Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Palaeontology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18: 3 months

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 30 January 2012.

AFD notification

About Pliosaurus

Hello everyone, I'm just here to point out that, in my opinion, the article concerning the type genus of the pliosaurids, Pliosaurus, is very wrongly conceptualized and does not particularly respect the conventions normally established for this type of article. Generally, it is conventional for an article dealing with this kind of subject to include the following chapters: Research history, Description, Classification, etc. But here, everything is mixed up! Currently, on the French Wikipedia, I'm working on a draft to significantly improve (or even label) the article about this genus, focusing specifically on the research and classification section. Here's my request: Like the articles about Tylosaurus and Mosasaurus, I'd like someone to be able to classify the anatomical features of various Pliosaurus species in a dedicated description section. Amirani1746 (talk) 15:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, some articles are not written with a proper structure to begin with, so can feel a bit slapped together. So you should be free to improve it. FunkMonk (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I said, but I'm waiting for someone else to provide the anatomical descriptions in a dedicated section. Amirani1746 (talk) 05:20, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The anatomical descriptions already exist on the page. They're just spread out into the various species sections. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be helpful to make a Species of Pliosaurus page and then make the Pliosaurus article more generalized? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:24, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For Allosaurus, we have just decided to do a Taxonomy of Allosaurus page instead; shouldn't we be consistent and go for Taxonomy of Pliosaurus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:48, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

LittleLazyLass and Jens Lallensack, no, I absolutely did not ask to create separate articles, I said to be inspired by articles which first present the research history of each species before focusing on their descriptions. To make it simple, I'm sending you the link to my draft in French on Pliosaurus to get the idea: [1] Amirani1746 (talk) 07:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In your draft, you have a lot of taxonomy in the description section though, which is also not ideal. I would try to restrict the taxonomy info to the "Taxonomy" section and the anatomy info to the "Description" section, and keep the description more general; there is no need to reproduce all these diagnoses in full (the format of a single article is not really suited for that). You could just provide some examples how the different skeletal parts you describe differ between species. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:39, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Jens Lallensack, the draft description that i've made is not yet fully finalized (and must be rewritten), and I had to do it on the fly with the help of ChatGPT, which isn't such a good idea given that this AI tends to make mistakes. Amirani1746 (talk) 07:51, 21 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of Pliosaurus, found this free photo[2] of the P. kevani holotype which shows more of the reconstructed parts and therefore perhaps makes it more understandable for the reader, if that can be used for anything, Amirani1746. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot and great find on your part FunkMonk ! I'll use it right away in my draft. However, I wouldn't mind a more cropped version of the image, just to highlight the skull more. Amirani1746 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again to Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk, A Cynical Idealist & LittleLazyLass. I want to tell you that I have now largely rewrited the article about Pliosaurus. However, I still need some of you to help me refine the two missing sections: one about the skull anatomy, and the other about the Kimmeridge Clay Formation. And yet, even though I think I can easily finalize the cranial anatomy of the taxon as well as the differences that reside between the recognized species, my knowledge of geology is too limited to allow me to concentrate on the Kimmeridge Clay Formation. Indeed, this locality is so over-documented in the scientific literature that I wonder how I could write this alone and correctly. However, after some research, I think the following sources may be useful: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. I thank in advance all those who will accept my proposal, cordially Amirani1746 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC).[reply]

For something with a very large literature, I'd see if I could find a few review sources that cover the subject as widely as possible and use that rather than a lot of single, specialised sources. FunkMonk (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First sentences of lists

Hi, Paleontology WikiProject! Hope you're doing well. Lavalizard101 reverted my rewording of the first sentence of 2025 in paleoichthyology, citing other lists, including the paleomammology ones.

May I kindly ask if I could please rewrite the first sentences of all the lists to be consistent with MOS:THISISALIST instead?

I welcome feedback on my rewrite, any reason for ignoring that part of our style guide for these lists, or requests for clarification on my question. Thank you, Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 14:56, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flipping betwwen the year in x stuff there is no consistency with how each begins:

paleoich begins This list of fossil fish research presented in 2025
paleomacology begins This list of fossil molluscs described in 2025 is a list of new taxa of fossil molluscs that were described during the year 2025, as well as other significant discoveries and events related to molluscan paleontology that occurred in 2025.
paleontology begins with a basic definition of paleontology followed by This article records significant discoveries and events related to paleontology that occurred or were published in the year.
paleobotany This paleobotany list records new fossil plant taxa that were described during the year 2025, as well as notes other significant paleobotany discoveries and events which occurred during 2025.

So even without the rewording of the beginning of paleoich to match MOS, I would suggest a discussion to work out wording that is consistent across all of these year in paleo(specialisation). Lavalizard101 (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest? I'm flexible with anything that complies with policies and guidelines. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 15:39, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the revised version of 2025 in paleontology as an improvement. The wording was- This list of 2025 in paleoentomology records new fossil insect taxa described during the year, as well as documents significant paleoentomology discoveries and events which occurred during that year. it was changed to: Several new fossil insect taxa were described during the year 2025, which also saw significant paleoentomology discoveries and events.

Lets start with Wp:NOBURO, there is leeway on application of recommendations in MOS. Changing the open to "several" is grossly understating the volume of taxa involved (just take a look at the final totals for say 2020). Secondly the changed wording is LESS specific to what is covered.--Kev min § 14:56, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin, thanks for responding. To help me understand how to improve, could I ask you to please specify how the change at the paleoentomology list is less specific to what is covered? (Clarification for passers-by: the paleontology list is actually the one I did not change—someone else already wrote a first sentence without the discouraged "This list of..." or "This is a list of..." phrasing.) Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 19:28, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that the wording at 2025 in paleoichthyology is not what I had thought.

Fossil fish research presented in 2025 includes new fossil taxa of jawless vertebrates, placoderms, cartilaginous fishes, bony fishes, and other fishes that were described during the year, as well as other significant discoveries and events related to paleoichthyology that occurred in 2025. I think this is a good wording and had not realized there was another editor also changing the wordings, which i then quotes here.--Kev min § 22:18, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Taxonomy of …" articles

In a vote above, it was decided to create a "Taxonomy of Allosaurus" article in order to keep the Allosaurus main article at a reasonable length and to move out unnecessary detail. This article is now ready: Taxonomy of Allosaurus. This involves linking of synonyms and dubious species to the respective sections where they are discussed; for example, Creosaurus now takes you directly to the respective section. Because we might want to have more articles of this format in the future, any suggestions would be helpful to get this one right. In particular, there have been opinions to create a Taxonomy of Camarasaurus, which would involve merging the existing species articles of Camarasaurus. Also pinging @Ornithopsis:, who was involved with the latter articles. Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:10, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I for one think it's a promising direction, will of course be easier to evaluate once the Allosaurus article itself reaches its reworked state. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article genre in particular will probably require a little bit more flexibility in its format than articles for genera. I do think that, where possible, there should be 2-3 cladograms showing possible taxonomies of Allosaurus. Obviously for species with complex taxonomies that are universally considered monophyletic (such as Allosaurus and Camarasaurus), the lack of published cladograms is part of the reason there is so much confusion. I think there's probably a way to integrate one or two published cladograms into this and future articles. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about inner systematics of Allosaurus (specimen-level phylogenies)? There is one published by Malafaia et al. (2025), but note that they only considered skulls. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I meant cladograms showing hypotheses of intra-generic relationships. Of course, this will not always be possible. Including the cladogram from Malafaia et al. (2025) obviously raises possible issues with WP:UNDUE since it considers A. europaeus to be a junior synonym (not to mention the methodological particularities). My comment isn't necessarily meant as a comment on Taxonomy of Allosaurus specifically. Although, including one or more cladograms would be nice as visual aides. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:47, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did this in an early draft [3] but ended up removing it because the Outer Systematics were just redundant with the main article. Do you think we should include just the "Inner Systematics" section? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the "Outer systematics" section is unnecessary and falls outside the scope of this article. I think the cladogram itself could use some additional annotations (links to the collections locations for the specimens, and indicating which specimens are considered A. europaeus), but it is mostly fine to include as is. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Added now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As someone working on Camarasaurus in my sand box, it would be more than beneficial to make a separate taxonomy page for the genus. AFH (talk) 23:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely see myself making one of these for Pteranodon in the future, between its historical count of species and the Kellner taxonomy. Looking at the other pre-2010 FAs up for revision, I can see Triceratops and Iguanodon as obvious candidates, probably Tyrannosaurus, and maybe even Stegosaurus or Daspletosaurus. In line with the "flexibility" point, Psittacosaurus is a candidate with a situation more comparable to concerns raised over Pliosaurus. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:17, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think these taxonomy-centric articles have potential for higher-level taxa as well. These pages have a generally higher capacity for taxonomic minutiae within the article to varying degrees, but there are some cases where there is so much confusion or controversy that a spinoff article could be necessary. Titanosauria (or Macronaria generally) is an obvious candidate, as is Paraves. With regard to genera specifically, Pliosaurus has been mentioned, and Homotherium has been discussed in the discord. There's a couple of mammal taxa that may warrant a taxonomy page as well (I'm thinking about Mammut and Gomphotherium, but there are almost certainly others). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
One issue I ran into is Labrosaurus. This redirects to the Taxonomy of Allosaurus page, so it naturally should be covered there in full. However, it is a quite extensive topic on its own (and there is even more to cover), and much of the stuff has nothing to do with Allosaurus itself. The type species (L. lucaris) is a Nomen dubium and not confidently assigned to Allosaurus (Paul and Carpenter, 2010, state that it "may or may not belong to" Allosaurus). I begin to think that Labrosaurus needs an article on its own. Thoughts? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:37, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to any of the hypothesized junior synonyms having their own pages, and I don't think there would be issues of overlapping scope at all. Obviously, the inclusion of Labrosaurus on this page only touches on the specific relevance of the taxon to the systematics of Allosaurus, and there are bound to be cases where non-taxonomic information warrants coverage on Wikipedia. In these cases, the limited scope of the "Taxonomy of..." article means that a separate article is warranted. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:12, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I mean we now cover Labrosaurus under "Taxonomy of Allosaurus" just because its type species has been confused with Allosaurus. But some of the other Labrosaurus species have nothing to do with Allosaurus (they are about ceratosaurids and spinosaurids), so it feels a bit strange to cover them under "Taxonomy of Allosaurus". A separate article feels more natural given this broad scope, as Labrosaurus is not only relevant for the taxonomic history of Allosaurus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:25, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We generally agree that dubious genera should have articles, I don't think it's necessary for definite junior synonyms (I think it's a bit of a slippery slope that we can potentially end up wasting a lot of energy on which would be better spent on valid genera). FunkMonk (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a definite junior synonym, as Paul and Carpenter (2010) keep it as a nomen dubium that is not necessarily assignable to Allosaurus (most authors list it as a junior synonym of Allosaurus though). Regarding the waste of energy – I just read through many of these old papers to do the Allosaurus taxonomy anyways, so it seems efficient to do it all now. Plus, it's probably a one-time effort, as major updates will probably not be necessary. I will complete the entry of Labrosaurus in the taxonomy article first, and then we see. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:56, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant specifically for Labrosaurus, if it's considered dubious, then it should have an article. But we shouldn't start churning off definite junior synonyms left and right. FunkMonk (talk) 15:55, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I now restructured the Labrosaurus entry such that Labrosaurus has a major heading and its species a minor heading. I think that works well and I am happy with it, so yeah, let's cover Labrosaurus within the "Taxonomy of Allosaurus" article for now. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:22, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If Labrosaurus would have its own article based on Paul & Carpenter (2010), Epanterias should also have one. 2001:4453:56A:4B00:ED8E:58C6:7E26:F1F7 (talk) 06:02, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of taxonomy articles; where should a redirect point to?

The consensus is that only valid genera (including nomina dubia) get their own articles. Species of extinct genera only get their own pages when there are good reasons for it, but not per default. When working on the Taxonomy of Allosaurus article, I was often unsure what name should redirect to what page. I now arrived at these conclusions, based on our existing guidelines:

Junior synonyms should redirect to their senior synonym.
Dubious species (those that cannot be assigned to a valid genus) should redirect to the genus they have been named under originally. If that genus is a junior synonym of another genus, they are to be redirected to that latter genus.

Applying that to the Taxonomy of Allosaurus article, this leads to the following edge cases:

Allosaurus valens should redirect to Antrodemus, not Allosaurus, because it is a synonym of the latter, even though Antrodemus is a nomen dubium.
Allosaurus meriani should redirect to Megalosaurus, not Allosaurus, because it is a new combination and was originally named as Megalosaurus meriani, and the species is now a nomen dubium.
Labrosaurus stechowi should redirect to Allosaurus (or rather, its extension Taxonomy of Allosaurus), not Ceratosaurus, because it is a nomen dubium and the type species of "Labrosaurus" is a synonym of Allosaurus. This is despite the fact that Labrosaurus stechowi has never been listed under Allosaurus and is considered Ceratosauridae indet. and has recently even been named Ceratosaurus stechowi by Rauhut in 2011.

Naturally, the article a name is redirected to should be responsible for covering that name (e.g., providing the etymology). So a "Taxonomy of Allosaurus" article should cover all redirected names. However, the currently recognised Allosaurus species may be better be redirected to the Allosaurus main page directly (I am unsure about this one). The "Taxonomy of" article also has to cover some additional names that are important for the taxonomic history of the genus for other reasons (e.g., Taxonomy of Allosaurus has to provide entries for Saurophaganax maximus and Antrodemus because both have been pivotal for the taxonomic history of the genus). All other names and new combinations that do not redirect to the Taxonomy of Allosaurus page but have been considered as species of Allosaurus or one of its synonyms, I would try to mention/link, but I would not provide further detail and would not give them their own sections.

Does this sound reasonable? The alternative would be to redirect Labrosaurus stechowi to Ceratosauria rather than Allosaurus, as this is the clade the fossil is currently assigned to. But that would require a Taxonomy of Ceratosauria article at some point to avoid WP:undue and WP:LENGTH issues. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:56, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the search term leads to what we can imagine that would most benefit the reader, as in where it is covered most fully in the text. But yeah, I'd also expect a valid species name to redirect to the genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But where should a taxon like Labrosaurus stechowi be covered most fully, ideally? Should that be Taxonomy of Allosaurus (where the genus Labrosaurus is primarily discussed, but where it is somewhat out-of-place because it has nothing to do with Allosaurus itself), or should it be Ceratosauria (the taxon it is currently confidently assigned to), or should it be Ceratosaurus (the proposed senior synonym, even though there is no consensus for that synonymy)? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:28, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My immediate thought would be Ceratosaurus, as this seems to be closest to current thinking, though not definite. FunkMonk (talk) 12:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk: I agree that Ceratosaurus would be the most logical destination. But, for example, Labrosaurus sulcatus is a synonym of Ceratosaurus, but it also is a long paragraph on its own, and moving that to the Ceratosaurus main article would be wp:undue and decreases readability of that article. So I suggest to keep that paragraph within Taxonomy of Allosaurus for now. The alternative would be a dedicated Taxonomy of Ceratosaurus page, which then could discuss half of Labrosaurus, but yeah, maybe let's just be practical at this point and discuss these deprecated names wherever those details fit in. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that species cannot get their own article in these circumstances. We already have things like Coelosaurus antiquus where the species cannot be considered a clear synonym or a reasonable redirect. In the case of Labrosaurus stechowi, as it has been assigned to Ceratosaurus and its current classification has it close to that taxon, that is where I would put the redirect. Similar logic has applied for the various Ornithopsis species/dubious referrals being discussed there: they were at one time assigned to Ornithopsis and that is currently the closest referral to accepted higher taxonomy. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:07, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem to redirect L. stechowi to Ceratosaurus as it is already discussed there, but what about Labrosaurus sulcatus? I was unable to fit it into Ceratosaurus without destroying flow and causing undue weight. I don't think that any of these Labrosaurus species should get their own article, but I was thinking about giving the genus Labrosaurus its own article, because it is a complex topic (half of it might be Allosaurus, the other half Ceratosaurus). But then, the redirects would point to Labrosaurus, not Ceratosaurus. How would you solve Labrosaurus sulcatus? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a brief paragraph about sulcatus can be placed at the end of the "other finds in North America" section, and it would not be too out of place chronologically or topically, given the assignment to Ceratosaurus is from Rauhut 2011 and post-dates the other specimens discussed. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:08, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I did exactly that now. I initially thought I would have to place it at the beginning of that paragraph based on chronology, but that didn't really work and would distract from the much more important Ceratosaurus fossils. I also trimmed the paragraph down to half its length, so it shouldn't have too much weight now. I like that solution; problem solved, I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is Pliosaurus funkei and Marvel's Predator X are linked ?

As I mentioned it two weeks ago, I'm currently writing a draft in order to make a better version of the Pliosaurus article (the English version is currently being written). However, there's a small coincidence (or not) that's been bugging me. To give you some context about it: when Jørn Hurum's paleontological teams discovered the fossils of Pliosaurus funkei, they gave the nicknames "The Monster" for the holotype and "Predator X" for the second known specimen, who is larger altrough more incomplete. The second nickname being undeniably more remarkable, it is under this designtion that the taxon will be mainly known before even being formally described under a scientific name in 2012. In 2007, while the fossils were still being exhumed, three Marvel Comics writers created a new antagonist for the X-Men universe with this same nickname. And to my great surprise, I haven't found any source, even remotely credible, confirming the connection between the pliosaurid and this supervillain, despite their identical nicknames. If anyone has a source to confirm or deny this coincidence, I'm all ears. Cordially Amirani1746 (talk) 09:42, 5 August 2025 (UTC).[reply]

It's a pretty generic name, can we assume the two are even connected? FunkMonk (talk) 11:16, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FunkMonk No, because the nickname "Predator X" was popularized the same year the fossils were discovered, and for this pliosaur in particular. And it's not a generic name either, because the fact that Marvel Comics created a character with this nickname a year after the discoveries certainly can't be a coincidence. Amirani1746 (talk) 13:31, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess that Marvel Comics simply got inspired by the news coverage on Predator X and gave their figure the same name because they liked it, but without intending any link between the two (I mean, they just want a cool name, these companies usually don't care about science that much). Alternatively, it might just have been a coincidence, and I agree that the name is generic. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:10, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If this nickname would have been generic, it would probably have been used to refer to something else like a metal band, for example, but this is clearly not the case. Amirani1746 (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In any case, it cannot be added to the article without a reliable source that makes this connection. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:39, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Jurassic_Park_(film)#Requested_move_17_August_2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jurassic_Park_(film)#Requested_move_17_August_2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Ladtrack (talk) 05:45, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about split and reorganisation proposal for Diapsid

See Talk:Diapsid#Remove_Neodiapsida_from_Diapsida, where it has been proposed to split out Neodiapsida, and reorganise Diapsid to be along the lines of Anapsid. There is also contention over whether Diapsida should be described as paraphyletic in wikivoice, following the results of recent papers. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Parapleurota into Sauropsida

Please see discussion at Talk:Sauropsida#Merging_Parapleurota_into_this_article about merging the newly created clade article Parapleurota into Sauropsida. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This TOL wikiproject thread may also be of interest as it covers the topic of my two last discussion posts: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Upheaval_in_basal_sauropsid_systematics. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to establish an actual consensus regarding how Wikipedia deals with reports of Robert Reisz's behavior

See Talk:Robert_R._Reisz, this discussion has been on-and-off since 2022 but dominated by only a few voices, so I'm APPNOTEing for broader attention. NGPezz (talk) 01:25, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of index fossils is up for deletion

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of index fossils. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:25, 8 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good general purpose taxonomic databases?

I'm realizing that I don't know of any comprehensive, up-to-date databases of current paleospecies taxonomy, outside of PBDB (which is very hit-and-miss and fragmentary). Case in point, I wouldn't know where to look up the current status of recognized species in genus Sunella to replace that hackneyed species list currently in the box, two of which entries seem to be dubious and three from a probably superseded publication.

Does the project maintain a list of useful database sites somewhere? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:37, 13 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valentia Stål, 1865

Is Valentia Stål, 1865 Scotlandia (conodont) or Salyavatinae? Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 03:10, 16 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Valentia Stål, 1865 is a valid genus of assassin bugs in Salyavatinae according to page 522 of [4] page 522. Meanwhile, the conodont Scotlandia Cossmann, 1909 has a synonym Valentia Smith, 1907, according to page 380 of [5]. In fact, going by the original publication by Cossmann establishing "Scotlandia", it looks like it was intended to be a replacement name for Valentia Smith, 1907 (it being a junior homonym of Valentia Stål, 1865 after all): [6] Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

request

hello me and another user have gotten into a spat on the Nemegt formations age. basically he keeps editing that the nemegts base age is 72 mya. I reverted because of a whole bunch of reasons all the reasons stated are stated on the Nemegt formations talk page. he requested it be taken to the Nemegts talk page to have our arguments heard out and judged by third party arbitraters

I was redirected here to find experts to arbitrate, will you go the Nemegt talk page and review our section and arbitrate? Themanguything (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Particuliar interrogation

In some articles, notably focused on Megalosaurus and Luskhan, I really don't see the point of creating an "autapomorphy" subsection in the "Description" section, because the very purpose of this last section is precisely to cite the distinctive features of a specific taxon. In my opinion, it's on the same level of relevance as typing Google on Google. Is there a solution to fix this problem ? Cordially Amirani1746 (talk) 04:56, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Generally we just include such information in the general description sections. FunkMonk (talk) 08:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Description" sections contain much more than just diagnosis (size, body proportions, skull fenestration, notable plesiomorphies, features of functional relevance, etc.). A dedicated "Autapomorphies" subsection can help to make the article understandable (WP:MTAU), as these are usually the most complicated details, so the reader can easily skip them. However, in many cases, such a section could also lead to repetition. I think it depends on the article in question whether such a subsection makes sense or not. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:33, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If we have such sections, I think the section titles need to be much more understandable, such as "distinguishing features" or even "diagnostic features". "Autapomorphies" is incomprehensible even for people with more than a casual interest in biology, I'd say. FunkMonk (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Also, I usually only give a few examples if there are more than five autapomorphies, therefore restricting it to one paragraph rather than a section. Autapomorphies are important and the reader should get an idea about the features that define the taxon, but they are also perennial and often not agreed on, so we should not necessarily list all of them. In the mentioned articles (Megalosaurus and Luskhan), the level of detail might already be excessive (or at least problematic if we were to submit that to WP:FAC). On the other hand, an "Autapomorphies" section makes much sense in the Dinosaur article, where it is called "Distinguishing anatomical features". --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:40, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Colossal Biosciences Dire Wolf Project § Requested move 15 September 2025

An editor has requested that Colossal Biosciences Dire Wolf Project be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute as to whether Denisovan article should have a Homo longi speciesbox

See Talk:Denisovan#At_some_point_soon,_this_page_will_need_the_species_box_for_Homo_longi. Please participate if your have an opinion on the topic, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:26, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with the "Shansitherium" page

When looking through fossil giraffes, I found the page for Shansitherium which I later learned was a misspelling of the genus Schansitherium. This would not usually be an issue since you can just move the page and merge the history but in 2020, someone made a page for the correct spelling only for it to be made a redirect to the typo. Any clue what should be done since this is sort of a weird case. SeismicShrimp (talk) 23:27, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests is the way to go. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:42, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Alickmeron into Alwalkeria

See Talk:Alwalkeria. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exapophyses merge proposal

It has been proposed that Exapophyses be merged into Pterosaur please see the merge request at Talk:Pterosaur#Exapophyses_merger_proposal and participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Time ranges in taxoboxes

We usually give time ranges in million years in taxoboxes, such as "Temporal range: Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian), 100–94 Ma" in the article Spinosaurus. These are often intended as an accessibility feature (readers can't assumed to know when the Cenomanian was). However, they usually just map the boundaries of ages (in the example above, 100–94 Ma are simply the (rounded) upper and lower borders of the Cenomanian). A recent discussion came to the conclusion that at least for the Nemegt Formation, the Ma ranges should be removed altogether. For example, the taxobox of Tarbosaurus (a dinosaur of the Nemegt Formation) now only simply has "[[Late Cretaceous]], {{fossil range|Maastrichtian}}", relying on the fossil range bar without giving numbers to make the information accessible.

The practice of providing the boundaries of ages or formations in taxonboxes comes with several problems. First, general readers will assume that we know precisely that a taxon occupied that full range, which is usually not the case. Second, when more tightly constrained, such information is often unsourced, or involves some degree of WP:Synth (i.e., the time ranges are not directly verifiable). Third, they are a major target for vandalism/hoaxes, which is helped by the fact that they are inappropriately sourced.

Also based on the mentioned earlier discussion, I propose the following for your consideration:

We should generally not provide numbers in taxonboxes, unless we have a recent source that directly states that the taxon in question existed during that interval. This means that in articles such as Dilophosaurus and Allosaurus, the age ranges should be removed from the box, just keeping the bar, as we already did in Tarbosaurus.
To ensure accessibility per WP:MTAU, we should provide mya ranges in the article lead (and main body), while making clear what those ranges represent (e.g., "The genus lived during the Aptian age, which lasted from 121 to 113 million years ago"). Such context/explanation is regularly requested at FAC, and I don't think we can do without that entirely.
When providing boundaries of periods, epochs, or ages, we should always use the templates instead of providing the numbers directly, using the "round=" parameter where appropriate. This ensures that the numbers stay up-to-date, and it also discourages vandals from changing them. For how to use these templates, see here.

Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that the numbers are relevant accessible information when they are definite and citeable ranges (ex. Edmontosaurus or Triceratops, and removing them for vaguer information (time bars may be hard to interpret for lay readers, "Late Cretaceous" is vague, and Maastrichtian is only meaningful to nerds) is a needless loss. That said, I can absolutely support the removal of vague timespans that are just ex. the entire range of the Albian, as these are definitely misleading. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's precisely what I was trying to suggest; when we have citeable ranges we should put them in the taxonbox, and if we only have the timespan of an age (e.g., Albian), we should not. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I think this is a good representation of what I was trying to say there: if we have mya dates that are citable, we can use them, but otherwise we should not. "middle Aptian to Albian" doesn't directly translate to 116-107 mya, and we should not pretend that is does just to get convenient numbers for comparison. I think in the taxobox it ends up falling under the same things as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to provide something not directly in the appropriate and cited source in the Paleoecology etc section. Within text I am fine with the clarification of context, as long as it is clearly presented as the age of the geological time period rather than the taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to separate out "List of lagerstätte" from Lagerstätte and keep a truncated list in the main article.

See Talk:Lagerstätte#Separating_the_lagertätte_list_into_its_own_page. The list of lagerstatte has been greatly expanded recently and it has been proposed that this expanded list be spun off into its own page, and a truncated list of the most important lagerstätte in the main article. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:28, 6 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Paleo illustration request list draft

If you have any thoughts about a revamped illustration request, please chime in here:[7] FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move request for "horned gopher"

I have requested a move for "Horned gopher" to Ceratogaulus, see Talk:Horned_gopher#Requested_move_25_October_2025. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic sourcing for Baryonyx and Cretoxyrhina

Hello everyone, I’m writing this message because I am currently very busy with my ongoing projects to expand articles on the French Wikipedia. Although I fully agree that these articles about these animals deserve their Featured Article status, I’ve noticed that some of their references could use some attention. Several citations are missing key details such as accessibility information, and in some cases the authors’ names are either omitted or misspelled. Since the Featured Article criteria require strict adherence to citation standards, the Baryonyx and Cretoxyrhina articles appear somewhat inconsistent in this respect—especially regarding the formatting of authors’ names, which are sometimes abbreviated and other times written in full. I would therefore like to kindly request that another editor take the time to review and correct these citations to ensure consistency and accuracy throughout. Thank you very much for your understanding and help. Best regards, Amirani1746 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Accessibility information is not required for FA, but sure, can't hurt if you want to add it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We also should not abbreviate all author first names just because we do not know the full names of all the authors, per this discussion: [8]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]