, Thescelosaurinae)
Pachycephalosauria (incl Pachycephalosauridae, Pachycephalosaurinae, Pachycephalosaurini)
Ceratopsia (incl Neoceratopsia, Archaeoceratopsidae, Euceratopsia, Coronosauria, Ceratopsoidea, Ceratopsomorpha)
Chaoyangsauridae
Leptoceratopsidae
Protoceratopsidae
Ceratopsidae
Centrosaurinae (incl Nasutoceratopsini, Eucentrosaura, Centrosaurini, Pachyrhinosaurini, Pachyrostra)
Chasmosaurinae (incl Triceratopsini)
Ornithopoda (incl Clypeodonta, Iguanodontia, Euiguanodontia, Dryomorpha)
Hypsilophodontidae (incl Hypsilophodontia)
Rhabdodontomorpha
Rhabdodontidae
Elasmaria
Dryosauridae
Ankylopollexia (incl Styracosterna, Neoiguanodontia)
Hadrosauriformes (incl Iguanodontidae, Hadrosauroidea, Hadrosauromorpha)
Hadrosauridae (incl Euhadrosauria)
Saurolophinae (incl Austrokritosauria, Brachylophosaurini, Saurolophini, Kritosaurini, Edmontosaurini)
Lambeosaurinae (incl Aralosaurini, Tsintaosaurini, Arenysaurini)
Corythosauria (incl Parasaurolophini, Lambeosaurini)

  • My general feelings are that nodes are not very useful as there is not much to discuss beyond shared traits and ancestry, which can also fit in the parent article. Tribes are normally very limited in scope and don't get much information beyond the genera (except if there is good cases for stuff like anagensis, which could then be discussed at the smallest clade containing it). Substantial uncertainties (Hadrosauriformes and Hadrosauroidea are almost identical and differ in the placement of Iguanodon, causing many genera to be one or the other) would cause duplication of genera if not contained within a single parent. And lastly article size, some nodes like Marginocephalia even though they are important, really can't have much content since their subgroups are so different. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    I should also mention that I'm more than willing to tackle the ornithischian taxonomy pages and revamp, even though I'm not that active overall, since its directly relevant to some things I'm doing elsewhere. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 05:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    I agree more or less. Marginocephalia is important enough that it should have an article in my opinion, even if it turns out to be very short. There are a few changes I would make, but this whole exercise is making me think we should limit this to just ornithischians or just theropods for the time being and then move to another clade. Otherwise this thread is going to get absurdly long. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    I essentially agree with your proposed merges except for Marginocephalia. I have found the proliferation of node articles unhelpful at best and confusing at worst, so eliminating is a positive in my eyes. Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I've made this its own subsection just for ornithischians to help divide the workload up. Some thoughts about Marginocephalia and other nodes.
The two subgroups of Marginocephalia are too divergent at this point for any real discussion of anatomy, evolution (we are missing ~40 million years of pachycephalosaur evolution), and even history. The biggest thing I can see in favour of it is its been a strong clade (except some phylogenetic studies don't recover it well; and that doesn't stop us from accepting a Genasauria lump), and it being a possible place to discuss the history of pachycephalosaur classification. Except that the history of pachycephalosaurs spans across all of Neornithischia (sister to Ornithopoda, Ceratopsia, or outside both) making the latter a better place for it. Plus the article as it stands is small so a merge now can be undone later to very minimal loss.
Iguanodon is a problematic taxon because it has so many similarities to taxa around it, so using Hadrosauroidea and excluding Iguanodon means theres ~20 genera (from Barilium inclusive to Alrithinus exclusive) that would need to be mentioned on both Hadrosauroidea and Ankylopollexia since they are 50/50 hadrosauroids or not. It's easier I think to just accept the polytomy at Hadrosauriformes and put the article there, allowing us include everything on "iguanodontoids" that may either be a clade or a grade within one article.
Orodrominae (burrowing), Austrokritosauria and Arenysaurini (biogeography) and Pachyrhinosaurini (anagenesis) might have topics to warrant their own articles, but it doesn't hurt much to separate them out later; no articles I'm suggesting to merge are too big to risk loosing information. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
The Iguanodon situation echoes the many taxa that dance around Camptosaurus - I wonder if shifting the Ankylopollexia split to either Dryomorpha or Styracosterna might be a good idea now that more and more taxa are popping up around there and splitting in and out of nesting with Camptosaurus itself. Both are terms are, in my experienced, more widely used in the literature as reference points than Ankylopollexia is. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose the deletion or merging of Marginocephalia. It serves the same utility as Thyreophora. It's one of the "canonical" major groups of dinosaurs and its exclusion could needlessly confuse readers. Additionally, there is already a List of marginocephalian type specimens which would probably need to be split if this article goes under because it wouldn't make sense to have two separate articles for the clades themselves and only one article for their types. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    • Support all other proposed changes. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
      Thyreophora has multiple subclades and genera within it that are clearly not part of the two main subgroups, so we can trace the ancestry and evolution of thyreophorans. Marginocephalians we cannot. Plus the list of types article is very easy to split if needed, or it can even remain since the ~15 pachycephalosaurs to ~70 ceratopsians is not a huge issue. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
      While the suggestion gives me extensive pause, I think a look at the current content highlights why such a move may be relevant. The attempt to cover the group as a single topic feels incredibly unnatural and forced because it's trying desperately to draw comment biological ground between two different topics. While it's perhaps the most notable of all node articles, it is very much nothing more than that. Still, I'm not currently committing firmly to either position for that specific article. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm personally more fond of tribe level articles than others seem to be - while there are some that simply collect a few taxa and leave little to discuss, I think the usual similarities between their constituent members, often intertwined taxonomic histories, and hyperfocused scope gives them a lot more potential as articles than nodes and arbitrary stopgaps. I think you could definitely make small but complete feeling articles for groups like Nasutoceratopsini, Triceratospini, Pachyrhinosaurini, Ankylosaurini/Euoplocephalini, Panoplosaurini, Struthiosaurini, and most if not all of the many hadrosaur tribes (I think Parasaurolophini and Lambeosaurini are more wieldy on their own than united as Corythosauria, which I'm highly suspect would work naturally despite sounding intuitive on paper). That said, I'm not opposed to the suggestion of merging them for now and leaving the door open for re-separation if anyone decides to put in the work to actually write the articles. The nodosaur tribes in particular might be worth keeping separate or require separation at later date given the proposal of nodosaur paraphyly. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I think Stegosauria could honestly all be collapsed into a singular article. Stegosaurids dominate the topic of stegosaur research and I feel when you add more basal taxa onto that topic you don't mandate that much more article space. Having both seems, to me, to just be doubling the workload unnecessarily. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Are there any strong opinions on Chaoyangosauridae being meaningful or not? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    My only opinion on the matter is that if we merge it, the Ceratopsia article needs a much more comprehensive coverage of the group's evolution. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    The ankylosaur tribes should definitely not be kept, systematics there are too volatile for the moment for all of those groups (why I also suggest merging Nodosaurinae). Nasutoceratopsini and Centrosaurini (the latter not currently an article) are also only sometimes recovered, and there is not anything particularly special about Triceratopsini other than all the component genera at one time being considered synonyms of Triceratops (the anagenesis and evolutionary implications discussed in Fowler & Freedman Fowler 2020 are for the branch a few steps outside Triceratopsini).
    I was going to suggest Stegosauridae as another article to merge, but I refrained given it is already a larger article. Much of the content would be duplicated between the two pages though so I also support it.
    Chaoyangsauridae I have no strong feelings about. Psittacosaurus already requires us to discuss the ceratopsian origins, and even though its a consistently recovered family the content to write at it would be mainly from Han et al 2018 which also included Psittacosaurus in the family.
    I am unconvinced of the hadrosaur tribes. Except for Kritosaurini and Arenysaurini there isn't much of note about any of them, especially Aralosaurini and Tsintaosaurini which are incompatible with Arenysaurini, and having a page at Corythosauria rather than Parasaurolophini and Lambeosaurini gives a good umbrella of the "core" lambeosaurines which have the most history and content (eg all the juveniles being synonyms). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
    I agree that the idea of a page for the core derived lambeosaurs sounds good on paper, I'm suspect enough distinct literature exists exploring advanced lambeosaurs to the exclusion of earlier ones and vice versa in order to support a page of its own. Beyond separating the taxobox, I think the result would simply be a content fork. Even the history of cheneosaurs and other juvenile taxa is something entirely restricted to Lambeosaurini, not Corythosauria as a whole.
    Sofar as tribes go, I think Nasutoceratopsini provides a good example: a small history section could discuss how they were only recently recognized and different from previous centrosaur understanding, the anatomy section could discuss their more primitive traits, longer horns and less ornamented frills, a classification section could go into heavier detail about the uncertainty of their monophyly, and a section on distribution and biogeography could be supported based on their basis in the south as well as more northern discoveries. Various isolated unnamed specimens could also be included in some section or another. That might not be an enormous article, but I think its packs enough quality to justify its existence. Some tribes are more fruitful in this respect than others (I have particularly big doubts about the viability of Centrosaurini as an article), but I think most offer enough. Again though, I'm willing to go along with their merging for the moment with possible considerations for future expansion. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:21, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    Stegosauria has now been drafted as a singular article at User:LittleLazyLass/sandbox2. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    Looks like a couple of the references are borked, but otherwise it looks great! --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:12, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah that looks really good. A lot more robust than the other articles for the group at the moment. Good work! The Morrison Man (talk) 08:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Since we have already discussed sinking several subfamilies and other derived-member-endpoints for larger groups, do we think Ankylosaurinae requires a separate article? Similar to Stegosauria/Stegosauridae, I think most of the subject matter would be identical between it and the more inclusive article, and it isn't as if the evolution of tail clubs is something exclusive to Ankylosaurinae seeing as shamosaurs already possess handles. I thought maybe an Ankylosaurini article instead might work as it could discuss science pertaining specifically to the derived American clade, namely the history of assigning much of the group to Euoplocephalus and the continuing taxonomic debates between Arbour and Penkalski, in a way that might seem too specific for a generalized ankylosaurine or ankylosaurid article, but even then I'm not entirely sure of the necessity. Would a single unified ankylosaurid article be too much? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Ankylosaurini isn't a place where we could discuss the derived systematics being problematic, since Penalski doesn't recognize that group and many studies don't recover it. There should be sufficient information on early ankylosaurids (eg. ?polacanthids, Liaoningosaurus, shamosaurines) for a separate Ankylosaurinae, otherwise I would say have all the material at Ankylosauridae proper rather than a split at a clade thats far more problematic. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 14:29, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
General consensus so far seems to be that Marginocephalia and subfamily/tribes are without consensus, but the other proposed merges are supported. I'm not going to take action to redirect any articles yet, first step will be improving the targets of these redirects so no content is lost. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Subproposal, Theropod taxonomy

Theropoda (incl. Neotheropoda, Averostra)

Herrerasauridae
Coelophysoidea (incl. Coelophysidae)
Ceratosauria (incl. Abelisauroidea, Ceratosauridae)
Abelisauridae
Carnotaurinae (incl. Carnotaurinae, Furelisauria, Carnotaurini)
Majungasaurinae
Noasauridae
Tetanurae (incl. Orionides, Avetheropoda, Carnosauria)
Megalosauroidea
Spinosauridae
Spinosaurinae (needs independent page or Baryonychinae needs to be merged up)
Baryonychinae
Megalosauridae
Piatnitzkysauridae
Carnosauria (incl. Allosauroidea, Allosauridae, Neovenatoridae)
Metriacanthosauridae
Carcharodontosauridae
Coelurosauria (incl. Maniraptoriformes, Coeluridae)
Tyrannosauroidea (incl. Eutyrannosauria)
Proceratosauridae
Megaraptora
Tyrannosauridae (incl. Albertosaurinae, Tyrannosaurinae)
Ornithomimosauria
Ornithomimidae
Deinocheiridae
Compsognathidae
Maniraptora (incl. Pennaraptora)
Alvarezsauroidea (incl. Alvarezsauridae)
Therizinosauria (incl. Therizinosauridae)
Oviraptorosauria (incl. Caenagnathoidea)
Caudipterygidae
Caenagnathidae
Oviraptoridae
Scansoriopterygidae
Paraves (incl. Archaeopterygidae, Deinonychosauria)
Anchiornithidae
Dromaeosauridae
Halszkaraptorinae
Unenlagiinae
Microraptoria
Eudromaeosauria (incl. Velociraptorinae, Dromaeosaurinae, Saurornitholestinae)
Troodontidae (incl. Troodontinae, Jinfengopteryginae, Sinovenatorinae)
Avialae (incl. Avebrevicauda, Jeholornithidae, Jinguofortisidae, Ornithothoraces, Pygostylia)
Confuciusornithidae
Enantiornithes (incl. Gobipterygidae, Iberomesornithidae)
Avisauridae
Bohaiornithidae
Longipterygidae
Pengornithidae
Euornithes (incl. Ambiortiformes, Cimolopterygidae, Ichthyornithes, Ornithurae, Patagopterygiformes, Schizoouridae, Yanornithiformes)
Hongshanornithidae
Songlingornithidae
Hesperornithes
Vegaviidae
Aves

Here's my proposal for reorganizing theropods. It involves a few merges and the expansion of Carcharodontosauridae to Carcharodontosauria. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:27, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Some thoughts. For convenience, maybe we also merge Carnosauria into Tetanurae since the support for Megalosauroidea + Allosauroidea isn't definitive yet and otherwise it would be equivalent to Allosauroidea. Abelisauroidea could be merged up since noasaurid placements are volatile (see eg. Huinculsaurus paper). Coelophysoidea can include Coelophysidae and Coelophysinae if they aren't already combined (or in this case we could merge down and have Coelophysoidea at the Coelophysidae article). Dilophosauridae might be good to merge up, its not certain if its a clade (see Dilophosaurus redescription). I would merge Spinosaurinae and Baryonychinae up, but the expansion work around those clades means they might be big enough to keep (note a lot of the content is just phylogeny and when taxa were named). Coeluridae could be merged? And Proceratosauridae should be kept (solid clade + crested means anatomy can be discussed). Jinfengopteryginae could be merged, and personally I think Sinovenatorinae and Troodontinae as well. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 06:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I've implemented most of the changes you proposed, because I think they're overall very good. I was hesitant to merge carnosauria just because of the historical importance of the name, but discussion of that can easily be folded into the Tetanurae article. The reason I was hesitant to merge therizinosauridae with therizinosauria is that both articles are quite substantial and therizinosauridae includes mostly one morphotype and excludes enough taxa that there is little redundancy in my opinion. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I would personally oppose the merging of Carnosauria. It's probably tenable to cover it at Tetanurae, but between its expanded historical usage and modern uncertainty as to the potential inclusion of megalosaurs, I think there's enough to hold up an article and as long as that's possible I think its worth doing for such a major clade. That said, I think the pivot to Carcharodontosauria is incredibly slick and give it strong support. Abelisauroidea also gives me a bit of hesitation given it does see extensive usage as an operational unit in liteature, but my own Stegosauria logic about irrelevant basal taxa does make me willing to go along with canning it. I'm also inclined to stand up for Majungasaurinae and Carnotaurinae, I feel that's a pretty clean divide. Not gonna die on the hill if everyone else wants them gone, though. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I'd also keep Majungasaurinae and Carnotaurinae, each subfamily seems to have a lot of anatomical and biogeographic relevance worth discussing on their own pages. NGPezz (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't really think we need to keep Allosauridae seperate, as the only valid genera assigned to it are Allosaurus and Saurophaganax. Those could be covered under Allosauroidea, no? The Morrison Man (talk) 08:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Good catch, definitely doesn't need to be kept separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 08:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the proposal to reflect this suggestion. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I would support merging Carcharodontosauridae (along with Neovenatoridae) to a newly created Carcharodontosauria. I already did a bit of preliminary work on the taxonomy at User:Hemiauchenia/sandbox if that's of use. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:07, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
That's badass, it looks great so far! --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 04:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I actually think we have it backwards, Carcharodontosauridae is more popular in the literature, strongly supported in most analyses, and has much deeper priority than Carcharodontosauria. The family is most likely what people are looking for when they search up "carcharodontosaur" or "what type of theropod is Giganotosaurus" or something like that. The broader clade was created to basically mean "carcharodontosaurids and neovenatorids", and that purpose has been losing traction ever since megaraptorans left Neovenatoridae. I would instead opt for Carcharodontosauria to be merged into Carnosauria/Allosauroidea, leaving Carcharodontosauridae as a separate article. It is my opinion that well-established families should be prioritized over broader but more weakly diagnosed clades during this whole process. NGPezz (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree generally, but when those weakly diagnosed clades consist exclusively of the stem group to a single family with the same name (i.e. Alvarezsauroidea to Alvarezsauridae, Therizinosauria to Therizinosauridae, and Carcharodontosauria to Carcharodontosauridae), it is more conducive to effective navigation of the groups by minimizing the number of articles with very similar names wherever possible. This means that someone looking for X clade gets a comprehensive treatment of all members of the broadest clade to bear that name. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:28, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't really follow this argument. If someone's looking for "tyrannosaur", would they be looking for Tyrannosaurus, Tyrannosauridae, or Tyrannosauroidea? It could be any of those, they each serve a useful purpose and their potential content is much more extensive than just providing a definition and a few diagnostic features. We can continue to squabble about alvarezsaurs and therizinosaurs in more detail elsewhere, but at least for carcharodontosaurs, I've stated that my proposed solution is to merge Carcharodontosauria into Carnosauria (or Allosauroidea, whichever sticks). Would that solve the issue for that area, at least? NGPezz (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The reason I bring those cases up is because the logic of transferring the information about a broader clade with a very similar name follows for carcharodontosauria/carcharodontosauridae. To place non-carcharodontosaurs into the page for Allosauroidea would be akin to merging all non-tyrannosaurid tyrannosauroids into the page for Coelurosauria. The clades with associated names should be consolidated with one another, if they are to be merged at all, not with a broader clade that bears a different name, in my opinion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
In my eyes, if searching "carcharodontosaur", "Carcharodontosauria", or "Carcharodontosauridae" all bring you to the same place, is there really a material difference whether the latter is technically the most used? They're still going right to a place that tells them all about it. It's simply a matter of function that, due to Neovenatoridae being essentially a grafted off extension of Carcharodontosauridae, it makes sense to be able to cover both families in one place as one topic rather than drawing a line through the middle of it. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this contradicts my preference, that being how Carnosauria/Allosauroidea is the best place to position information on Carcharodontosauria apart from its own article. Neovenator and a few other fragmentary taxa share some traits with carcharodontosaurids, that much is certain. Is the best spot to discuss that the place where people look for info on Giganotosaurus and Carcharodontosaurus, or is it a general discussion on the ingroup relationships of carnosaurs, or is it simply an addition to the page for Neovenator. The first option sounds like the least optimal to me. In fact, looking at the current state of the pages, Carcharodontosauria is already redirected into Allosauroidea. Is there really enough information inherent to Carcharodontosauria (not just Carcharodontosauridae) that justifies a content fork?
I find it so weird when people want to merge Carcharodontosauridae into Carcharodontosauria (or Alvarezsauridae into Alvarezsauroidea) and yet want to split Carcharodontosauria off from Allosauroidea. It feels like there's some kind of arbitrary convoluted rule: "merge up, but only if the higher taxonomic level is named after the same genus and contains a single family, and if neither condition is met then do the opposite and split". We should instead be following guidelines based on prevailing scientific usage and historical/biological/ecological/anatomical distinction, the kind of information that enforces an article's actual notability. Names are meaningless beyond a convenient way to label and locate a set of taxa and the traits which group them together. NGPezz (talk) 00:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Given the historical association of Neovenator with carcharodontosaurs, the large scope of Carnosauria now that megalosaurs may be part of it, and the fact it was seen as necessary to coin a term uniting "neovenatorids" with carcharodontosaurids to begin with, yes, I do think the best place to put that discussion would be in the same place as where Carcharodontosauridae is discussed. Questioning if Carcharodontosauria has enough material for its own article in absence of Carcharodontosauridae doesn't matter since absolutely nobody is suggesting both exist - the proposal is that Carcharodontosauria be used out of convenience as the singular group level article for the entire topic of carcharodontosaurs. It wasn't out of any desire to merge Carcharodontosauridae because anybody suggests that's not an article worthy clade but merely a unique solution to address the very specific case of Neovenatoridae in what was perceived as the most intuitive and convenient way possible. Would you make an article at Pachycephalosauridae and then redirect Pachycephalosauria to Marginocephalia just because that's the parent clade? I don't think you would.
As for Alvarezsauroidea, yes, the fact there is only a single family undoubtedly at the core of it. If you took a complete list of taxa within Alvarezsauridae you also have the vast majority of taxa within Alvarezsauroidea - and you have the most defining taxa that dominate our knowledge and scientific discussion surrounding what the clade was like. To properly discuss Alvarezsauroidea as a clade you've basically written the majority of an article on Alvarezsauridae anyways, making the existence of that family as a separate article a WP:Semi-duplicate and better folded in as one comprehensive page. As it is with Stegosauria, and Megaraptora, as it more or less is with Therizinosauria, but not as it is with (ex.) Tyrannosauroidea, for which Tyrannosauridae is a minority of the specific diversity and exception from the standard anatomy of most of the clade, or for Oviraptorosauria which splits quite evenly into two distinct lineages. Orntihomimosauria is definitely an edge case given the existence of a small but notable offshoot in Deinocheiridae, though I would note the existence of Deinocheridae was a natural group was questioned by Mortimer and co. in the Lori analysis (Hesperornithoides paper). LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
To follow up on my original proposal, I have the draft merged article for Alvarezsauroidea (merging Alvarezsauridae into it) in my sandbox here. Comments welcome. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 15:10, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Gripes about carnosaurs and abelisaurs aside, I completely support everything here, except for one area I think doesn't go far enough - I would merge Therizinosauridae into Therizinosauria. If we're covering Ornithomimiosauria and Alvarezsauroidea in singular articles I don't see why the same wouldn't apply here. The extensive length of both pages certainly gives pause, but I'd point out that Therizinosauria has an enormous history section without much else and Therizinosauridae has a short history section with incredibly robust detail in every other section, it's a match made in heaven that would only need minor work to cover basal taxa in the other sections of Therizinosauridae. Also, while I'm here, what should be done about Bahariasauridae? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Bahariasauridae should be left as is I think because of the uncertainty around it at the moment. It may or may not even be a true clade. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:14, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added subgroups of Avialae to the list, comments would be appreciated. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:19, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know nearly enough about the systematics of avialans to make any specific recommendations based on the state of the literature. However, I do think that Pygostylia is a redundant article based on the framework we've been using. The Avialae page could include all clades down to Ornithoraces before being split into Euornithes and Enantiornithes. Similarly, I think Ornithurae could be similarly merged up into Euornithes since most of the relevant clades therein will have their own articles anyways. I won't touch the outline above just because I'm not the one who made it, but that's my recommendation. The whole purpose of this exercise as I see it is to have the absolute minimum number of pages possible without having the articles be too overly broad and I think the merges I've suggested accomplish that. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I've made some more changes, including one that will definitely be controversial. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 13:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
While I agree that the internal classification of Paraves will probably change a lot in the near future (esp. anchiornithidae, troodontidae, etc), I think the safe choice is to leave Avialae as monophyletic and not merge it up with Paraves. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 15:06, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Objectively speaking, Avialae is an incredibly insignificant clade with 0 well-supported apomorphies. There's just very little that can be said for sure about the group, since we don't even know which taxa belong there. But I agree that merging it with Paraves may be too radical at the moment. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 17:47, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Avialae is often used as the diving line for "avian" as opposed to "non-avian" dinosaurs and so I don't think there's any scenario in which it can justified to simply fold it into Paraves like that's nothing. There's a reason that the knowledge and editing behaviour of multiple people in this discussion stopped at Paraves until you expanded it, it's the point in which the science transitions from one topic to another. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:56, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
And that's why, whenever Archaeopteryx is recovered outside Avialae, we always get headlines claiming "the first bird wasn't a bird" lol. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 18:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I have my own personal theories and opinions about Archaeopteryx and its relatives, but I think it should remain as is with Avialae as the highest-level "bird" taxon, and any uncertainty about which taxa should or should not be included can be discussed in the article body. At least until the literature reaches a more definitive answer. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Comments on the coelurosaurian area: I disagree with merging Deinocheiridae and Ornithomimidae into Ornithomimosauria, the two families are strongly anatomically divergent from both each other and more basal taxa such as Pelecanimimus, at least if you consider their evolutionary trajectories. I would also extend this line of thinking to Alvarezsauridae (relative to Alvarezsauroidea) and Therizinosauridae (relative to Therizinosauria). The families were established for the "core members" of each coelurosaurian group, those taxa which are so anatomically distinctive that the rest of the group must be described as "dinosaurs which are related to [Family] but are too 'normal' to qualify". For consistency we should consider these clades more akin to how we consider Oviraptorosauria and Tyrannosauroidea. I would also rather keep a separate article for Ornithothoraces, it's the point of common ancestry for the two biggest Mesozoic bird clades and no doubt there's a lot that could be said for it based on the shared biological and morphological adaptations of its constituents. NGPezz (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
In practice, the articles for Alvarezsauria, Therizinosauria, and Ornithomimosauria are mostly about Alvarezsauridae, Therizinosauridae, and Ornithomimidae, meaning they are pretty much redundant. I agree that a more comprehensive article could be written in the future. But our goal in this project as far as I understand it is to cut down on all the clade pages that are just "X is a clade defined as containing Y and Z" with only one or two cladograms and not much else because such articles do not convey independent information and they only serve to create multiple articles with very similar names which makes navigating them more difficult if you do not already have a full understanding of systematics already.
In theory, every single named clade would have its own article with a comprehensive discussion of all the literature related to it, but if someone was willing to do that, they already would have. I don't think any of us on this thread oppose the existence of articles like Averostra or Cerapoda on principle, and if someone wants to split them again and is willing to put the work in to make them good articles, then I'm fully in support of that. But right now, this seems to be the cleanest solution. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I've been following the discussion, and this comment here got me thinking about Notability in general, and led to me reading through the Notability guidelines: WP:Notability. The part that caught my attention was where it said: "Article content does not determine notability" WP:ARTN. My interpretation of that is that the current quality of the article right now does not determine notability in regards to whether the article should exist. (I am opposed to merging a lot of the clade articles. I enjoy systematics and navigating up and down different trees and clades.) Additional relevant Wikipedia policies: "Whether to create standalone pages" WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:Merging. If we were to merge, I am also opposed to general guidelines, as I think each should be decided on a case-by-case basis. Cougroyalty (talk) 19:24, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Personally I disagree with Cynical Idealist's read on this, so I don't perceive this as an issue: irregardless of the amount of work that hypothetically would go into them, most of the merges articles would still be better off merged. I don't oppose Cerapoda because it's a stub but because I cannot envision it ever being more than a stub or a synthesized topic, because nobody writes about Cerapoda so much as they write about the two groups within and trying to cover them as a singular topic would never be necessary or natural, especially when a Neornithischia article also exists trying . The guideline I'd use to support the merges would be WP:Content Forks (or more accurately, WP:Semi-duplicates, which I believe many of these to be. It is impossible to adequately cover the topic of Therizinosauria without talking extensively and primarily about Therizinosauridae, and so it simply makes more sense to make the same page. While I do not suggest a fully fleshed out page on Therizinosauria would be identical to its subarticle, the amount of difference is not sufficient that it wouldn't make more sense to accommodate both. Regarding WP:Merging, I believe the reason of "overlap" is applicable in all proposed cases, and the reason of "short text" is applicable to nodes like Cerapoda which simply lack much content potential. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I do admit that Therizinosauria outnumbers Therizinosauridae in its degree of impact on the literature, so I'm less opposed to a merger there, as "therizinosaur" does seem to be more easily equated with Therizinosauria rather than Therizinosauridae. NGPezz (talk) 21:08, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Regarding Ornithothoraces, I originally suggested to merge it to Pygostylia, which is arguably more significant anatomically (since it contains all the taxa with bird-like tails). And some papers (like Hartman 2019) have suggested that Enantiornithes may be a paraphyletic grade, which could reduce the utility of Ornithothoraces a bit. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 19:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

What are opinions on whether it's better to keep Averostra or Tetanurae? The latter has more current content, various basal genera, and to my understanding forms a more significant divide in anatomy, whereas the former may be intuitive as the group that includes all of the large theropods that would dominate ecosystems through to the end of the Cretaceous, so it might accommodate more discussion of the common anatomy and ecological relationships of ceratosaurs, megalosaurs, carnosaurs, and tyrannosaurs as a whole. Having both still seems excessive to me but I can see the argument for either or the other as the first divide into a new article after Theropoda itself. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:10, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Just looking at their popularity in the literature, Tetanurae wins out by a landslide and has more historical significance in uniting coelurosaurs and carnosaurs. It's also a branch-based clade, so like you said there's more room to discuss the relevance of genera which do not slot into any major group. Averostra, on the other hand, is a node-based clade, so its article content will pretty much always be restrained to 'synapomorphies of Ceratosauria + Tetanurae'. NGPezz (talk) 20:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a sound argument to me, just wanted to play devil's advocate but I would also support keeping it at Tetanurae. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that Tetanurae is much more relevant scientifically because it has stem-genera that are well-understood and the internal systematics warrant much more discussion than Averostra. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Oppose: In the Dromaeosauridae area, I disagree with letting articles such as Halszkaraptorinae and Unenlagiinae not be merged and the arguably more notable subfamilies such as Velociraptorinae and Dromaeosaurinae being merged. At least if Dromaeosaurinae is merged, make sure Velociraptorinae gets its own article, as genera such as Deinonychus, which has a quite a bit to do with the history of Dinosaur paleontology, and Velociraptor, which is quite well-known have their fair share of notability. I support the rest of the proposal though. PrathuCoder (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

The contents of the eudromaeosaur subfamilies are highly unstable. Sometimes Deinonychus is recovered as a dromaeosaurine, or a velociraptorine, or outside of both groups. Even Utahraptor has been recovered as a velociraptorine in at least one analysis. And I disagree that Halzskaraptorines and Unenlagiines are less notable. They exhibit much more divergent morphologies from eudromaeosaurs, and they may not even be dromaeosaurs at all, which is the primary rationale behind keeping them as their own separate articles. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:05, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. After doing a bit of looking around though, I think that it looks like Microraptoria is more stable than Unenlagiinae and Halszkaraptorinae. It also seems like that if according to a study Unenlagiinae is a sister clade to the Dromaeosaurs, Halszkaraptorinae is always a subfamily of it. Maybe a merge of Microraptoria with the Dromaeosauridae article or of Halszkaraptorinae with Unenlagiinae? Mind you, I'm not an expert at this stuff, but just an enthusiast. PrathuCoder (talk) 23:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a lot of literature on microraptorines and they're very important to our understanding of the development of avian flight, which I think warrants its own article. As for Unenlagiines and Halszkaraptorines, their placement on the tree is unstable, but the actual makeup of those clades is very stable. In this discussion, when Dromaeosaurinae, Velociraptorinae, and Saurornitholestinae are described as "unstable", what that means is that there's very little consensus as to which genera are members of which subfamilies. There are only a few taxa that jump in and out of Unenlagiinae (Rahonavis and Pyroraptor) whereas there is very little overlap or consensus on the placement of taxa like Deinonychus, Boreonykus, Achillobator, Acheroraptor, Linheraptor, Dineobellator, etc, which makes the makeup of these groups too inconsistent to justify having an article for each of them. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. I guessed that solidified your case. I now support the entirety of the proposal. PrathuCoder (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Subproposal, Sauropodomorph taxonomy

Sauropodomorpha (incl. Bagualosauria, Plateosauria, Massopoda, Anchisauria, Sauropodiformes)

Thecodontosauridae
Unaysauridae
Plateosauridae
Massospondylidae
Melanorosauridae
Sauropoda (incl. Gravisauria, Eusaropoda, Neosauropoda, Vulcanodontidae)
Lessemsauridae
Cetiosauridae
Mamenchisauridae
Turiasauria
Diplodocoidea (incl. Flagellicaudata)
Rebbachisauridae (incl. Kebbashia)
Dicraeosauridae
Diplodocidae
Diplodocinae
Apatosaurinae
Macronaria (incl. Camarasauridae, Somphospondyli, Laurasiformes)
Brachiosauridae
Euhelopodidae
Titanosauria
New article: Titanosaur classification (to circumvent making articles for all these uncertain clades)
Diamantinasauria
Colossosauria (incl. Lognkosauria, Rinconsauria)
Saltasauroidea (incl. Saltasauridae, Saltasaurinae, Opisthocoelocaudiinae, Saltasaurini)

This one is only very preliminary. Refining the titanosaur clade structure is a whole mess on its own that I wasn't prepared to fully propose right now. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:48, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I was reflexively ready to reject merging all the way to Neosauropoda, but when I think about it that really is just a node article with some extra bells and whistles. My general understanding of the science behind sauropods doesn't really change anywhere in that entire span. Other than I'm pretty amicable to everything here (good catch on me missing Flagellicaudata), and I'd even go a step further to suggest that Diplodocinae could probably be ditched too, there's not really as much uniting history and biology as there is with apatosaurs. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I would agree on merging Diplodocinae into Diplodocidae. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I made the decision to leave the Diplodocid split the way it is in my proposal because the asymmetry between the length of the articles (Apatosaurinae and Diplodocinae). If one was the parent taxon of the other, I would suggest a merge, but since they are sister taxa, I think Diplodocinae needs an overhaul before considering a merge. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 14:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Oddly enough I support some separations here that aren't given. Eusauropoda is a great place to divide the "not-quite sauropods" from the true sauropods, since its pivoted on Shunosaurus and it and mamenchisaurs all have good material to draw from. The diplodocid subfamilies are a bit hesitant for me, Apatosaurinae at least is relevant as they were all at one point Apatosaurus, but that could be reason to merge it. Vulcanodontidae can probably go, it hasn't found much support in a while. As far as Macronaria goes, I think I have three things: Brachiosauridae, Euhelopodidae, Titanosauria are all solid enough to include, especially as Euhelopodidae may move into Mamenchisauridae and thats something of relevance. Within Titanosauria I started writing the classification section without much internal clade referencing, I would not really go beyond Colossosauria and Saltasauridae maybe? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
I do think that, given the current state of the Diplodocidae article, Diplodocinae would have less priority of updating, which might leave it in a sorry state for quite a while longer. In this case, it would make sense to merge it into Diplodocidae, at least for now. (It's on my list of things to overhaul at some point, but I can't give any promises for reworking any time soon.) The Morrison Man (talk) 20:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
Since Mamenchisauridae already has its own article, I don't think there's enough to really justify Eusauropoda or Neosauropoda getting their own articles. The daughter taxa are few enough that the infobox wouldn't be too long, and the general anatomy is more or less consistent, with the possible exception of the Lessemsaurids (which would have their own article anyways). As for Vulcanodontidae, I have no strong opinions on the matter, so I'll remove it at your suggestion. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Titanosauria is definitely a hard nut to crack. Somphospondyli and Lithostrothia feel like peak "stopgap" merge candidates without much biological distinction, but would result in such enormous taxon lists at Macronaria and Titanosauria that I'm not sure it's even tenable. Eutitanosauria is a node clade, and then Colossosauria and Saltasauroidea have been made the major division within derived titanosaurs, so they both feel like natural articles to have but I'm still not really sure if there's that much specific to say about ex. colossosaurians to the exclusion of other titanosaurs? Even stable smaller clades like Rinconsauria and Lognkosauria aren't really that substantive for material. There's a few solid clades like Aeolosaurini, Diamantinasauria, and Saltasauridae but they're few and far between. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Lithostrotia may not even be a natural clade, its unclear. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@A Cynical Idealist: I assume you meant to include Massospondylidae, not Melanorosauridae (which is barely used nowadays). —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

No Melanorosauridae was deliberate. It's a daughter taxon of Anchisauria, which would be subsumed into Massopoda, so that was delibertae. But I did accidentally omit Massospondylidae, so I've added it back into the outline. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:23, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Subproposal, Merges Ready to Execute

@LittleLazyLass:@IJReid:@The Morrison Man: I've added this subheader just to keep track of which merge proposals have been formally opened so we can make sure all the supporting/opposing views are being counted. This subproposal is not for discussion and is purely for archival and organizational purposes.

It is kinda sad for me seeing these clade article go away, such as with the recently deceased Cerapoda. :( Personally, I like the clade articles, even if they tend to be shorter articles, as I enjoy navigating up and down different evolutionary trees, clicking the different wikilinks and seeing where they go. But I guess I am in the minority here. Oh well. Cougroyalty (talk) 15:06, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
They're generally quite short and most of the ones proposed for merging here have no unique content that wouldn't be covered on the page of the parent clade. Frankly, it makes it easier to expand them without feeling like the added information is redundant. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:05, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
You can still do that. The clades that have been merged still feature in the infoboxes, there will just be fewer of them now. This is just for consistency, article cleanliness, ease of navigation, and to more easily account for changes in the literature. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 19:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I guess I just feel that the Cerapoda article was fine, even though it was short. And now it just seems a bit weird and unwieldy having two paragraphs about Cerapoda dumped into the Neornithischia article. Oh well. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. Cheers. Cougroyalty (talk) 22:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Taxoboxes

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was no support for changing the structure of automatic taxoboxes. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason to continue to display any of the articles being merged in taxoboxes of subordinate taxa? Plantdrew (talk) 21:29, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, the taxa are still valid, so they should be present. The consensus was simply that they aren't notable enough on their own to warrant an article. All of these clades still exist and are acknowledged by the scientific literature, and so a complete treatment of these groups should at least mention them. Infoboxes are the most convenient place to do this because that infrastructure is already in place for WP:PAL. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Supproposal, Suggested Guidelines

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was a consensus to avoid creating specific rigid guidelines and to assess any possible merge on a case-by-case basis. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: by your suggestion, I've used some of the decisions we've come to a consensus on to suggest some possible guidelines going forward. These were arrived at simply by looking at commonalities in the suggestions already made, so most of the above suggested merges already meet these criteria.

Terminal taxa (i.e. taxa with no non-genus daughter taxa)
  1. No articles for taxa smaller than family-level, unless the clade has at least 10 genera and publications regarding it to the exclusion of its parent taxon (I.e. Chasmosaurinae, Centrosaurinae, Microraptoria, etc) or if the parent taxon is uncertain (i.e. Halszkaraptorinae, Unenlagiinae, etc)
  2. If a taxon smaller than the family-level has a sister taxon that has been merged up, it should also be merged up (i.e. Carnotaurinae with Majungasaurinae, Albertosaurinae with Tyrannosaurinae)
  3. Family-level articles for taxa with fewer than 10 genera are merged up unless there is a compelling morphological distinction for keeping the article unique or a significant amount of literature that addresses the taxon (i.e. Scansoriopterygidae, Proceratosauridae, etc)
Nodes (i.e. taxa with daughter taxa that are higher than genus)
  1. A node with fewer than 10-12 confidently assigned daughter taxa should be merged to the next node up (i.e. Averostra, Cerapoda) unless it has at least 2 non-genus daughter taxa which both meet the criteria for their own articles (i.e. Megalosauroidea, Tetanurae)

--A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:15, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

That seems quite sensible to me. Should be consolidated with or replace some of this currently on the project page:[12] FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
I think we should consider merging on a case-by-case basis without the "10 genera or publications rule", especially for families. There are plenty of small and obscure families which nevertheless have reliable distinction (Piatnitzkysauridae, for example), and the 10 publication rule is difficult to judge for recently-named clades, even if I consider it a moot point in most cases. Small and recently-named groups like Jinguofortisidae or (for a non-dinosaur example) Aphanosauria would have defied both rules in the first year of their existence, and yet they're worth keeping because they seem to have clear evolutionary significance. Using an arbitrary number as an assumed cut-off as a specific rule or guideline will cause more problems than solutions, in my opinion. NGPezz (talk) 17:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
To be clear, these are only suggestions that I've drawn up after considering commonalities between the proposals that have already been made. I have no strong opinions on the matter and only offered these as suggestions for considerations. I think there should be some guidelines in place just for the sake of project continuity, but their exact nature is up to whoever can make the most convincing case in my opinion. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Seconding this sentiment I think. In general, I think its a case-by-case basis, with really two exceptions. *Most of the time* nodes should be merged up, as there is not much that can be discussed about the junction between two groups beyond just it being the junction to two groups. Nodes also typically receive less literature devoted to them. *Most of the time* families (or equivalent -idea clades) should be kept as separate, since the use of the rank shows that there is generally something relevant about that group that makes them distinct morphologically, phylogenetically, or biogeographically. Beyond that the only guideline I see are those that come from Wiki itself, about notability (clades with history and many studies like Coelurosauria and Carnosauria) and size (splitting Ornithopoda at a subclade rather than only having articles for Hypsilophodontidae, Rhabdodontidae, Elasmaria, Dryosauridae, and Hadrosauridae). IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 21:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
Copying my feedback on the proposed guidelines from above:
I'm not sure if this is the right place to give feedback, but I do not like the guidelines. I think the logic behind these merging decisions is very case by case and building a cage of precedent with such specific rules as numbers of taxa and publications is going to lead to nothing but trouble down the line. I've been advocating for the merging of subfamily and tribe level articles on the understanding they could be considered for reinstatement in the future if someone finds enough to write about them and these guidelines would make that in direct opposition to policy. Rule two in particular I don't like - how much unique material there is to say about a given group is a key consideration and there's no saying that will always necessarily be the same for two sister taxa. Dipldocinae and Apatosaurinae is an already cited example that should, in my opinion, break this rule, as the latter is commented on far more for its large scale taxonomy and anatomical distinctiveness. The third rule seems redundant as it includes an exception based on an entirely undefined level of "compelling morphological distinction" which just brings it back to "use judgement on a case by case basis" instead of having a guideline. I personally would prefer not creating guidelines at all but if we do I do not like this first draft of them. The node rule seems irrelevant to our concern; Maginocephalia and Averostra both have two subclades considered worthy of articles but they have each received opposition here; and if you think Marginocephalia is article worthy, then Cerapoda also meets this rule, despite being used as a counterexample in the rule itself. What matters is whether the combination of those subclades adds up to a clade that is worth discussing as its own article, which doesn't seem to correlate to the criteria of this rule to me.
Instead of firm rules based on arbitrary criteria I would prefer an explanation behind the general philosophy of what we're looking for when we decide on these merges/splits to act as guidelines. I think this would achieve the desired role of having guidelines without restricting our choises using inflexible rules that can't accomodate the actual motivating factors behind these decisions. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Archive_37&oldid=1260897667"