Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

See above

To editor Lusotitan: I would like to ask you to restore the edit I made. Aside from your calling it "pointless" in your edit summary, I made the edit because the discussion just above this one clearly shows that some clarification is needed. Yes, dinosaurs are reptiles in the same manner that birds are dinosaurs – scientists and science lovers understand that. However, most readers are not scientists and might wonder where does it end? Are all forms of life considered single-celled bacteria because we all evolved from them? To the general reader, a reptile is largely defined by the fact that it is "cold-blooded", so are dinosaurs also reptiles in this respect? While not exactly "warm-blooded" either, studies have shown that dinosaurs were somewhere in between, hybrids that possessed some internal temperature regulation and yet not quite fully warm-blooded animals. How would you word the lead so that general readers won't find it confusing?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

We do not need to specify that dinosaurs are *descended* from reptiles, for the same reason we do not need to mention mammals are *descended* from tetrapods. IJReid ^discuss 00:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the clarifications, here is the lead sentence of Bird. "Birds (Aves) are a group of endothermic vertebrates, characterised by feathers, toothless beaked jaws, the laying of hard-shelled eggs, a high metabolic rate, a four-chambered heart, and a strong yet lightweight skeleton." We can relate most of these to specific types of dinosaurs, but to encompass all groups, and questionable biological states, a mirrored lead sentence for Dinosaur would be "Dinosaurs (Dinosauria) are a group of verterbrates (replace with reptiles?), characterised by upright limbs. Feathers are also possibly a feature specialized to dinosaurs." IJReid ^discuss 00:49, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Where does it end? "Humans are a group of mammal descendants of the genus Homo"... "Sailfish are a group of fish descendants of the genus Istiophorus"... "Stag beetles are a group of insect descendants of the family Lucanidae"... Lythronaxargestes (talk) 01:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Claiming that dinosaurs are "descendants of the clade Dinosauria" suggests they no longer belong to said clade and is therefore highly confusing. Also, it in no way clarifies the issue of their metabolism.--MWAK (talk) 06:05, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you all for your comments and opinions! The question in the previous section of this talk page should tell us that the lead sentence is, in its present form, somewhat misleading. Now maybe my particular form of clarification was wanting; however, there should be a way to phrase that first sentence so that readers don't have to come to the talk page and ask questions about it. As editors, we are compelled to keep general readers in mind as we work to improve this encyclopedia. So with all this in mind, allow me to again ask, "How would you word the lead (sentence) so that general readers won't find it confusing?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

I do not find anything in the first sentence that may be misleading or confusing to readers. Is there something specific still under discussion here? --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:21, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The first sentence states: "Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles...". To a scientist this makes perfect sense and is not any more misleading than to say "birds are dinosaurs" or "humans are primates". To the general reader however, "reptile" carries the classic and still valid definition of "cold-blooded animal", and studies have suggested that dinosaurs were not cold-blooded and, therefore, were not reptiles. So while the first sentence is not misleading to a small segment of Wikipedia readers, the larger "general reader" segment would find that sentence misleading and in need of improvement. Hope this helps.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  23:30, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good point. I was assuming this was about arguing if they were actually reptiles, but you're right that the word carries certain connotations. Perhaps adding the word warm-blooded into the lead sentence would be in order? An elevated metabolism is mentioned in the lead, but it's in the middle of a paragraph that's supposed to be about the group being diverse, which is a little out of the way. Many readers may only read the first paragraph or skim the lead, making the first sentence obviously the most important. Lusotitan (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

We could pull a Bird and replace "reptile" with "vertebrate" or "amniote". Or we could leave it because warm-bloodedness is a debated subject and there is no consensus really on metabolism or feathers etc. IJReid ^discuss 01:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The lead already alludes to a high metabolism though, so if that's a problem other things need changing. Lusotitan (talk) 03:44, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: "Dinosaurs are a diverse group of diapsids"...

This leaves no room for erroneous interpretations by the reader - the average Joe does not carry innate expectations for the number of fenestrae a dinosaur should have. If the reader doesn't understand, too bad, but that's what links are for. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 02:47, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• There are two puzzling assumptions here. 1: that the average Joe would somehow not think dinosaurs are reptiles (which I'm pretty sure most people still believe, whether scientists or laymen), and 2: that the average Joe somehow thinks reptiles are defined by cold-bloodedness. I see no indication why this should be the case, so I don't see why we have to adapt to such a hypothetical problem. If you ask the average person to define a reptile, you'll probably just get "they're scaly, they walk on four legs, and they are slimy! (even though the latter is of course not the case, and snakes have no legs, obviously). Metabolism would be the last to come to their minds. FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

  Based on my own experiences teaching biology at a community college, I'd say that the average Joe DOES think that reptiles are defined by cold-bloodedness. It's one of the first things I hear students saying about them. The four footed thing virtually never comes up because so many of them are so aware of snakes, it actually makes for a lot of confusion when we discuss tetrapods.--Khajidha (talk) 13:21, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

• Support. I added a link to "diapsids" in the proposal. This is a good proposal that should be considered as a replacement for the present lead sentence. In light of recent findings, which tend to make readers come here to learn the new stuff, this proposed wording in the lead would be less confusing and misleading for the average general reader.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  21:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. I am opposing this for the reasons brought up by FunkMonk. Average readers would probably be more confused about us not labelling dinosaurs reptiles then us labelling them reptiles. IJReid ^discuss 01:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
• I still believe that simply putting the word "endothermic" before the word reptile would better fix any potential problems. Although a lot of layman might not necessarily associate the term "reptile" directly with cold-bloodedness, I'd guess a fair amount probably do. That said, the point that everyone already knows dinosaurs are reptiles is definitely correct, so simply changing it to a more scientific term wouldn't really help. Explicitly stating they had a heightened metabolism in the lead sentence would be more effective in my eyes. This would be consistent with the mammal and bird articles having the word in their lead sentences, and the article on snakes having it in the second sentence. Lusotitan (talk) 02:57, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That seems like the better proposal. Diapsid has little meaning if any to 90% of readers. The term is used to distinguish broader reptile groups, and doesn't say anything speficially about dinsaurs. FunkMonk (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Proposal rescinded, I agree with Lusotitan's proposal. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That's a good idea. The only problem is that "endothermic", if I understand the definition correctly, might also be a bit misleading. Endothermic indicates internal regulation of body temperature, and if I'm not mistaken, dinosaurs are at best a mixture or hybrid of endo- and exo-thermic temperature regulation. Perhaps the best way to handle this, then, is to leave the lead sentence as is and very briefly explain the hybrid manner elsewhere in the lead?  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  01:26, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Paine Ellsworth. Far better than teaching dinosaurs aren't reptiles (which is extremely quesionable), is to inform that "reptile != necessarily ectothermic". It would tie in with the reptile article lead, that argues that birds are often now included in Reptilia from a cladistic perspective. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, a heightened metabolism is already mentioned elsewhere in the lead. I would guess far more people are going to read the first sentence/paragraph than the whole lead, so something so important should, in my eyes, be incorporated there. Lusotitan (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Well, on the one hand dinosaurs include birds which generally have a very elevated body temperature ("at best a mixture or hybrid of endo- and exo-thermic temperature regulation" is plain wrong) and on the other hand, the entire topic is still contentious. I see little gain in adding "metabolically diverse" ;o).--MWAK (talk) 16:35, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

The mesothermy stuff is really only coming from Grady e.a., so it's nowhere near a consensus. Moreover, when taxon-level differences are concerned, they can be waved away with a "generally" if they are sufficiently minor - such a concession would be appropriate for Myotragus as it relates to other mammals. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:48, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see anything that needs changing in the lead. It's not until the second paragraph that the important distinction between non-avian and avian dinosaurs is discussed, so the discussion of the metabolic considerations of dinosaurs in the third paragraph seems apt after this important distinction is made. The other factor is that thermoregulation of dinosaurs is still uncertain, and can't be described in simple terms. It could be that some readers will read the first sentence and come to the erroneous conclusion that they must have been "cold-blooded"; but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a "manual for readers with low attention spans". They need to read the whole lead (it's not that long) to get a decent introduction to the subject; and if they do (or at least to the third paragraph) then they should have a reasonable understanding of views on their thermoregulation. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

I second this. --Khajidha (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a little something more isn't needed. The discussion above this one seems to mean that the heightened metabolism of dinosaurs over modern-day reptiles should be mentioned earlier in the lead, preferably in the first few sentences.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  09:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

On second thoughts, one way around this would be to add a note to the lead first sentence, and I have just done this. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:47, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the need for that note, but won't remove it myself. --Khajidha (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

It has been made clear on this talk page that there are those readers who are aware that all modern reptiles are cold-blooded and who have read recent studies about the heightened metabolism of dinosaurs, which seems like a contradiction. Such a note to clarify that dinosaurs may be very different from modern reptiles does seem warranted to me. We can note that Mrjulesd did not alter the wording in the lead; however, the note he added should put an end to any confusion and long discussions here about whether or not dinosaurs are actually reptiles.  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:08, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Paine. Sorry Khajidha I did go back on my earlier comments, but that's because I suddenly thought of using a footnote. Before that I couldn't think of any decent way of including the explanatory text in the first paragraph. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:49, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Dinosaur and non-avian dinosaur as synonyms

@BobEnyart: with this edit here [1] you added the text Dinosaurs (or non-avian dinosaurs). However this is technically wrong, as cladistically speaking birds are dinosaurs (clade Dinosauria definition): therefore it is incorrect to conflate "dinosaur" and "non-avian dinosaur" as synonyms.

I suppose you could instead say Dinosaurs (or non-avian dinosaurs if birds are excluded) but this seems a little unwieldy, if correct in a precise manner. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

This has now been removed. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, please remember this is an encyclopedia principally for lay readers. Cramming such distinctions into the opening sentence and using niche technical terms like "clade" is not a great idea (imagine enthusiastic children coming here to discover more and finding this!) Alexbrn (talk) 11:13, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

That is a ridiculous argument, people come here to learn new things, not to just read what they already know. Wikipedia is not written for children, that is what Simple Wikipedia is for. In any case, there is no reason whatsoever why dinosaur articles should be written in a more "kid-friendly" tone than other articles. Try to read an article about a battle ship or a mushroom here if you want to see what the standards are. FunkMonk (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking of a bright teenager. Editors may be interested to see how much simpler/friendlier this article was back near when it gained its FA status. I think the current version is too verbose & opaque to merit FA. Alexbrn (talk) 11:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Again, take a look at recent battleship or mushroom articles at FAC. Standards have changed, are stricter, and articles are supposed to be more comprehensive now. That 2005 version (ancient in Wikipedia terms) wouldn't pass FAC today. Wikipedia isn't written specifically for kids or "bright teenagers", we don't have to pander to the lowest common denominator. The term "clade" is central in modern biology, if we remove it, we are simply dumbing the article down, which isn't beneficial to the reader. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I support mentioning of the clade Dinosauria in the lead, as it is vital to understanding concepts like "non-avian dinosaur". --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Well no, but I can't be bothered arguing against distortions. Alexbrn (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You brought up kids yourself, there are no "distortions". Again, try to tell the writer of 250t-class torpedo boat or Imperator torosus that we should please think of the children. Just because children are more interested in dinosaurs (due to their presence in pop-culture) than such subjects doesn't mean dinosaur articles should somehow be written in a simpler tone than any other subject. This is hard science, not a list of Pokémon. FunkMonk (talk) 11:42, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You've already won. So why are you going on about "think of the children" and Pokemon as if this is what is actually being proposed? You might be better advised to review MOS:JARGON and think about what writing "one level down" might mean here. Alexbrn (talk) 11:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

You drive-by delete important terms from a Featured Article without discussing it first, what did you expect would be the reaction? Controversial edits require discussion first, especially when it comes to promoted articles. FunkMonk (talk) 11:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

"Without discussing it first": so, also see WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Alexbrn (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I had no hand in writing this article and rarely ever edit it, so no cigar. My point is not restricted to this article in particular, but Wikipedia science articles in general. MOS:JARGON does not allow you to remove terms on sight just because you don't understand them; they are supposed to be linked and explained in the text. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

And you think it's done well here? Alexbrn (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I think we're done here about the "clade Dinosauria" bit. But the Dinosaurs (or non-avian dinosaurs) bit has also been reinserted. Is there any views about this? Myself and Alexbrn are against this,for reasons I explained; any other well reasoned arguments?

Please discuss here before making an edit. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:31, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Why not just remove it? The article doesn't exclude birds from its scope, and even the end of that same first paragraph says that most dinosaur groups went extinct, again implicating birds. So it doesn't make any sense. The second paragraph goes into the way birds fit into things and uses the term non-avian dinosaur - could we not define it there? Lusotitan 19:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree. Adding (or non-avian dinosaurs) contradicts the very next paragraph starting with The fossil record indicates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs. It adds nothing but confusion, and is incorrect; just remove it. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree, remove it. Contradictory, confusing, too much fussy detail for the leading sentence. Just plain Bill (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

OK I think there is clear consensus for removal. If anyone disagrees please discuss first before re-inserting. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:06, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I would question the notion that any kind of consensus can be reached by as little as three editors within a day. It is up to you to leave a discussion open long enough for an actual discussion to occur before making such a change, not leap to a conclusion before one has actually been made. FunkMonk (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: point taken. But there does seem considerable support for this removal. I would count myself, Alexbrn, A D Monroe III, Lusotitan, Just plain Bill and Lythronaxargestes. Also there doesn't seem to be any reasons given for inclusion. Have you got any reasons for disagreement with the apparent consensus? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 10:51, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion on the issue myself, all I'm saying is a discussion should kept open for more than a day before anyone can claim it is over. FunkMonk (talk) 11:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be pedantic, but I haven't closed the discussion. The thread is still open for further comments. If consensus changes I will be happy to abide by it. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 11:58, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to be even more pedantic, but making the discussed change implies the discussion is over. FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Believe me it's not. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 12:07, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of the comment on "non-avian dinosaurs" for reasons raised by Lusotitan.

However, I disagree with the notion that articles have to be "dumbed down", which has been a topic of incredible contention between our core group of editors and the wider Wikipedia community. (This is perhaps a general comment, not specifically directed at the particular circumstances surrounding this article)

More important than comprehensibility is the issue of representation. Is the Ornithoscelida hypothesis going to confuse readers who are inured to the standard classification? Sure it is. And there is the inevitable necessity of having to use phylogenetic nomenclature to explain the hypothesis. But we shouldn't leave it out for that reason. It makes our coverage incomplete and outdated, and the risk of misleading readers owing to such poor coverage certainly outweighs all other risks.

Imagine if the entirety of the Eolambia article simply read "Eolambia is a veggie dinosaur that died a long time ago and walked on four legs and went honk honk and was eaten by the big bad bully meat dinosaurs." How long ago? 3 billion years ago? 5,000 years ago? Next thing you know Eolambia will be used to support young-earth creationism. Was it completely incapable of anything other than quadrupedal locomotion? Did other predators such as crocodiles not feed on Eolambia? And there's so much detail about differentiating anatomical characteristics, history, and ecology that has been omitted.

Perhaps this is quite a hyperbolic example, but I feel that the act of "dumbing down" is a slippery slope, and a dangerous one for that matter. This doesn't mean, of course, that we can throw jargon left-and-right willy-nilly - we have to make every effort to define and contextualize the jargon we use.

But we can't simply remove content on account of it being abtruse.

We need to fix it, not expurgate it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:02, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I only ever expressed that the fine anatomical details were unnecessary for something like wikipedia, saying that something more list the description sections of the FAs would be better. Lusotitan 13:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Nature ref

Headbomb, do you see "Nature Physical Science" anywhere on this page? Neither do I. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:37, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

That's because that webpage is not accurate. That article was published in Nature Physical Science issue 122, available here. See Nature_(journal)#Expansion_and_development / [2]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not Nature Physical Sciences. I don't see it anywhere on this page. This is paleontology, not physics. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm, I see... this was caused by a clash of doi:10.1038/242136a0/doi:10.1038/physci242136a0, or something similar in the ADSABS database... or some GIGO in the original citation... I'll fix. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:53, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Taxobox

Right now the taxobox retains the Saurischia model, but seeing as either option is considered just about as likely, would it not make sense to just list Sauropodomorpha, Ornithischia, Theropoda, and some basal stuff like Herrerasauridae and Eoraptor which we're uncertain of, and then say "see text", not choosing any arrangement over any other? Lusotitan 18:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it's best to wait for more literature before we make any rearrangements. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The point here is the avid choosing any arrangements, new or old. Lusotitan 03:45, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

It's a tough one, but given the current controversy, if we have to pick, it should be the standard scheme. But it could of course be argued that we should be neutral, but then the taxoboxes of for example theropods should also have sauricshia removed. FunkMonk (talk) 16:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I see no problem with removing Saurischia from taxoboxes in favor of remaining neutral. Lusotitan 17:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the consequences of these changes would be far-reaching enough that we should probably have a centralised discussion of it at the dinosaur project. FunkMonk (talk) 19:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2017

Remove the picture of Paul Stanley please messing with cladistics isn't funny ):> Triassic Terror (talk) 06:46, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Already done That was vandalism on Template:Graphical timeline, which has already been reverted. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dinosaur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924062640/http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/Downloads/2011_Miyashita_et_al._Euoplocephalus_head_anatomy.pdf to http://www.oucom.ohiou.edu/dbms-witmer/Downloads/2011_Miyashita_et_al._Euoplocephalus_head_anatomy.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:58, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dinosaur. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150403005328/http://www.birds.com/species/a-b/bee-hummingbird/ to http://www.birds.com/species/a-b/bee-hummingbird/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

2001:1970:48A4:EC00:551D:3DCF:124D:C480 (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 March 2018

2001:1970:48A4:EC00:551D:3DCF:124D:C480 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
hi the thing is all wrong so let me help

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Is there any credibility to the belief that dinosaurs never existed?

Should it be covered? This piece quite convincingly argues that dinosaurs are a myth, and judging from the comments, plenty of people subscribe to this belief. Perhaps a qualified person can say whether the points raised in the linked article are credible. 82.132.243.105 (talk) 15:49, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow, that's one of the dumbest things I've ever read. Just because dinosaurs were defined in the 19th century doesn't mean they weren't found by people before (which we know they were)... Which is likely where all sorts of legendary monster myths originated. Looks like some guy just wanting attention. FunkMonk (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

(ec) No it shouldn't. Please read Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources for why. Anyone can published a blog suggesting that a scientific theory is actually a conspiracy; without proof you can suppose almost anything. e.g. see Modern flat Earth societies. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 16:04, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

FunkMonk already got there. Dinosaurs were found before the 19th century, which led to the silliness of dragons, griffins, roc, Cyclops etc. The idea that dinosaurs never existed is WP:FRINGE nonsense perpetuated by look-at-me contrarians, and the religious. It has no place here. 94.193.91.58 (talk) 10:08, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it's informative to point out some fundamental misconceptions in the piece:

1. Owen did not speculate that dinosaurs existed: he based the name on a considerable number of very real (and large) fossils that had surfaced in the early nineteenth century.
2. The increase of discoveries was due to the introduction of the potato and the Industrial Revolution: quickly expanding populations needed housing, leading to increased quarry activities. Of course, once it was realised that animals could go extinct, scholars began to actively search out their remains. Most finds are nevertheless initially made by "disinterested people", not by the few professionals.
3. Owen had not been knighted yet at the time.
4. The year 1842 was not the "heyday of evolutionism": transmutationism, as it was then called, was very much the minority view among scientists. Owen was not an evolutionist and used the high developmental grade of dinosaurs as an argument against evolution.
5. That few species that Marsh and Cope named ultimately proved to be valid does not mean the remainder consisted of falsifications: they were shown to be identical to already known forms.
6. Evolution is not about "transitional forms" between higher-level taxa: it is the tree of life diversifying into ever smaller subgroups. See: cladistics.
7. Most fossils are present in low concentrations. Obviously, scientists tend to concentrate their activities on the few exceptionally rich sites.
8. Claiming that "To this day not a single complete skeleton of any dinosaur has ever been found!" is a bit incoherent. If they are all forgeries, why did they not make them complete in the first place?
9. In fact many museum mounts contain authentic bones. They are not all models, if only because the institutions do not have a budget to buy many.
10. Biomechanically, dinosaurs work very well. Their skeletons are easily strong enough to carry their expected weight.
11. Birds are dinosaurs, so there's a lot of living proof that they exist.--MWAK (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Theories of Dinosaur Classification page

I was thinking about Ornithoscelida, and then I remembered the page Phylogeny of pterosaurs. Now, that page lacks in detail and is increasingly out of date, but I wondered if a similar idea, done right, could work well for Dinosauria. Right now info on the different theories of how the group is arranged (Saurischia, Ornithoscelida, Phytodinosauria) is scattered across several pages, making it rather inconvenient for someone unfamiliar with the topic to properly follow. As opposed to going over the whole issue on each individual page, or vastly bloating the classification section of this article, I purpose the above three articles be abandoned in favor of a single article which explains and compares all the classification schemes in one spot. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 03:37, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:57, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan, we could of course use the Dinosaur classification page for this. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 06:05, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, we should use a pre-existing article (Dinosaur classification) for such info, otherwise we'll get a lot of WP:content forks. But I don't see why we should merge three articles about possible clades into one (we have articles for every minor clade now), though I was never fond of us having a separate Phytodinosauria article just because it came out as a possible option in a single recent paper . FunkMonk (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I just feel it'd be redundant having the pages too, since for the Classification page to actually be useful I feel it needs to actually contain the relevant explanatory text, as opposed to just trees like the pre-existing dinosaur and pterosaur ones. The individual pages would just repeat the same information. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 01:23, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't think we can on one hand create articles for every tiny clade that includes two taxa, which few people will ever care to read, while merging major taxa that are individually important. For example, which clade is most people going to want to know more about on an individual basis, Dracohors or Saurischia? It would make more sense to merge Dracohors into a Dinosauriformes article than to merge Saurischia into an article with Ornithoscelida. FunkMonk (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Dracohors is a widely accepted node within a widely accept clade, Dinosauriformes. Saurischia is one theory competing with another incompatible theory, Ornithoscelida. So it's not really a comparable situation; without context on what Saurischia is in proper detail, an article on Ornithoscelida isn't going to be particularly useful. Basically, we're saying "okay, so this part of the tree is arranged in one of these three ways", so it makes sense to compare those three possibilities directly, in the same article. Dracohors, on the other hand, is "okay, so we have this name for this, and the next more specific clade is this this one here". Sequential and indirectly connected, as opposed to the former being directly connected and opposed. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 21:20, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

See this section for why it might already be problematic:[3] FunkMonk (talk) 02:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2018

Please change the taxobox fossil range, which was changed by Xiang180808 without explanation, back to

{{fossilrange|233.23|0|[[Middle Triassic]]–[[Holocene|Present]], 233.23 – 0 Mya| | earliest=243}}

Since showing the fossil range as beginning at 243.23 Ma is a figure that does not come from any of the literature, and also does not match the corresponding text, which clearly labels the start as 233.23 Ma. 2001:569:782B:7A00:7C94:E78A:2A46:85CD (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

This figure comes from Nyasaurus, found Baron et al. (2017) to be a sauropodomorph. It's supposed to be getting re-dated but that hasn't happened yet, so for the moment the 243 earliest date should be there. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 05:17, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Lusotitan, then it should be

{{fossilrange|243|0|[[Middle Triassic]]–[[Holocene|Present]], 243 – 0 Mya}}

Or, accepting the ambiguous validity of Baron e.a. (2017),

{{fossilrange|233.23|0|[[Middle Triassic]]–[[Holocene|Present]], 233.23 – 0 Mya| | earliest=243}}

Instead of what it is right now, which is

{{fossilrange|243.23|0|[[Middle Triassic]]–[[Holocene|Present]], 233.23 – 0 Mya| | earliest=243}}

2001:569:782B:7A00:91FF:58D7:E53:BD14 (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Makes sense. I wanted to revert that edit when I first saw it, but wasn't sure. If anyone has any objections, feel free to correct. byteflush _Talk 03:00, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 August 2018

In the taxonomy list under Classification, please remove a colon before "Herrerasauria (early bipedal carnivores)". It is currently a third-level bullet, even though its immediate parent is Saurischia, a first-level bullet. 2001:569:782B:7A00:91FF:58D7:E53:BD14 (talk) 02:42, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Though Herrerasauridae article does have some ambiguity on the taxonomy. byteflush _Talk 03:05, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 December 2018

I wanted to explain how dinosaurs were the kings of the planets before us Pocoyoy su amigo elfante (talk) 09:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. DannyS712 (talk) 09:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Bolded groups in Taxonomy

What is the significance of the use of boldface for some groups in the taxonomy section? --Khajidha (talk) 13:37, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Seems they mostly correspond to "suborders", but since those are arbitrary ranks, maybe they shouldn't be bolded. FunkMonk (talk) 14:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Probably. It definitely seems odd bolding Ceratopsia and not Pachycephalosauria. --Khajidha (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

I would advocate for the removal of all bolding in this case. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 20:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed. --Khajidha (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Change "now" to "66ma" dinosaurs are extinct Lumynox (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Birds are included in the classification of dinosaurs. Roadguy2 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2019

Change "present" and "0MYA" to "Upper Cretaceous" and "66Mya" Lumynox (talk) 01:35, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: see above. Roadguy2 (talk) 04:06, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Test

This is a test.--Lor9515 (talk) 03:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Birds as Dinosaurs

@Drmies: about your recent edits to the lead section, that Dinosaurs are extinct. It really at odds to what it says in the article, both the lead and the text body, which makes constant references to the view that Birds are descendants of Dinosaurs, and therefore in cladistic schemes classified as Dinosaurs. From the lead alone there are the following statements:

• a diverse group of reptiles[note 1] of the clade Dinosauria. Birds are from within the clade Dinosauria.
• The fossil record demonstrates that birds are modern feathered dinosaurs...
• Dinosaurs can therefore be divided into avian dinosaurs, or birds; and non-avian dinosaurs, which are all dinosaurs other than birds.
• Birds, at over 10,000 living species, are the most diverse group of vertebrates besides perciform fish.
• Evidence suggests that all dinosaurs were egg-laying; and nest-building was a trait shared by many dinosaurs, both avian and non-avian.
• While the dinosaurs' modern-day surviving avian lineage (birds) are generally small due to the constraints of flight...

There are many more points in the body text. If you want relaible sources take a look at [4] and [5]. You might also like to have a look at Clade if you are unfamilar with the term. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I'm restoring this, since there will be other editors who wonder about this, and especially the argumentative lead. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2019

My request is to change the fact that paleontology is only related to dinosaurs, as it is truly the study of fossils. Also, Henry Fairfield was NOT the director of the museum of natural history, and during that time, it was Shawn Levy. ThunderLunchbox (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done I will make the following points:

1. You need to be more specific in your requests, e.g. something like, in section "X" change "Y" to "Z".
2. Nowhere does it say that "paleontology is only related to dinosaurs". It only mentions paleontology with respect to dinosaurs, but that is because the article is about dinosaurs; it is not implying that is the only thing they study.
3. I can find no reference to Henry Fairfield in the article.

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 14:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Dinosauria montage

Dinosauria skeletons

should we use this or something like this, it includes birds and is more fitting --Bubblesorg (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Some of those images are iffy, for example the Titanoceratops with the imaginary frill. The current image does show Microraptor, which is close, but perhaps Archaeopteryx would be more familiar to most readers. FunkMonk (talk) 19:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Changed to Styracosaurus. Are there any other problems? I think the Scolosaurus/Heterodontosaurus part could be exchanged for a single image. Kiwi Rex (talk) 13:33, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe I can make a montage --Bubblesorg (talk) 04:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I think we need to stop trying to replace the montage every year. The current one is fine, perhaps replace the ankylosaur with another more recognizable theropod, and/or the microraptor with an archie, and I wouldn't change anything else. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:21, 6 October 2019.(UTC)

This was pretty informative Wiki historyfreak (talk) 15:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 December 2019

35.131.181.18 (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2019 (UTC)remove the true facts about dinos and make them fun ones like dinos came from lava true but fun

 Declined - Wikipedia is not for facts that are just "fun". It needs to have proper, accurate information. MadGuy7023 (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

"Timeline of notable dinosaur taxonomic descriptions"

I think this timeline is quite strange: it includes both well-known and thoroughly-described taxa and useless, dubious taxa. How are we judging notability? Do we even need this? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:50, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Real pictures needed.

All the dinosaur skeleton images are here. However, could you please add realistic pictures of dinosaurs? That would be nice! 111.88.15.147 (talk) 14:46, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Like this?

Agree, so we'll get the Wikipedia time-machine out of Larry Sanger's basement (he took it and the stapler when he left) and rev it up for Jurassic. But seriously, good idea, although some of the good film stills may be in copyright. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

i think he ment a piece of paleo art or a reconstruction. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2020

In the line "a method modern paleontologists would find appalling because the explosions from the dynamic would potentially destroy any and all dinosauric evidence" - "dynamite" is incorrectly written as "dynamic" Neelabhs (talk) 15:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Neelabh

Seeing other problems with the writing of that sentence, I simplified it a bit. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Human-eoraptor size comparison(v2).png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 August 2020

In the "History of study" section, please change:

"Villagers in central China have long unearthed fossilized "dragon bones" for use in traditional medicines, a practice that continues as of 2020.[189]"

to

"Villagers in central China have long unearthed fossilized "dragon bones" for use in traditional medicines.[189]"

The source cited is a news article last updated July 2007, which is not a report of any specific incident. It contains no information from which can be determined when such incidents occurred (not even that they occurred in modern times), but which in any case must be prior to the 13 year-old article. Naylorfriend (talk) 08:58, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, the source is a bit vague. It does say that they've been doing it "for decades" so it must be somewhat recent, but even that is not that clear. – Thjarkur (talk) 09:21, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are reptiles, birds are dinosaurs, so birds are reptiles. They are not separate from reptiles as the article now implies

This opening sentence is inaccurate from a scientific standpoint:

Dinosaurs are a class of extinct reptiles[note 1] and modern birds of the clade Dinosauria.

It is highly inaccurate to present birds as being separate from other reptiles. It goes against modern phylogenetic classification, in spite of what some people on here have stated. Their arguments make no sense if they are viewed scientifically and cladistically. I'd like to request that the opening sentence to be reverted to its previous state to read as follows:

Dinosaurs are a class of reptiles[note 1] in the clade Dinosauria.

This is all the opening sentence needs. It is accurate and the article explains the differences between dinosaurs and extant "traditional" reptile groups. Birds are not a separate class of animals in modern phylogenetic classification. They should not be presented as such in any accurate article any longer.

98.10.3.178 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I have reintroduced earlier wording, latest edits created problems. Jules (Mrjulesd) 03:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

I thank you very much for doing that Mrjulesd! That opening sentence really made no sense. I appreciate your editing it!! 98.10.3.178 (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd If birds are reptiles, why are they birds? That doesn't make sense. Birds are not reptiles. Reptiles are cold-blooded, birds are not. Also, the rest of the article differentiates between birds and other dinosaurs - "avian" vs "non-avian". So by definition, birds are indeed dinosaurs, and are not reptiles. Hires an editor (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Except dinosaurs are reptiles in the phylogenetic sense (which is the only reasonable scientific definition)? It depends on the definition. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2020

change are to was ChrisHansel (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Where? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That probably wouldn't make sense. Maybe there's a place where "are" should be changed to "were" or to "is", but messing up both plural/singular and past/present isn't likely. If you want to point out a specific location that should be fixed, please do. It will be easier if you quote the sentence where the fix needs to happen. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:2499:DAED:827E:97CA (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

"Other groups of animals were restricted in size and niches"

The article says that "Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates of the Mesozoic Era, especially the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Other groups of animals were restricted in size and niches". I am not sure if such a statement is correct. For example, crocodylomorphs can be called an exception to this. HFoxii (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes that seems like a bit of a generalization, it obviously doesn't apply to something like Deinosuchus. I think that is more talking about the amphibians and mammals, rather than the reptiles. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

etymology?

Usually an article like this would begin with both the pronunciation and word derviation in the lede. At one point, the word dinosaur meant 'terrible lizard'. How would I know that from reading the article as it stands?72.174.71.134 (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

You can see it in the History of study section, but yes, it could be explained in the intro as well. FunkMonk (talk) 20:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Gone ahead and added a sentence in the lead about Owen. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Birds

This article would make one think that birds are reptiles. Clearly this isn't so... 139.138.6.121 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, actually... Abyssal (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Clearly you haven't studied biology lately. --Khajidha (talk) 17:40, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Birds at 10.000 species

@Randy Kryn: I'm sorry for reverting your edits, but this statement isn't mentioned in any other part of the article, and it's also not cited by any reference (even if it's true). Pinging FunkMonk as well, since he was the one who pointed out that this piece of info is only stated in the lead. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fine, you're just keeping the page honest and on track. Then let's find references and get it in the article's body, as this fact seems important in terms of animal-species population figures. With over 10,000 species (if accurate) avian dinosaurs hold a wide species-specific numerical strength outside of fish and insects, and this diversity has been a good data point in the lead for awhile. And that's not even counting the poor Dodo's and passenger pigeon. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

p.s. I left a note at the Bird talk page. Sourced information on the Bird page says "Depending on the taxonomic viewpoint, the number of known living bird species varies anywhere from 9,800[41] to 10,758.[42]".

Thanks for taking your time on this. We can probably add these citations in the lead itself, since it's the only place where this is stated? Though perhaps we should wait for regular editors of this page to give their opinion on this before doing something. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:57, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

For more recent numbers, the two main bodies that keep comprehensive checklists list 10806 (IOC, https://www.worldbirdnames.org/new/), and 10721 (Cornell, https://www.birds.cornell.edu/clementschecklist/overview-august-2019/) Somatochlora (talk) 17:59, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

@Somatochlora: Thanks. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

As long as it's sourced in the article body, it should be fine to keep, but it can't stay unsourced only in the intro. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Added at the "General description" section of Definition, along with the more recent citation Somatochlora suggested above. I've added it there because the estimated number for Mesozoic dinosaurs is mentioned there, so might as well just add the estimated number of birds there as well. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, this is an interesting and informative topic, discussion, and solution. Ten-thousand different kinds of birds, quite a task for a big year (that page has the world record at 6,852 species sighted in 2016 in the lead, with a discrepancy of 6,833 in the article text - I've left a note on the talk page). Randy Kryn (talk) 19:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Heh, thanks to you too for pointing this out, and yeah, all of this is actually quite fascinating I have to say. Oh, and my apologies again for reverting your edits! JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

You and I both reverted in good faith, which is what counts in this workplace/playground. Am interested to see what happens at the 'big year' talk page, a world record having two different numbers in the same article seems like something which should be corrected and is a good side-effect of this discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I gotta admit that sometimes I apologize to much and sometimes I hardly apologize, haha... But yeah, normally a world record is something "solid", so to speak, so it's very strange, and a bit interesting to be honest, to see two different numbers listed. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:43, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I meant to remedy this sooner, sorry... My intention was to (re)write sections about dinosaur diversity, size, feathers, and extinction, but I haven't gotten around to any of this yet. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry, nobody's gonna get mad at someone who doesn't have time to rewrite something. And besides, I think all the problems in this section have been addressed already. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 21:23, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The claim that birds are the most diverse group of vertebrates apart from perciform fish is debatable. The reptile database currently lists 11,440 species (as of 17 Dec 2020). The slightly older breakdown suggests there are about 11,000 squamates. Now the species definitions may not be exactly comparable (birds seem to use more subspecies) but birds and squamates have comparable diversities. In addition, the lede of Ostariophysi says there are 10,758 Ostariophysan species. While there is a mismatch with the numbers elsewhere in the article, it's another group with approximately 10k species. More on the major jawed-vertebrate radiations can be found in Alfaro et al (2009).—  Jts1882 | talk  07:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Dinosaurs as reptiles

While the Wikipedia article on dinosaurs should definitely mention the historical classification of dinosaurs as reptiles, the current scientific consensus is that 'reptile' is a paraphyletic grouping. Saying "Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles" is misleading for reasons that are immediately apparent upon reading the opening paragraph, from the note about cold-bloodedness to the extended explanation that birds are dinosaurs despite not being classically defined as reptiles themselves. The plethora of editors trying to decide whether birds are reptiles in this talk section is good evidence of how confusing this is.

Saying that 'Dinosaurs are a diverse group of diapsids' or 'archosaurs' would be more accurate, although it may be less understandable to some readers.

For those who don't know what is being said here, please read the Reptile article and the Paraphyly article for some explanation. To avoid further possible confusion, please keep in mind that something said in the reptile article is actually misleading: classifying Sauropsida as reptiles + birds still results in a paraphyletic grouping assuming that basal amniotes and/or basal synapsids are classified as reptiles (and they variously are and aren't by different authors). The only way to define reptiles monophyletically, which is the scientific standard for real biological clades, is either to 1) redefine birds as reptiles and then exclude 'reptilian' animals like Dimetrodon, or 2) to include 'mammal like reptiles' as reptiles, and all other synapsids (and therefore all mammals), as well as basal amniotes like Diadectes. The former is clunky and makes birds reptiles while at the same time making 'mammal like reptiles' not reptiles, and the latter defines reptiles so broadly as to make them indistinguishable from amniotes, which is pointless. For these reasons, it would be equally inaccurate (and much less understandable) to say something like 'Dinosaurs are a diverse group of sauropsids'. While it would not be inaccurate to say 'Dinosaurs are a diverse group of amniotes' or 'reptiliomorphs', saying 'diapsids' or 'archosaurs' would be equally accurate but also more precise.

While I lean towards 'Dinosaurs are a diverse group of diapsids' or 'archosaurs', I feel that this language may not be accessible for all readers. After all, the perfect article 'is written to avoid ambiguity and misunderstanding' and 'is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail'. We should not do things the wrong way just because it is easier, but there may be some solution to this dilemma that does not require the use of a somewhat obscure and somewhat technical term like 'archosaur' in the first seven words of the opening paragraph. The Wikipedia entry on dinosaurs should be a perfect article.

Is there a way to define dinosaurs both accurately and plainly? Yours, Joe (talk) 07:02, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't have the capacity to respond at length but I'll just point out that this is patently not true:

it would be equally inaccurate to say something like 'Dinosaurs are a diverse group of sauropsids'.

Diapsids are sauropsids. The working definitions of Diapsida and Sauropsida are both clade-based. There's a valid case that this is much less true for Reptilia. However, under the PhyloCode framework (which captures modern phylogenetic thinking), there is a monophyletic definition of Reptilia that includes archosaurs, and thus dinosaurs and birds: [6] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:31, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Sauropsida is a clade which explicitly excludes non-amniotes and synapsids. Our main dilemma is that old groups (like Reptilia) have two definitions, an old paraphyletic trait-based Linnean definition ("reptiles are scaly, cold-blooded tetrapods") or one or more new cladistic definition ("reptiles are turtles, lizards, crocs, their common ancestor, and all their descendants", or "reptiles are all animals closer to lizards than to mammals"(aka Sauropsida)). As archosaurs, birds and dinosaurs are definitely reptiles in the cladistic sense. Nevertheless, I think the footnote should be updated to be more useful and clear about which definition of reptiles we are using. On another note, it's hard to avoid technical terms in an article focused on paleontology, and "archosaur" is by no means an obscure term to anyone willing to read a page about dinosaurs in detail. You wouldn't avoid the term "half-life" in the introduction to an article about Uranium, for example. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The lead contains the following note: Dinosaurs (including birds) are members of the monophyletic clade Reptilia, alongside traditional living reptiles such as lizards or crocodilians. However, dinosaurs do not precisely correspond to the antequated Linnean class Reptilia, which refers to cold-blooded amniotes without fur or feathers. In this article, "reptile" is used in a modern cladistic sense, as Linnean classification does not account for extinct animals with intermediate traits between modern classes. Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there any possibility to reduce jargon here per WP:EXPLAINLEAD? Incomplete suggestion from a lay person:

• The words monophyletic might be glossed
• clade is difficult, would the vaguer group work?
• amniotes?? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

well some of these terms are wikilinked. I should have included the wikicode thus: Dinosaurs (including birds) are members of the monophyletic clade Reptilia, alongside traditional living reptiles such as lizards or crocodilians. However, dinosaurs do not precisely correspond to the antequated Linnean class Reptilia, which refers to cold-blooded amniotes without fur or feathers. In this article, "reptile" is used in a modern cladistic sense, as Linnean classification does not account for extinct animals with intermediate traits between modern classes. Anyone can click on say "clade" and say get composed of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants which I think sums it up nicely. Maybe the it could be simplified slightly, and wikilinked a bit more. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 15:52, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinking is a bit of a last resort for making writing understandable. I do appreciate it's not an easy job :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Better ;) Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Classification update

Pinging Hemiauchenia, who made the most recent changes. I'm sure we all realize that Holtz's 2007 classification is somewhat out of date. However, we need to cite the revised taxonomy to something - any ideas for what we can cite? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:20, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems that revisions of the taxonomy are carried out too often for a completely up-to-date classification to be published anywhere in the literature. At the same time, the relationship between the main large clades has already been more or less established (unless the Ornithoscelida hypothesis is correct). Therefore, I made a very simplified cladogram with the main clades and grades of dinosaurs. HFoxii (talk) 08:54, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

100% disagree with the inclusion of grades. This will only be confusing. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:25, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

But cladograms shouldn't be made for an article (if we were to use one) unless they come from a paper, right? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:32, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Also true, but it's presumably easy to find instances of (at least the non grade-based version) in the literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:43, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I don't like grades either. However, if we display each clade of sauropodomorphs and theropods, then their phylogeny will turn out to be undeservedly long in comparison with ornithischians. As for the source, there is a similar cladogram with grades in Dinosaur Paleobiology by S. L. Brusatte (p. 22). HFoxii (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

The point is why not just Sauropodomorpha and Theropoda? Including grades is worse than either expanding it fully or not expanding it at all. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:13, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

That's better? HFoxii (talk) 05:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Dinosauria	Saurischia †Sauropodomorpha Theropoda (incl. birds) †Ornithischia †Cerapoda †Ornithopoda †Marginocephalia †Pachycephalosauria †Ceratopsia †Thyreophora †Ankylosauria †Stegosauria

dimotrodon are not dinosaurs

Because it came before dinos and are stem-mamals and ARE NOT EVOLVED TO SPINOSAURUS but they extinct Aw wiki 69 (talk) 22:41, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah Aw wiki 69 (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

That's what the article says already but alright. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

"Dimetrodon" Thank you. Morngaur (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are

Not reptiles, if we include birds as "feathered dinosaurs" - so what is the best way to resolve this inconsistency? If birds are a surviving lineage of dinosaur, but are indeed not dinosaurs because they are descendants (and thus "birds"), then Dinosaurs "were". A suitable analogy is that chimpanzees (Pan) are one of the class of great apes, but are not apes themselves...or, perhaps change "reptiles" to "a class of extinct reptiles and also modern birds"? Hires an editor (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

This really gets into exactly what the words "reptile" and "dinosaur" and "bird" mean. By layman terms, they are all mutually exclusive except for maybe "dinosaur" < "reptile". By modern scientific terminology, birds are dinosaurs, which are also reptiles. There have been many talk page discussions on this subject, but at least in my view the current article does a reasonable job of presenting current scientific thinking with the necessary caveats. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

birds are reptiles but not really. if you follow that birds are reptiles then humans are fish. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Again, there's a scientific basis behind saying something like that, but not a lay basis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) But its in current scientific usage. If you look at Google Scholar, there is six thousand hits for non-avian dinosaurs, as scholars see birds as dinosaurs and thereby use the term "non-avian dinosaurs" if they want to exclude them. No such cladistic usage of "fish" exists, as far as I'm aware. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

ok a better example would be calling an early fish a cyanobacteria. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

But that's just literally not correct? Eukaryotes did not come from bacteria. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

oh i must be confused. i thought that cyanobacteria was the first life? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Surely you mean multicellular life? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

yes. did eukaryotes evolve from cyanobacteria or are cyanobacteria the first eukaryotes? Clone commando sev (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither? It's in the name. Bacteria. "Eukaryote" doesn't mean "multicellular". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Dinosaurs are reptiles. Birds are dinosaurs. Birds are reptiles. That's it. It's an open and shut case and anything else is inaccurate. 98.10.3.178 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)

Dinosaurs have been given their own class, separate from reptiles. Our (Wikipedia's) own article describes this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinosaur_classification. As far as birds are concerned, prior to discussions on including them in a class with dinosaurs, they had their own class, Aves, and were not part of class Reptilia.TheBaron0530 (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

You have fundamentally misunderstood that article then. Dinosauria is not a "class", it is an unranked clade because real life doesn't follow Linnaean taxonomy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Bakker & Galton (1974) did propose that dinosaurs should be treated as their own class, but this proposal never caught on. The Linnean system of mutually exclusive orders, classes, etc. is obsolete anyways. I feel like we should have some big banner at the top of the talk page clarifying that "bird" and "reptile" are not mutually exclusive, because these discussions pop up constantly with no regards to the fact that we've gone over it a million times. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, there's barely anything else on the talk page... Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:51, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Consider this: if dinosaurs (and birds) are reptiles simply because they are descended from reptiles, then everyone of us posting to this discussion board is a fish. Are we not descended from fish? Indeed, if dinosaurs are reptiles, are not mammals reptiles, also? Taxonomy must take into account not only cladistics, but evolution as well. Testudines have not changed much in almost 200 million years, but dinosaurs (and birds) are vastly different from snakes and crocodiles. The development of endothermy and the acquisition of body insulation (feathers), require a change in taxonomy:dinosaurs became no longer reptiles. In the same way we do not classify mammals, who developed endothermy and acquired body insulation (fur), as reptiles, but rather as "something new". In any event, the term "reptile" may not be cladistically supportable anyway, as there is certainly still the possibility that the various lineages grouped together as "reptiles" evolved from separate clades of amphibians. Morngaur (talk) 04:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I would like to suggest the following edit: "Dinosaurs are a diverse group of amniote vertebrates of the clade Dinosauria." "Amniote" and "vertebrate" should, of course, link to their respective Wikipedia pages. Morngaur (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I oppose this as reptile is a lot more descriptive. Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Science_Dinosaurs

@wikipedia_editors ,Can you rewrite this article with new knowledge , Sinhalawikieditor (talk) 16:49, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Which new knowledge in particular? FunkMonk (talk) 17:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Taxobox Change

What would be anyone's suggestion on listing incertae sedis genera in the Subgroups section in the taxobox? Hiroizmeh (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 22:36, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I think that would be overkill for this general article. Just too much clutter. We should focus on the most important points only. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 23:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Very good point, but after thinking it over, I'd add a collapsible taxonomy in the taxobox that 1) does not clutter the article for the average person who wants to read it and 2) provides the additional information for the person who wants to study it. I think this would be a good compromise. Hiroizmeh (talk) 02:22, 23 April 2021 (UTC)