Wikipedia

Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 15

< Talk:Dinosaur
Latest comment: 9 months ago by Khajidha in topic Stegosaurus stenops or ungulatus?
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

FA criteria

Latest comment: 3 years ago118 comments7 people in discussion

Note to editors improving this article: I found an excellent 2018 review article about dinosaurs by Benson in Annual Reviews: [1] I think we could make good use of some of the text in here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:06, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mark Witton's latest blogpost [2] and references therein may be a helpful resource for some of the historical discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments by Femkemilene

Hello dinosaur editors. I'm afraid this article doesn't quite meet the FA criteria anymore in terms of being well-researched. There are quite a few bits that are out of date.

Thanks for the comments. The article certainly could use an update so your specific points are helpful for myself and other editors. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Examples of (possible) out-of-dateness

  • In the general description-part it says according to a 2006 study, over 500 non-avian dinosaur genera have been identified with certainty so far, and the total number of genera preserved in the fossil record has been estimated at around 1850, nearly 75% of which remain to be discovered. Surely a newer estimate is out there
Very few people are tabulating this in the academic literature. The most recent figure is just over 900 genera [3] as of 2018, less just over 100 for invalidated genera. A 2016 study estimates around 1536 genera and 1936 species [4] that lived during the Mesozoic (regardless of whether they have been discovered), with considerable error bars. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I've added the newer sources and numbers given by Lythronaxargestes above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • By September 17, 2008, 1,047 different species of dinosaurs had been named. What about now?
Nobody is keeping count of valid species, but the 2016 paper lists 1124. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I've added the number given above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Paleontologists think that Eoraptor resembles the common ancestor of all dinosaurs cited to 1999 study; do they still think that?
Yes, Eoraptor is consistently recovered as a basal (unspecialized) member of the Dinosauria [5] and is cited as a typical "early dinosaur" [6]. The wording may be arguable. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Changed wording and added one of the newer sources above. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • ’’ Scientists disagree as to whether non-avian dinosaurs were endothermic, ectothermic, or some combination of both. (2009 source);’’ still true? Or is one now preferred?
Physiological and climate-based models [7] currently suggest that dinosaurs were closer to the former than the latter, but the extent varies by group and by analysis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
So seems we should reword this and add some newer sources? FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
I can get on this after I wrap up Savannasaurus (still a few things left there). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 07:13, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Just to note, I've thoroughly rewritten this section to bring it in line with Benton's review. I think the article Physiology of dinosaurs is problematic in light of this rewritten text and the state of contemporary research in general, but it should be a lower priority. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:13, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
  • ‘’The extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions; upon further inspection and peer review, however, neither of these reports could be confirmed.’’ 1997 source, still valid?
For those specific reports, yes. Markers of DNA have been suggested as recently as 2020 [8] but it's commonly agreed that extracting DNA is not possible [9]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ‘’In addition, several proteins, including hemoglobin, have putatively been detected in dinosaur fossils.’’ (latest source 2010, still true?)
Yes, see previously-linked paper on DNA markers, but dissenting literature continues to exist [10]. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
  • ‘’Current evidence suggests that dinosaur average size varied through the Triassic, Early Jurassic, Late Jurassic and Cretaceous’’ (1999 source doesn’t support the word current there).
Recent research continues to suggest that different lineages of dinosaurs showed different trends in body size [11] [12] throughout the Mesozoic. This text could be reworded. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
I think you can just go ahead and reword it if you have any ideas (without necessarily gaining consensus for exact wording first), anything is probably an improvement to what we have now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Lacking citations

  • The renaissance section is poorly cited. There is a 1986 book without page numbers, and a newspaper article. The newspaper article doesn’t verify all the text in the paragraph before that.
There must be hundreds of more recent sources that could be used to cite this. Maybe The Dinosauria? FunkMonk (talk) 14:20, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Mike Taylor wrote a sauropod-specific overview of the Renaissance. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:54, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
Added a bunch of newer sources. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Prose, MOS and citation

  • I find the prose / jargon difficult to understand. The article has a broad appeal, and and much as possible, should be written for a broad audience.
Others may disagree with my take on this, but to provide a comprehensive treatment of dinosaur research at least some jargon is necessary. I would argue that the article is mostly as accessible as it can and should be, with the exception of § Distinguishing anatomical features. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:46, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Could be there should be more glossing in parenthesis, and links to the Dinosaur glossary? FunkMonk (talk) 22:05, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
Yes, good point. The {{dinogloss}} is probably our most major effort towards accessibility since the FA-hood of this article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:18, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
That was indeed the section where I got lost. The lede is accessible for people with secondary school biology, and I cannot find obvious candidates for making it easier. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2020 (UTC)
  • The citation style is not quite consistent, with some in-text citations combined with refs: paleontologist Max C. Langer et al. (2018) determined that Staurikosaurus from the Santa Maria Formation dates to 233.23 million years ago, making it older in geologic age than Eoraptor.
  • l Robert T. "Bob" Bakker; weird to have "bob" in there

Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Removed Bob. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Further comments
  • Two examples of news that needs to be integrated: In 2015, researchers reported finding ..., In 2016, it was reported that a dinosaur tail ... (or deleted if not sufficiently relevant, or expanded if super relevant)
The first, I think, is relevant but I don't know enough about that entire literature to tell how significant it is.
The second is deleted. Very minor discovery (though very cool) that doesn't mean anything for the field. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The description of feathered dinosaurs has not been without controversy ... . I think this controversy should be written from more modern secondary sources. How relevant is this discussion now? Are these individuals still due now that the discussions (as far as I understand as a lay person) have concluded?
These people, called BANDits, are much less of a vocal presence now than they were in the 90s and 00s since the weight of the evidence is now against them. They still put out books, but scientific publications do not take them seriously. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The clade choice in the infobox is very strange indeed. I don't know why Dracohors is there as opposed to Archosauria or Sauropsida. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe use 'neck frill' instead of simply frill as a way to simplify? Wasn't familiar with the word. Non-native speaker here, so not sure.
Neck frill is actually linked further down in the article. Replaced first mention with full link. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • gloss gazetteer? Or hide the jargon in the link?
  • Another example of news in 'impact event'
The news is notable, just not for this article. It'd fit better in Alvarez hypothesis or Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The penultimate paragraph of impact event contains 'Scientists are not certain' with a cite to 2004. Still valid?
I think this entire section is messy and might need a partial rewrite. There are really two issues this paragraph entails: the trend in dinosaur diversity at the end of the Cretaceous, and the effects of the impact. The former probably needs a standalone subsection because it's an important area of research. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Also tagging FunkMonk: I've gutted and rewritten the entire Extinction section to be in line with current research. Feedback appreciated. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks much better to me! I wonder if the line "The nature of the event that caused this mass extinction has been extensively studied since the 1970s." should also include something like "with various different scenarios proposed, until" and then go into the two modern theories? FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Done. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

SG feedback

  • There is a considerable number of duplicate wikilinks: some of them may be warranted, editorial discretion is needed in which to remove.
I've removed them all. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Harv ref errors, samples only:
  • Wellnhofer, Peter (June 24, 1988). "A New Specimen of Archaeopteryx". Science. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 240 (4860): 1790–1792. Bibcode:1988Sci...240.1790W. doi:10.1126/science.240.4860.1790. ISSN 0036-8075. JSTOR 1701652. PMID 17842432. S2CID 32015255.—— (1988). "Ein neuer Exemplar von Archaeopteryx". Archaeopteryx. 6: 1–30. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFWellnhofer1988.
  • Hotz, Robert Lee (September 15, 2019). "Details Discovered About the Day the Dinosaurs Died". News. MSN.com. Redmond, WA: Microsoft. Archived from the original on September 18, 2019. Retrieved November 8, 2019. —— (September 9, 2019). "Scientists Discover New Evidence of the Asteroid That Killed Off the Dinosaurs". The Wall Street Journal. New York: Dow Jones & Company. ISSN 0099-9660. Archived from the original on November 8, 2019. Retrieved November 8, 2019. Harv warning: There is no link pointing to this citation. The anchor is named CITEREFHotz2019.
Yeah, that was weird, there was even some "mask author" parameter I had never seen before, but which seems pointless. Should be fixed now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You can install thesescripts to keep the article in order:
  • Review throughout for MOS:CURRENT, sample: Current dinosaur "hot spots" include southern South America (especially Argentina) and China. (as of date or some context for what is meant by "current").

Once User:Femkemilene is satisfied that the more significant issues have been addressed, please ping me and I will mark this article "Satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Comments by FunkMonk

  • "Pterosaurs are distantly related to dinosaurs, being members of the clade Ornithodira. The other groups mentioned are, like dinosaurs and pterosaurs, members of Sauropsida (the reptile and bird clade), except Dimetrodon (which is a synapsid)." This needs a source. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Should we move the history of study to the top of the article?
I think it's important to have the definition there, especially to get it out up front that birds are dinosaurs. I do think it shouldn't be quite as far down, though, so I've moved it up. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've removed the very arbitrary and unsourced "Timeline of notable dinosaur taxonomic descriptions", as was suggested here (and it had noting to do with the section it was in):[13]
  • "and others, such as Anchisaurus and Iguanodon, could walk just as easily on two or four legs" Isn't this outdated for Anchisaurus? Aren't early sauropopdomorphs thought to have been strictly bipedal?
  • Shouldn't the text after the bullet points under "Distinguishing anatomical features" Start with capital letters? I've done this for now.
The way I learned it is that the bullet points should form a single coherent sentence with the preceding text (so replace the bullets with semicolons after the list items and it should still make sense). But for expository purposes I think what we have now is fine. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "sparked a wave of interests in dinosaurs in the United States, known as dinosaur mania.[48] Dinosaur mania was exemplified by the fierce rivalry between" I wonder if this silly term I've never really seen in a formal context is actually mentioned by the sources used, and if it's even needed here? And if it fits the context, was it really "known as dinosaur mania" in the 19th century?
  • "The feud probably originated when Marsh publicly pointed out that Cope's reconstruction of an Elasmosaurus skeleton was flawed: Cope had inadvertently placed the plesiosaur's head at what should have been the animal's tail end." Is this relevant in an article about dinosaurs (not plesiosaurs)? I can think of many other details left out that would be more relevant.
It seems that this chunk explains how the Bone Wars started, so it's kind of non-topical? I think it could removed though, anyway. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:39, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Welp, went on to removing it anyways. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "After 1897, the search for dinosaur fossils extended to every continent, including Antarctica. The first Antarctic dinosaur to be discovered, the ankylosaurid Antarctopelta oliveroi, was found on James Ross Island in 1986,[50] although it was 1994 before an Antarctic species, the theropod Cryolophosaurus ellioti, was formally named and described in a scientific journal.[51]" Why go into tiny detail of Antarctica specifically instead of mentioning more general things about the rest of the world?
This text is gone. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • First one section says "China, in particular, has produced many exceptional feathered dinosaur specimens due to the unique geology of its dinosaur beds, as well as an ancient arid climate particularly conducive to fossilization." then the next section says "and most significantly China (the well-preserved feathered dinosaurs in China have further consolidated the link between dinosaurs and their living descendants, modern birds)". Shouldn't the two be consolidated instead of now where they look repetitive?
The first section is gone. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • It also seems odd that one sections talks about dinosaur discoveries extending to the rest of the world, then the following section says basically the same. First "After 1897, the search for dinosaur fossils extended to every continent, including Antarctica.", then "Major new dinosaur discoveries have been made by paleontologists working in previously unexploited regions, including India, South America, Madagascar, Antarctica, and most significantly China".
I removed the first chunk of text. I don't think it fits there at all. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • An image of Bakker is shown under "Dinosaur renaissance", but he isn't mentioned in the text, which I'd think he should be?
I mention Bakker much further below in the physiology section. I agree he should show up earlier. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:34, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't the paragraph about Ornithoscelida be moved down to classification rather than definition where it is now?
There's discussion of "Saurischia + Ornithischia" in the definition. We could make that more generic, and then add a section under classification about alternative topologies. Thoughts? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
Sounds good to me, now it's just odd that there is no mention of the alternative under classification. FunkMonk (talk) 17:40, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "This has led to a significant body of work in reconstructing growth curves and modelling the evolution of growth rates across various dinosaur lineages,[71][83][84][85][86][87][88]" Why does this relatively simple statement need seven citation?
It does say "across various dinosaur lineages", so perhaps each one of them are citing a specific lineage or something? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, they are citations for papers from different lineages. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Feathers are one of the most recognizable characteristics of modern birds, and a trait that was shared by all other dinosaur groups." The last part seems quite an overstatement, or at least badly worded?
The paper citing that chunk of text is mainly talking about Sciurumimus (which is a theropod) and mentions briefly some ornithischian genera, so perhaps we could say "a trait that was mainly shared by several theropods, including birds, and a few ornithischians."? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, something like that, or maybe even vaguer, like "have been identified in various dinosaur groups", not sure, but the current wording needs to be replaced in any case, I think. FunkMonk (talk) 16:34, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Changed to "several non-avian dinosaurs", would that work? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Much of the wording in this from adjacent sections is repetitive: "A minority of scientists, most notably Alan Feduccia and Larry Martin, have proposed other evolutionary paths, including revised versions of Heilmann's basal archosaur proposal,[10] or that maniraptoran theropods are the ancestors of birds but themselves are not dinosaurs, only convergent with dinosaurs." and "The description of feathered dinosaurs has not been without controversy; perhaps the most vocal critics have been Alan Feduccia and Theagarten Lingham-Soliar, who have proposed that some purported feather-like fossils are the result of the decomposition of collagenous fiber that underlaid the dinosaurs' skin,[20][21][22] and that maniraptoran dinosaurs with vaned feathers were not actually dinosaurs, but convergent with dinosaurs."
  • "Large meat-eating dinosaurs had a complex system of air sacs similar to those found in modern birds" Since this is also true for for example sauropods, should that be mentioned there too, even though it's about bird origins?
  • "however, all non-avian dinosaurs, estimated to have been 628–1078 species,[225] as well as many groups of birds did suddenly become extinct approximately 66 million years ago" This seems to imply that all dinosaur species that ever existed went extinct at the same time, which is of course misleading.
Fixed by Lythronaxargestes. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • I guess it's to make a point, but it still seems odd that the section about extinction begins with "The discovery that birds are a type of dinosaur showed that dinosaurs in general are not, in fact, extinct as is commonly stated" instead of the extinction itself.
Fixed by Lythronaxargestes. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The external links seem very arbitrary and random. Is the section even needed?
How weird. Gone. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:11, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "the release of volcanic gases during the formation of the Deccan Traps "contributed to an apparently massive global warming. Some data point to an average rise in temperature of [8 °C (14 °F)] in the last half-million years before the impact [at Chicxulub]."" Why is this a long quote and not just paraphrased, unlike everything else in the article?
Fixed by Lythronaxargestes. FunkMonk (talk) 09:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Dinosaurs can therefore be divided into avian dinosaurs, or birds; and non-avian dinosaurs, which are all dinosaurs other than birds." This from the intro could probably be reiterated under "definition".
Just a comment here first: for someone who doesn't know much about dinosaurs might think that this is how the clade Dinosauria is actually divided, which isn't right at all. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Still, the idea that non-avian dinosaurs were uniformly gigantic is a misconception based in part on preservation bias, as large, sturdy bones are more likely to last until they are fossilized. Many dinosaurs were quite small: Xixianykus, for example, was only about 50 centimeters (20 inches) long." Only stated in the intro, which should not have unique info.
Removed Xixianykus and just changed to "some of them" so it makes a broader statement. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 16:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Birds, at over 10,000 living species, are the most diverse group of vertebrates besides perciform fish." Likewise.
Removed as well, this would be stated better in the Bird article rather than here. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:09, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "mounted fossil dinosaur skeletons have been major attractions at museums worldwide" Mounted skeletons only seem to be mentioned in the intro.
  • That's all from me, I think the article looks good apart from these issues which should be discussed, and when we've addressed these and the comments of others, it can be marked as satisfactory. I should note that I've fixed many issues myself while reading the article, but the ones above are those I thought would need to gain some kind of consensus for, or I was unsure about. FunkMonk (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Comments by HFoxii

  • It is somehow wrong not to mention pachycephalosaurs in the Definition section. In the source the article refers to, they are named as one of the main groups of ornithischian dinosaurs ("Five main ornithischian groups are traditionally recognized: Stegosauria, Ankylosauria, Ornithopoda, Pachycephalosauria, and Ceratopsia"). HFoxii (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Fair point. I went ahead and changed it. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:44, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I would also recommend changing "main" to "major", a phrasing which better accommodates the fact that there are other minor ornithischian groups (heterodontosaurids, elasmarians, orodromines, etc). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
"Main" is not actually used the article, the quote is from the source. I reworded the sentence to add "major"—I think your concern still held. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • There are many complex anatomical terms in the article that could be explained. Can someone explain what the word shaft means in this context: "fourth trochanter asymmetrical, with distal, lower, margin forming a steeper angle to the shaft"? HFoxii (talk) 09:49, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
    • "On the astragalus and calcaneum, upper ankle bones, the proximal articular facet, the top connecting surface, for the fibula occupies less than 30% of the transverse width of the element". The text is already quite difficult, and the explanations make it even more difficult to understand. HFoxii (talk) 15:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
In regard to this latter point, really nothing can be done about this except maybe the addition of one or more images. Anatomy is complicated. You can easily see in all our other FAs that the level of language in this sentence is similar, if not slightly more opaque than it can be. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:46, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
Dinosauria doesn't really have a stable anatomical diagnosis anyways, especially with taxa such as silesaurids jumping in and out of it on a regular basis. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • The History of study#Pre-scientific history section does not include page numbers from the Dinosaurian Faunas of China (Dong 1992). HFoxii (talk) 13:53, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • This news story quotes Michael Benton: "Later work, on more complete specimens, reduced more than 1,000 named dinosaurs to 500 or so". Such information is very different from that given in the article and looks rather unusual, but M. Benton's authority is beyond doubt. HFoxii (talk) 17:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, the authority of a BBC interview does not compare with peer reviewed published papers. Out latest source that gives more than 900 genera is pretty recent, and the one with over 1000 species is even more recent. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
It also goes without saying that the number of named dinosaur taxa has exploded in recent years. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "Within the archosaur group, dinosaurs are differentiated most noticeably by their gait. Dinosaur legs extend directly beneath the body, whereas the legs of lizards and crocodilians sprawl out to either side.". Wouldn't it be more correct to say that dinosaurs differ in their gait from other reptiles in general, and not precisely from other archosaurs? HFoxii (talk) 09:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • One more thing about the number of genera. The article says that "over 900 non-avian dinosaur genera have been identified with certainty as of 2018", but the sources for this statement are works that were not published in 2018. HFoxii (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
But the first one is 2018? If you go to the website you see the article was last updated in 2018. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
  • George Olshevsky in his The Dinosaur Genera List gives more than 1000 good established genera. Perhaps it can be used here (although the website is certainly less authoritative than scientific articles). Olshevsky considers all dinosauromorphs to be dinosaurs, but this is no longer a problem if we round up the number of genera. HFoxii (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't see how a non peer-reviewed list is preferable to multiple figures given by the technical literature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it is better to indicate the number of species according to scientific articles. But where did the 2018 data come from if none of the cited articles were published in 2018? HFoxii (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
As I noted, the first reference cited is dated to 2017, but was last updated in 2018. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
This is a step in the right direction, but some of the bones in that diagram are not labelled. Maybe File:Dromaeosaurus skull en.svg would be better. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I do like this one. It labels the fenestrae too, which I think supports the text better. Replaced. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "The discovery of primitive, dinosaur-like ornithodirans such as Marasuchus and Lagerpeton in Argentinian Middle Triassic strata supports this view; analysis of recovered fossils suggests that these animals were indeed small, bipedal predators." This statement is not supported by sources and contains some questionable information: 1) Marasuchus may be a junior synonym for Lagosuchus [14]. Maybe we should use the second genus as an example? In addition, is its bipedality confirmed? 2) According to a recent point of view, Lagerpeton, like other Lagerpetidae, may be a pterosauromorph and not a dinosauromorph [15]. HFoxii (talk) 17:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
Replaced with Lagosuchus. I don't see how that stops it from being a "primitive, dinosaur-like ornithodiran"? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:03, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, the synonymy debate between Marasuchus and Lagosuchus is not super consequential to the thesis of the statement. A bigger problem is the fact that it claims they are Middle Triassic in age, an older estimate superseded by U-Pb dating which has established the classic Chanares assemblage as early Carnian (Late Triassic). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Good point. I've reworded the sentence to account for this. Hopefully the age estimate makes it clear that they are still older than Eoraptor, but not by much. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:05, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
The Manda Formation is Anisian or possibly younger. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:29, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
But is there an exact dating of its deposits? The Anisian Stage lasted for several million years. HFoxii (talk) 11:29, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
No. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
The Manda Beds are assigned to the Anisian stage based on general tetrapod biostratigraphy, which may not be completely accurate but is still the best we've got for assemblages without radiometric dating. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
  • If the silesaurids are indeed dinosaurs, as has been suggested in a number of recent scientific articles [16][17][18][19], then this will transfer the occurrence of the clade Dinosauria to at least the Middle Triassic. Most likely, this should be mentioned here. HFoxii (talk) 12:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
I think perhaps the best place for this is either the "Taxonomy" subsection of the classification, or the "Definition" section above, maybe just add a brief paragraph? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
This is probably more appropriate for the section Evolutionary history, in which it is possible to briefly mention that silesaurids are the closest relatives of dinosaurs, or the oldest known representatives of this group. HFoxii (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Huh, yeah, that kind of makes more sense, the taxonomy section seems to just stick with Holtz (2007), so putting the info about silesaurids there might be a bit confusing. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
  • Given that estimates of the size of the largest sauropods highly variable due to the fragmented nature of their fossils, how correct is it to mention the exact numbers in the preamble? HFoxii (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
  • "With the backing of Prince Albert, the husband of Queen Victoria, Owen established the Natural History Museum, London". The source pages for this information (Rupke 1994) are not listed. I cannot find any other source where said about support from Prince Albert, although this would not be surprising given Prince Albert's very positive attitude towards Owen. HFoxii (talk) 13:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why that sentence is even needed in this article about dinosaurs... FunkMonk (talk) 13:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  • "Knowledge about dinosaurs is derived from a variety of fossil and non-fossil records, including fossilized bones, feces, trackways, gastroliths, feathers, impressions of skin, internal organs and other soft tissues". It is not entirely clear what is meant by "non-fossil records". Phylogenetic bracketing? HFoxii (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • In many parts of the article, the word "dinosaur" is used to mean "non-avian dinosaur" (see the message above, for example), especially in the section "Origin of birds". Shouldn't we call a spade a spade? HFoxii (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
I don't agree with this. The implication is clear. If we replaced every instance the article would be harder to read. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "Bones from several similar-sized individuals were incorporated into the skeleton now mounted and on display at the Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin; this mount is 12 meters (39 ft) tall and 21.8 to 22.5 meters (72 to 74 ft) long, and would have belonged to an animal that weighed between 30000 and 60000 kilograms (70000 and 130000 lb)". A mount cannot have different lengths. HFoxii (talk) 08:33, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The source for the first paragraph of "Largest and smallest" (The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs) does not include pages. I have a second edition of this book, and I did not find a section in it that confirms the information described (although it is obvious that it is correct). HFoxii (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
  • The introduction of the article indicates the time interval in which dinosaurs could have appeared, but these numbers do not appear anywhere after the introduction. HFoxii (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
  • "For example, Anchiornis huxleyi is currently the smallest non-avialan dinosaur described from an adult specimen". This is a rather controversial statement, as anchiornithids are most likely avialans. HFoxii (talk) 15:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

How far are we?

The discussion is now at a level I don't quite understand any more, with most of the points above addressed, but some outstanding. Could any of the experts indicate whether more needs to be done? I've only got one additional comment:

  • There is some overciting, for instance This has led to a significant body of work ... with 7 citations. The first citation seems to cover this point approximately, so I think at least three others can be dropped. An alternative may be bundling. Femke Nijsse (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Bundling is a nice idea. I've done that. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I think it's pretty close, with a few points left. Maybe we can write "done" or something after each addressed issue. FunkMonk (talk) 23:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The main outstanding points wrt your comments, Femke, pertain to sections about dinosaur size and soft tissue/DNA, which I am yet to rewrite. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:18, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
I guess we also need to figure out what to do with those articles we wanted to merge here? FunkMonk (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

How far are we 2?

I feel we may have halted just before the finish line of marking this as satisfactory at WP:URFA/2020. Lythronaxargestes, are you still keen on working on dinosaur size and soft tissue/DNA? When this work is finished, it may be nice to ask whether it can be rerun at WP:TFA, which imo could benefit from more core articles. FemkeMilene (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Alas, I have the keenness but not the time at present... But I anticipate that I should be free to improve those sections in a few weeks. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Similar situation, I certainly don't think this is or will be abandoned, it'll just have to be slow-burn unless someone gets the time to give it a big push, I barely have time for the other articles I'm working on at the moment... FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Images of birds

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Given the fact that birds are dinosaurs, shouldn't we include at least one picture of a bird in the main infobox? I mean, I know that people opening this page are likely looking for the extint species, but anyway it seems more encyclopedically correct to me to match the introduction with the right images. FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 13:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well, you have the feathered Microraptor in the infobox, and right below you have a collage of modern birds. Possibly, something like Archaeopteryx could have been used in the main collage instead? FunkMonk (talk) 12:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
The collage directly underneath shows the presence and inclusion of birds on the page. A bird in the infobox might negate use of the collage, which by itself seems to make the necessary statement. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
You're right. The current situation seems the better one. Another idea could be to move the bird collage to the bird's section and include a bird in the infobox, but probably we would confuse the reader and it won't improve the understanding of the article. Moreover, the page is a FA and it's better to avoid excessively altering the introduction. Anyway thanks for answering! FilBenLeafBoy (Let's Talk!) 15:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

birds are not dinosaurs

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion

Wikipedia should follow common English usage. In no usage of common English are birds dinosaurs. We need to be very clear about this. Birds are not dinosaurs, the term refers specifically to a class of extinct animals. Any relationship to modern birds does not change the fact that in English the words refer to two distinct and different things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

While that's true for the general public, recent scientific studies demonstrate that birds are indeed dinosaurs, and besides, even if this article uses English, its content discusses stuff based on scientific papers or books. And if you try to argue this with the WikiProject, you most likely won't gain support. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'll say exactly what I said at bird: "This is not an English article. This is a science article."
Based on your vigorous activity on this topic across not one but multiple pages, John, I find it difficult to treat your argument as an objective one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a scientific article about the clade Dinosauria, whos members are commonly known in english as "dinosaurs". Birds are members of Dinosauria by any reasonable standard (being deeply nested within Theropoda), and therefore is is reasonable to refer to birds as a kind of dinosaur. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:04, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
JPL apparently feels so strongly about this that he has been ranting into the void on his own talk page, and clogging up WP:CFD. These kinds of "discussions" are so tiresome... Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:45, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I can understand for categorisation reasons why you would not want to include bird related films with Category:Dinosaur films, as they are essentially different topics. It is irrelevant to this page though. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The thing about connotative (or “informal”) definitions of words is that it’s possible for them to contradict the word’s denotative (or “formal”) definition. In this case, the denotative definition has to be what we use because this is an encyclopedia, not a casual wiki we made with our friends. Cretaceousa (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

This is the present, and I think it's safe to say that topics that have to do substantially with biology should have their scientific definition prioritized over the lexical definition, if not by default --Hiroizmeh (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021 Concerning Dinosaur page

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I just noticed an error on the "Dinosaur" Wiki page. It claimed that Dinosaurs were an extinct type of Reptiles, though, they have been proven to most likely be Avian, or birds.

Where does the article claim that all dinosaurs are extinct? It does not as far as I can see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:26, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the original poster was trying to say that dinosaurs weren't reptiles, not that they aren't extinct. The problem is that the fact that birds are dinosaurs doesn't mean that dinosaurs are birds, it means that birds are reptiles. --Khajidha (talk) 15:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2021

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to make a request to edit because I have a lot of info on dinos and I am a fossle expert 216.109.57.195 (talk) 15:54, 27 August 2021 (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. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:55, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Circular Link - Paleocene dinosaurs

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In Dinosaur#Possible Paleocene survivors, there is a link to Paleocene dinosaurs, but that link is circular because it's redirecting back to Dinosaur#Possible Paleocene survivors where the link exists (and is the only place on the page where this link is used). The link should be removed as it serves no functional purpose in that section. -- 96.227.111.66 (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Holdover from when it existed as a standalone article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:35, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

What's you fav Dinosaur?

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Personally speaking, mine is Spinosaurus, or even deinonichous. Is that how you spell it? Please correct me Wikipedia, Thanks in advance. :D

Deinonychus.--MWAK (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

This Article is misleading

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

Dinosaurs didn’t evolve. They were made on the 6th day of creation by Jesus!! We don’t have dinosaurs today because they got hunted and eventually they got to old and they died. Magge 08 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Nowadays, all paleontologists recognize the fact of evolution. Your point is not supported by any scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it cannot be covered in this article. HFoxii (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
That would then be, according to the Genesis creation narrative, the fifth day and not by the Son.--MWAK (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bible (Gods word) is my evidence! Magge 08 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no evidence of there being a god, I personally think is not a god, for science and a large majority of the current populus of the North American region, and a large proportion of western Europe, (a large percentage of the global populus) believe that there is no diety, and hey, if there is one, we have no idea which one it is, I mean there are over 4000 religous movements, so, y'know. We don't know, there is no evidence of God, Stephen Hawking, has theorized that god cannot exist because there is no time for him to exist, and, a question that springs to mind in the arguement of there not being a god is, what came before god? And, who created a god, if you belive in the creationist theory?

Thanks for reading my rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HahaPanzerV (talk • contribs) 10:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

What is your evidence that it is God's word? Anyone can write anything and claim it was told to them by God. You probably even dismiss the claims of other religions that their holy texts are the word of God, so why do you (and why should we) accept this claim for the Bible? --Khajidha (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
We have a nice article for these questions: Existence of God.--MWAK (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Lack of citations

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I’m concerned about the worrying lack of citations on this article. It makes claims as grand as birds are reptiles and doesn’t cite anything, much less the recommended number of sources. I would flag it, but editing is locked. WahooSS238 (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're talking about, the article body has citations for everything. If you're referring to the intro, they don't require citations, as they're just a summary of the article. And by the way, no one doubts bids are reptiles, it has been accepted since the 19th century. The idea that they're dinosaurs, however, is more recent. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
"And by the way, no one doubts bids are reptiles, it has been accepted since the 19th century". Sorry, but your wording seems too harsh to me. In fact, until the end of the 20th century, birds were never formally classified as representatives of the taxon Reptilia. This situation is more controversial because there are different taxonomic schools. Most paleontologists do believe that birds are reptiles (and I agree with them), but in neontology, "reptiles" still often refer to the paraphyletic group. HFoxii (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, let's say descended from reptiles then (which I believe OP is arguing against, but who knows). FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Classification Update

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

What does anyone else feel about updating the classification scheme further in the article? I mean, it's nearly 15 years old, so it would be useful to give it a little revamping. Hiroizmeh (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

The article already states there are alternatives, so I don't think we should replace it with something newer which isn't even widely accepted yet. What would you change? Also, we should probably revive the now archived section about article improvements, whey weren't all finished yet. FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Alright. I wasn't proposing anything specific for a classification scheme (the whole Ornithoscelida thing, if that's what you're referring to); just a consensus of what can be agreed on. I might start on it and have it below here in this talk page for anyone to tweak it. I read in the archive on citing something, but if there isn't anything, would you think it's acceptable to synthesize a taxonomic consensus? Hiroizmeh (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Dinosauria

Consensusof paravian phylogeny by studies in 2021 only (descriptions of Tamarro, Kuru, Kansaignathus, Shri, and Papiliovenator) not consensing Xiaotingia because it collapses a lot since its been found to be an anchiornithid and a troodntid.

Paraves

Ceratopsia

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Strict (Nelsen) consensus of phylogenetic analyses from 2019-2021 (last 2 years) on Ceratopsia. Includes:

Ceratopsia

Chaoyangsaurus

Hualianceratops

Psittacosaurus

Xuanhuaceratops

Yinlong

Neoceratopsia

Liaoceratops

Stenopelix

Archaroceratops

Aquilops

Asiaceratops

Auroraceratops

Cerasinops

Ferrisaurus

Gryphoceratops

Mosaiceratops

Yamaceratops

Euceratopsia

Leptoceratops

Protoceratopsidae
Ceratopsoidea
Any kind of synthesis would be WP:synth, so better to stick to one recent source, and then note below what the alternatives are. Or better, maybe just keep it so simple that it avoids minor differences between studies (and minor, controversial clades). But lets see what others have to say. FunkMonk (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, a simple consensus that everyone agrees with seems like it could be included. And on Wp:synth, there are other places on wikipedia, like the subgroups in taxoboxes, and classifcation templates at the bottoms of pages, that contain a combined consensus of a bunch of different works without reference, but are accepted. Does something like this within a wikipedia page fall within a different authority? Hiroizmeh (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
I just don't think it has ever been discussed. The taxobox info should just be a summary of what's in the article body, though, so if the different schemes are presented there with sources, the taxobox itself should be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Your proposal shows the inherent disadvantages of such point lists. They grow evermore complex, while still not fully reflecting phylogeny or dinosaur diversity. They suggest a false equivalence to the reader, who will not easily understand them. Perhaps it's better to show a simple cladogram instead, limiting ourselves to some main clades. It could be sourced by most recent analyses. The "Ornithoscelida hypothesis" might be given as an alternative. Apart from that aspect a simple cladogram would not have to be updated often.
If we keep a point list, the descriptions given of each group had better been removed. They too have grown longer, ambiguous value judgments having been added ("primitive"). And sometimes they are quite inaccurate. Sauropods were not usually longer than fifteen metres.--MWAK (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Agree, we should keep it as simple as possible, that will also avoid constant maintenance and the chance of becoming outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

how do dinasor eat and live and servive and sleep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3CA:0:2E3:A58C:D3DB:7D21:A44D (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Formal FA review still needed

Latest comment: 2 years ago15 comments4 people in discussion

From reading a past discussion (Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 15#FA criteria), issues were raised and then addressed. However, also from reading the "How far are we 2?" section of the discussion, I'm still unsure whether improvements are enough to help the article retain its FA status. Furthermore, more work may be needed, but I don't know which issues to identify. The article is 255KB total, including 72KB in prose, and took some time to load. Due to its size, the article may be harder, more stressful, and time-consuming for just one person to fully review and to mark it as "satisfactory" in WP:URFA/2020VO. Establishing an FAR would invite those interested in reviewing the large, long article, but I hope the FAR doesn't lead to the article being delisted. --George Ho (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

I think to begin with we should identify which issues from last time around that still need t be fixed. I don't think listing it for formal FAR will gain anything, as it's the same people who will have to fix the issues, just at a more limited time frame. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
If you want me to raise issues, I see "Discoveries in North America" subsection but not "Discoveries in <other continents>"... Turns out the whole subsection is about discoveries by American researchers. For some reason, I don't see Canadian or Latin American researchers mentioned or deemed reliable enough to be included. This could be viewed as US-centrism, but I could be wrong. Per Jens Lallensack's comments. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Furthermore, the whole article written seems as if everything about dinosaurs is true mostly based on research and fossil discoveries. However, I couldn't find historiography concerning dinosaurs (and paleontology?) and reliable theories that would challenge most, if not mainstream and academic, views about dinosaurs (and paleontology). I guess alternative theories challenging the mainstream and academic views have been debunked, rejected, excluded from the article, or something. Right? Or, historiography isn't necessary? Per Jens Lallensack's comments. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I like how extinct species are listed. However, list of species categorized by (super)continents would be nice and good supplement to prose. Alternatively, a color past or present map representing fossils and/or species would do unless otherwise. Found Template:Dinosaurs by Continent. George Ho (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
That's all I can observe. Nonetheless, it looks still well written and organized, but it's still tremendously different from what it was in 2005. I'm not saying that overlooked issues still remain. But I just want to be sure whether the article still deserves to hold its FA star after more than fifteen years. If the issues above are just merely my opinions, then I guess I must have gotten worried over nothing. George Ho (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC); partially struck, 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I'd say that being different from how it was in 2005 is a plus, since articles from that time were generally not up to today's standards. But you raise some good additional points that should certainly be resolved, and I think we can try to dig up overlooked issues from this archived section:[28] FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding the concerns:
1) North American centrism: I don't see this. "Discoveries in North America" is just the second "chapter" in the history of dinosaur research, which happened to take place in North America. Other continents (after Europe and North America) came much later, and are therefore no longer that crucial than those very early discoveries.
2) Minority hypotheses are often simply not relevant to a very general article like this. When they are, they are mentioned (e.g., the Ornithoscelida debate has a whole paragraph). Feduccia's views on the origins of birds are mentioned as well. So I don't see this issue.
3) I doubt we have space for an additional list, and we would need a number of maps for the different time frames; even when we have a separate map for "Lower Jurassic", then putting all Lower Jurassic dinosaurs on their would be misleading since they are not necessarily contemporary – the Lower Jurassic is a very long epoch. I don't think we can do something like this here. And see the List of dinosaur genera for an impression on how long such a list of species would be. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, it should be noted that we do have more specialised sub-articles that are used to cover the minutiae of various competing theories, this here article should mainly reflect the most accepted theories, and be an overview without too much specific detail. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess you're right about the three. I didn't mean to appear desperate or something, but... Well, I don't know what else to say, actually. I'll be checking the progress from time to time then. --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll narrow down to concerns that weren't addressed, i.e. hadn't received replies, in the previous discussion: inconsistent citation styling, unverifiable info, sources left unchecked and un-evaluated, a few uncited info, repetitive wording, some unclear words/jargon, etc. Uncertain whether the jargon issue has been already addressed. George Ho (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Other than one recent edit on the infobox removing categorization (diff link), I still haven't seen much improvements lately. However, seeing the results of the FAR on Quatermass and the Pit, which I initiated, makes me wary about starting an FAR on this article unless issues are serious enough to warrant the FAR (or FARC). I'm uncertain whether the remaining issues raised in the prior discussion are still serious sufficiently. Also, there will be demands for me to be more engaged and involved in reviewing this article, but I don't know how much stress I can take. My quick review: the article looks well written and well researched. No obvious overemphasis on one thing or another so far. Sources are mostly academic and highly reputable, hopefully. Furthermore, I can still seek subtopics related to dinosaurs. As said before, the article is too large for me to thoroughly review. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Satisfactory?

Two weeks later, if anybody here thinks it's "satisfactory", please mark it as such in WP:URFA/2020A. George Ho (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, Lythronaxargestes, Femkemilene, JurassicClassic767, HFoxii, and Fanboyphilosopher: Please don't hesitate to mark the article as "satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A if you believe the article is sufficiently such. If so, then I may forego plans to take the article to FAR. George Ho (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 March 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the lead, please change "The first dinosaur fossils were recognized in the early 19th century, with the name "dinosaur" (meaning "terrible lizard") having been coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1841" to "The first dinosaur fossils were recognized in the early 19th century, with the name "dinosaur" (meaning "terrible lizard") being coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1841", since 1841 comes after, not before, the early 19th century. 2001:BB6:4713:4858:8886:522E:1414:847F (talk) 12:30, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

  Done --Jules (Mrjulesd) 13:02, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Taxonomy

Latest comment: 2 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

Bubblesorg, the current section on taxonomy is a broken mess of citationless information with blurbs without citations, references for who knows what taxonomic opinions because they aren't described, and significant bias against sauropodomorphs and ornithischians due to less recent expansive reviews of the material. There is no reason to maintain the current taxonomic scheme when it is so very outdated. While it is true that some clades are not present in Holtz 2007, things like Megaraptora were added in the updated appendices, but even then Holtz does not designate classifications based on clade names but on general terms that cannot be translated into names because only the colloquial "ceratosaurs" is used instead of say Ceratosauria. The Dinosauria 2004 would be the best overall citation for dinosaurs (Benton 2014 is not bad but wouldn't have any blurb material), but is woefully outdated compared to the much more recent reviews given by Molina and Larramendi and Madzia ea. When the ornithischians version of Dinosaur Facts and Figures comes out, I would advocate to use those three volumes alone to base the taxonomy on, because then it is one single group of authors for greatest consistency. You broke the classification scheme by trying to rearrange it, which has resulted in it being even more of an uncited amalgamation, with an arbitrary exclusion of some clades and the inclusion of some others (Yanornithiformes, Guaibasauridae, Vulcanodontidae) that are never mentioned in any reference. For now I am not going to remove every unsourced blurb or clade, but I will soon if there are no citations added for them, and unless justification is given for the other choices I will revert your updates to the proper cited versions from the references listed. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 15:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Okay then--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
While citations are now better, why is the main citations being completely disregarded with regards to classifications within sauropodomorphs and ornithischians (as well as birds). The blurbs are still all uncited. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 16:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay first, stop using outdated taxonomy, second, I can fix the blurbs and everything else. Dilophosauridae is not recovered anymore, Camptosauridae is equivlent to Camptosaurus and there is no consensus on if Megaraptorans are Coelurosaurians--Bubblesorg (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Dilophosauridae and Camptosauridae, and the coelurosaur placement of Megaraptorans, comes *direclty* from the sources listed at the top of the taxonomy section. Which makes them the most updated taxonomy, instead of the outdated notion of coelophysoid dilophosaurids. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 22:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Okay, okay I get your point, let me workshop it--Bubblesorg (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I want to write about fossils and prehistoric dinosaurs on wikipedia so please allow me to edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:200:4DC0:DC38:E9B0:152C:71F4 (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Please make an account. This page receives heavy vandalism. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Paul, Gregory S. (1988). Predatory Dinosaurs of the World: A Complete Illustrated Guide Netsivi (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Current: Dinosaurs can therefore be divided into avian dinosaurs, or birds; and the extinct non-avian dinosaurs, which are all dinosaurs other than birds.

Suggested: Dinosaurs can therefore be divided into avian dinosaurs—or birds—and the extinct non-avian dinosaurs—or all dinosaurs other than birds. AJFernandez6 (talk) 15:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

  Partly done: I only implemented the birds change since it is a common alternative name while the latter isn't. I also removed the first "or" since that's how you fit english grammar. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 August 2022

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

SOME EDITS PLEASE Jothsp123 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

  Not done: requests for decreases to the page protection level should be directed to the protecting admin or to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection if the protecting admin is not active or has declined the request. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

"Dinosavr" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Dinosavr and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 16#Dinosavr until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TNstingray (talk) 16:27, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Birds are dinosaurs" isn't objective

Latest comment: 1 year ago14 comments8 people in discussion

The article presents the claim that modern birds are dinosaurs as an indisputable fact, but it really isn't. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, and any attempt to define "dinosaur" taxonomically will likely include birds, but that's not the only reasonable definition. Merriam-Webster, for instance, defines "dinosaur" as either "any of a group (Dinosauria) of extinct, often very large, carnivorous or herbivorous archosaurian reptiles that have the hind limbs extending directly beneath the body and include chiefly terrestrial, bipedal or quadrupedal ornithischians (such as ankylosaurs and stegosaurs) and saurischians (such as sauropods and theropods) which flourished during the Mesozoic era from the late Triassic period to the end of the Cretaceous period" or "any of a broader group that also includes all living and extinct birds." Britannica, meanwhile, defines the term as "the common name given to a group of reptiles, often very large, that first appeared roughly 245 million years ago (near the beginning of the Middle Triassic Epoch) and thrived worldwide for nearly 180 million years," although it does note that "many lines of evidence now show that one lineage evolved into birds about 155 million years ago." The ubiquity of that "common name" suggests that "dinosaur" isn't strictly scientific enough of a term to present the taxonomic definition as the only correct one. Oooooooseven (talk) 21:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Even your first definition would include birds, as birds are theropods. FunkMonk (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
That definition also includes the word "extinct." Oooooooseven (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
We follow the definition of overwhelming scientific consensus, not what laypeople think. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:08, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
But that assumes that "dinosaur" is primarily a scientific term, whereas in reality it's arguably more of a colloquial one. For comparison, the second paragraph of the Hemiptera article covers both the scientific and colloquial definitions of the word "bug." Oooooooseven (talk) 00:45, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. We can add a sentence about the incorrect layperson definition, but I see no reason for the core presentation of the article to change. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:58, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
The logic on that page is specific to discussions about whether an article should be deleted or not and thus doesn't really apply here. The Hemiptera example demonstrates that Wikipedia can present multiple definitions of the same term, one a precise scientific definition and the other a ubiquitous colloquial definition. Oooooooseven (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
This article is not about the colloquial usage of "dinosaur"; it is about the taxonomic clade Dinosauria, which includes birds as theropod dinosaurs as almost all evidence suggests. Birds are theropod dinosaurs; the paraphyletic, colloquial definition of 'dinosaur' which excludes birds does not hold any scientific weight, and is about as correct as including pterosaurs and any other prehistoric reptiles like dimetrodon as 'dinosaurs'. 90.248.71.104 (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
It is not about "the taxonomic clade Dinosauria." It is about the concept "dinosaur," which encompasses multiple ideas: colloquial use, outdated (but still culturally relevant) Linnaean taxonomy, and modern cladistics. These are all relevant to an entry about the concept of "dinosaur." 2600:8807:C0C8:B300:157A:6FFC:CC3E:EE50 (talk) 16:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Birds are true dinosaurs, if they evolved from dinosaurs then they are dinosaurs Asocos (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

While birds are dinosaurs, they did not "evolve from" dinosaurs. That's like saying tigers evolved from mammals. They are dinosaurs; they evolved from earlier maniraptoran therpods. 90.248.71.104 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
No, because "dinosaur" has historical and colloquial meanings, and even the scientific meaning has changed over time. Colloquially, "dinosaur" specifically refers to a group of extinct animals that may or may not be part of the modern scientific clade "dinosauria." So it's more like saying "humans evolved from cavemen," which is imprecise (and not very scientifically useful) but not wrong per se. It's equally silly to say "humans evolved from prokaryotes," even though eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes. It's not that it's wrong, it just isn't useful. These are arbitrary classifications that make scientific communication easier. They're not objective truth. 2600:8807:C0C8:B300:157A:6FFC:CC3E:EE50 (talk) 16:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

In ordinary nonscientific usage "dinosaur" does not include birds, much like "great ape", "ape", and "animal" exclude humans in ordinary nonscientific usage. None of these usages are incorrect, they are just nonscientific. 99.101.56.68 (talk) 20:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

That's just not true, and with education in schools the old notion of what a dinosaur is has been fading very fast within the general public. Additionally, the profusion of CGI-dominated tv documentaries has given the public a much more scientific definition of "dinosaur." 2603:6080:2103:3FA2:24BD:3834:40F3:1343 (talk) 04:42, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Note 1

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The note in the article claims Dinosaurs are part of the "natural group Reptilia". We click "Reptilia" and the first paragraph tells us Reptilia is paraphyletic: One cannot be both a natural group, and paraphyletic. They're opposites. Reptilia is widely regard as not a natural group. Wayne Hardman (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the correct taxonomic term would be sauropsid, which contains all living "reptiles", their ancestors and their extinct relatives. 90.248.71.104 (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
On the Reptilia page, note the phrase "as most commonly defined" before it states that the class Reptilia is paraphyletic. "Natural group Reptilia", as used here, refers to the cladistic alternative definition, where Reptilia is a monophyletic clade (also known as Sauropsida) that includes birds. That definition is also discussed in the first paragraph of the reptile article. The paraphyletic Linnean definition (reptiles are scaly cold-blooded quadrupeds: crocs, turtles, lizards, snakes, and the tuatara) is more applicable in modern herpetological or neontological (present day-focused) contexts, which is why it gets first billing on the Reptile article. The cladistic definition (Reptilia is the tetrapod clade containing modern reptiles, and also birds and dinosaurs) is more applicable in topics of paleontology or evolution, so it gets top billing on the Dinosauria article. TL;DR: "Reptile" is a term with two definitions, a common parlance definition and a cladistic/phylogenetic definition. They are equally valid depending on the context. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Birds are Reptiles?

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments3 people in discussion

If Dinosaurs are a diverse group of reptiles (beginning of paragraph) and "Dinosaurs can therefore be divided into avian dinosaurs—birds—and the extinct non-avian dinosaurs, which are all dinosaurs other than birds." (end of paragraph), then ....birds are reptiles? That ain't right. Is there a better "diverse group" dinosaurs can be? A "diverse group of reptiles and birds" would be better, but it sounds super awkward. 97.90.170.222 (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

As for the question of a "better diverse group", Archeosaur (crocs, birds, other dinosaurs, etc) would be a more precise term than "reptile", but most readers would probably be unaware of it. Something like a Tyrannosaurus or Stegosaurus isn't exactly a reptile (in the colloquial sense of the word) but it's not a bird either. Colloquial categories created for modern animals (like "bird" and "reptile") don't handle the concept of a dinosaur super well, so we must look for a scientific term which is close enough. Fortunately, "reptile" has another definition: as the branch of the animal tree of life containing reptiles. That may sound like it's the same thing, but birds also occupy that branch. Crocodilians are more closely related to birds than they are to lizards, turtles, etc. So birds (and non-bird dinosaurs) are reptiles, if you use the phylogenetic definition. You don't have to use that definition, most people don't. But modern paleontology can't really function without phylogenetics, so "reptiles with an asterisk" is the best solution we have found for describing what dinosaurs are in a fundamental sense. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Renewing URFA efforts

Latest comment: 1 year ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Prompted by FunkMonk's comments at WP:DINO, I'd like to see if we can get this to the finish line. I previously committed to rewriting the text on soft tissue and dinosaur size, but given the work of LittleLazyLass and others on dinosaur size it may make more sense for me to stick to the former. Other issues are at Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 15#FA criteria. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

I've done a thorough revision of three sections: "Dinosaur renaissance" and beyond, Soft tissue and molecular preservation, and Origins and early evolution. Comments welcome. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:22, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

As it happens, Phil Currie has essentially written a version of this article for us... [29] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

CORRECTIONS NEEDED: Dinosauria 1842 (NOT 1841)

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The current text of the Dinosaur article contains a number of errors concerning the date for the name dinosaur and the Dinosauria. The correct date is 1842, not 1841. This correction was pointed out in 1993 by British geologist and historian Hugh Torrens. The corrected date has appeared in ALL scholarly sources since 1993. Owen's 1841 talk before the British Association for the Advancement of Science did not mention dinosaurs as a distinct group. It was only in his revised text published in April of 1842 that he introduced the term dinosaur and the group Dinosauria after additional research. The revised published version is dated 1841 on the title page, but was in fact published in 1842, the now recognized date for the Dinosauria.

Sources:


Torrens, Hugh (1993) The Dinosaurs and Dinomania over 150 years. Modern Geology 18, 257-286.

***

Torrens, Hugh (2012) Politics and Paleontology: Richard Owen and the Invention of Dinosaurs, Chapter 2, pp. 24-43 in The Complete Dinosaur, (editors M.K. Brett-Surman, T. R. Holtz, Jr. and J.O. Farlow), second edition, Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2012.

Above text can be read in Google Books:

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=pX_l24sDARwC&oi=fnd&pg=PA25&dq=Hugh+Torrens+Dinosauria+Owen&ots=W7x2jqnYAj&sig=P_zoJcHLOG_gsw0j476R6yTDZ4E#v=onepage&q=Hugh%20Torrens%20Dinosauria%20Owen&f=false

See Dinosauria 1842 citations and discussions:

https://www.gbif.org/species/113680591

https://morethanadodo.com/2017/04/28/the-birth-of-dinosaurs/

https://blog.biodiversitylibrary.org/2015/10/the-birth-of-dinosaurs-richard-owen-and-dinosauria.html

https://dino.lindahall.org/owe1842.shtml

Suggested rewording:

Introduction paragraph 4, first sentence

Existing text:

The first dinosaur fossils were recognized in the early 19th century, with the name "dinosaur" (meaning "terrible lizard") being coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1841 to refer to these "great fossil lizards".

Replace with:

The first dinosaur fossils were recognized in the early 19th century, with the name "dinosaur" (meaning "terrible lizard") being coined by Sir Richard Owen in 1842 to refer to these "great fossil lizards".

Under Early Dinosaur Research paragraph 3

Existing text:

The study of these "great fossil lizards" soon became of great interest to European and American scientists, and in 1841 the English paleontologist Sir Richard coined the term "dinosaur", using it to refer to the "distinct tribe or sub-order of Saurian Reptiles" that were then being recognized in England and around the world.[50][51]

Replace with:

The study of these "great fossil lizards" soon became of great interest to European and American scientists, and in 1842 the English paleontologist Sir Richard coined the term "dinosaur", using it to refer to the "distinct tribe or sub-order of Saurian Reptiles" that were then being recognized in England and around the world.[50][51]

...........


Owen recognized that the remains that had been found so far, Iguanodon, Megalosaurus and Hylaeosaurus, shared a number of distinctive features, and so decided to present them as a distinct taxonomic group.

Suggested added text to follow:

As clarified by British geologist and historian Hugh Torrens, Owen had given a presentation about fossil reptiles to the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1841, but reports of the time show that Owen did not mention the word "dinosaur" or recognize dinosaurs as a distinct group of reptiles in his address. He only introduced the Dinosauria in the revised text version of his talk published in April of 1842, based on additional research. </ref>[1] [2]


*****

Caption text needs to be revised as well:

Existing text:

Sir Richard Owen's coining of the word dinosaur, at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1841

Suggested rewording:

Sir Richard Owen's coining of the word dinosaur, in the 1842 revised published version of his talk at a meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science in 1841

**** 24.143.103.221 (talk) 20:12, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

  Done Great stuff, thanks. Actualcpscm (talk) 09:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Torrens, Hugh (1993). "The Dinosaurs and Dinomania over 150 years". Modern Geology. 18: 257–286.
  2. ^ Torrens, Hugh (2012). "Politics and Paleontology: Richard Owen and the Invention of Dinosaurs". In Brett-Surman, M.K.; Holtz, T.R.; Farlow, J.O. (eds.). The Complete Dinosaur (2nd ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. pp. 24–43. ISBN 9780253357014..

Lead image

Latest comment: 1 year ago9 comments4 people in discussion

I think we should replace the image of the ankylosaur. With it and the stegosaur, we have two representatives of Thyreophora. I would suggest Heterodontosaurus or Thescelosaurus. They are from clades that are not represented. LittleJerry (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Lythronaxargestes? FunkMonk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LittleJerry (talk • contribs) 00:20, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I could see a case for replacing it with the Heterodontosaurus. Less enthused about Thescelosaurus due to taxonomic instability and poor image quality. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't have strong opinions on this, but Lythronax' comment seems sensible. FunkMonk (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
The previous iteration of the image seemed more balanced left-to-right. Maybe reorder the images vertically? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Balanced in terms of what? LittleJerry (talk) 19:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Mockup of what I mean Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
If you go with that one, for example, I'd suggest swapping the two images at the bottom, so the skeleton is walking "into" the square and not out of it. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Made changes. You all are free to make more rearrangements. LittleJerry (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Add a photo of a bird to the Infobox image

Latest comment: 1 year ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I think that having an Infobox full of skeletons gives the false impression that all dinosaurs are extinct. I think we should add a modern day bird to the infobox, and in my opinion, a hummingbird would be perfect, as they are the smallest dinosaurs alive today. RobotGoggles (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

They have evolved from, and are in the clade of dinosaurs. That doesn't mean they are dinosaurs as we see them today. The hummingbird phylum on wikipedia doesn't say dinosaur. We used to think the dinosaur tree was a dead end but now we know better, however we also don't show a picture of a human alongside the wikipedia article on algae. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
No, but we do have a human on the primate article. RobotGoggles (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
or... I guess we don't? I could have sworn we used to. RobotGoggles (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Okay, this reasoning is patently false. Click through the parents of Trochilidae in the taxobox and eventually you will get to Dinosauria.
That being said, restricting the taxobox image to non-avian dinosaurs is most useful for showing their diversity, especially when there's a range directly above the image that includes birds. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree that showcasing non-avian dinosaurs shows their diversity, but to neglect to show any modern, avian dinosaurs exhibits a lack of diversity. I'm not asking for the entire infobox to be changed to birds, I'm simply suggesting that at least one image in the infobox feature a modern bird. RobotGoggles (talk) 20:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Add text to the "soft tissue and molecular preservation" section, based on a new peer-reviewed study

Latest comment: 1 year ago5 comments4 people in discussion

A recent peer-reviewed study on dinosaur soft tissues came out in the Elsevier journal Earth-Science Reviews. The study offers the first in-depth chemical description for how biological tissues and cells are preserved in fossil vertebrates, including dinosaurs. A link to the original article, which is open access, is given below:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012825223000569

Additionally, a news article (phys.org) was put out that explains the above peer-reviewed paper in layman's terms. A link to this news article is below:

https://phys.org/news/2023-05-dinosaur-tissues-deep.html

Text offering a brief overview of the topic of how biological cells and tissues preserve, based on this new peer-reviewed research, should be added to the "soft tissue and molecular preservation" section of the "Dinosaur" wikipedia page. 2600:1004:B0AA:4D13:55D1:3CF2:BD8A:A185 (talk) 08:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

That is a very general article, not sure why it is needed in this particular article? It would be more relevant in an article about fossilisation itself. FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. What you added is fine, just a brief reference is appropriate. The paper is generalized for all types of cellular preservation (which includes dinosaurs), but the wikipedia section is literally titled "soft tissue and molecular preservation". If people want to know how this occurs within dinosaurs, this is the paper they need. As is, there isn't another paper that, at least currently, describes this phenomenon correctly and in-depth (at least according to the underlying chemistry). 2600:1004:B0AA:4D13:6C03:FF81:39AD:69B (talk) 18:46, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
As the primary author of the section, I added a mention of the paper. The level of detail that you are proposing is inappropriate for a section that deals with the history of research of dinosaurs. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:55, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, please see my above reply to FunkMonk. 2600:1004:B0AA:4D13:6C03:FF81:39AD:69B (talk) 18:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

mya capitalization

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For scientific consistency, I propose million years ago (mya, as currently written), should be capitalized as Mya. Capital M is consistent with mega/million prefix and consistent with the related wikipedia article, ie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myr 108.49.77.20 (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 August 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

DINOSAUR AR REAAAL AND NUT DEAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.7.198.46 (talk) 01:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  Undone: This request has been undone. ☀DefenderTienMinh⛤☯☽ (talk) 01:45, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Early Dinosaur Research correction?

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Near the end of the second paragraph of 'Early Dinosaur Research' shouldn't it be "acquired" in the phrase "geologist Gideon Mantell who in fact had required remains years earlier."? Corbs1417 (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Transcription and meaning

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's no transcription and meaning of the name Dinosaurs on the main section. 31.43.116.242 (talk) 21:40, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2023

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The sentence "The oldest dinosaur fossils known from substantial remains date to the Carnian epoch of the Triassic period and have been found primarily in the Ischigualasto and Santa Maria Formations of Argentina, and the Pebbly Arkose Formation of Zimbabwe.[106]" should be modified to "The oldest dinosaur fossils known from substantial remains date to the Carnian epoch of the Triassic period and have been found primarily in the Ischigualasto Formation of Argentina, the Santa Maria Formation of Brazil, and the Pebbly Arkose Formation of Zimbabwe.". The Santa Maria Formation is a sedimentary rock formation found in Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil. Ftencaten (talk) 12:49, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

  Done ― Blaze WolfTalkblaze__wolf 13:59, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

"Draft:The dinosaur" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 1 year ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  The redirect Draft:The dinosaur has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 12 § Draft:The dinosaur until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 18:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Gordo, we hardly knew ye

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've asked the closer to reconsider the recent merge of this very mainspace-worthy article. Still not understanding the objection of the Wikiproject community to such a well-sourced and notable page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Put birds on the taxobox?

Latest comment: 10 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I have noticed that birds are not shown on the taxobox with six images on it, so is it appropriate to add one picture of a bird on there? I am putting this in the talk page because I know it will be a controversial issue, and I want to see the opinions of others before I add it. Can someone provide their opinion on this subject? 2003 LN6 (talk) 05:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a montage of birds right below it, as discussed previously. Better to show the diversity of extinct members as well. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
The diversity of extinct member would still be shown, if 5 out of 6 images were of extinct members. It seems bizarre and indefensible not to feature the only living members in the taxobox. Thue (talk)
Seems fine as is with birds having their own collage under the initial box. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Stegosaurus stenops or ungulatus?

Latest comment: 9 months ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The caption of the Stegosaurus picture in this article refers to it as Stegosaurus stenops, but the caption in Commons calls it a Stegosaurus ungulatus. I'm not enough of an expert to know which is correct, but one of those has to be wrong, right? SilverStar54 (talk) 00:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

The museum itself identifies it as S. armatus (so, obviously, no help there). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 05:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
According to the Stegosaurus article, there are significant proposals that all three of those are actually the same species. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dinosaur/Archive_15&oldid=1254576218"