Talk:List of dinosaur genera/Archive 2

Proposal for complete revamping :D

I think that despite how spectacularly succesful as our list of dinosaurs has been, there are ways that it could be simultaneously more aesthetically pleasing and convey more information. Below is a sample table that could be used instead of the bland bulleted list with comments on taxonomy after the name.

Obviously, there are issues of accuracy and content in the sample table, but I think it gives a good idea of what the revamping I'm imagining would look like. Anyone else like the idea of replacing the bullet-list with something table based?

Genus	Status	Age	Location	Description	Images
Tyrannosaurus	Valid.	Late Cretaceous	North America.	Described by Osborn in 1905, it soon became one of the most widely known dinosaurs. A flesh eater, Tyrannosaurus could reach lengths of up to 40 feet and weigh as much as 6 tons, making it one of the largest predatory dinosaurs. Complete skeletons, tracks, feces, and soft tissue are all known from this dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus is a possible senior synonym of several Tyrannosaurids originally believed to be distinct genera.	Placeholder
Tyrannosaurus	Valid.	Late Cretaceous	North America.	Described by Osborn in 1905, it soon became one of the most widely known dinosaurs. A flesh eater, Tyrannosaurus could reach lengths of up to 40 feet and weigh as much as 6 tons, making it one of the largest predatory dinosaurs. Complete skeletons, tracks, feces, and soft tissue are all known from this dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus is a possible senior synonym of several Tyrannosaurids originally believed to be distinct genera.
Tyrannosaurus	Valid.	Late Cretaceous	North America.	Described by Osborn in 1905, it soon became one of the most widely known dinosaurs. A flesh eater, Tyrannosaurus could reach lengths of up to 40 feet and weigh as much as 6 tons, making it one of the largest predatory dinosaurs. Complete skeletons, tracks, feces, and soft tissue are all known from this dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus is a possible senior synonym of several Tyrannosaurids originally believed to be distinct genera.
Tyrannosaurus	Valid.	Late Cretaceous	North America.	Described by Osborn in 1905, it soon became one of the most widely known dinosaurs. A flesh eater, Tyrannosaurus could reach lengths of up to 40 feet and weigh as much as 6 tons, making it one of the largest predatory dinosaurs. Complete skeletons, tracks, feces, and soft tissue are all known from this dinosaur. Tyrannosaurus is a possible senior synonym of several Tyrannosaurids originally believed to be distinct genera.

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 10:12, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think that would be too much work. It's hard enough keeping the individual articles updated. J. Spencer 16:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree, there is no-way we'd be able to keep the enitre list up-date. It's a really good idea, but not practical I'm afraid. Mark t young (talk) 16:37, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It's hard enough keeping the individual articles updated and clean. And we'd have to deal with constant IP editors, adding in absolute junk as usual. The short useful summaries would quite likely soon grow bloated with "...appeared briefly in one episode of The Smurfs" or "...would never have survived in battle with a T-REX"-type junk. There are other problems with this table style, which I'd noticed on the geological formations article: the table only sorts alphabetically, so that when the reader clicks on the "age" parameter, instead of getting a list of dinosaurs listed chronologically, one gets a table sorted, eg, "Albian", "Aptian", etc. So the table sorting function is useful for the alphabetical List of dinosaurs, but not for other parameters, thus sort of defeating the purpose of the table. Your work on the geological formations list is greatly appreciated, but I can't help but feel that the table addition doesn't add a whole lot to the article since the sorting function that the table provides isn't all that useful. Firsfron of Ronchester 17:03, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, your only objections to the implementation of the table system are:

1. It's too hard.
2. It'll accumulate vandalism.
3. The sort feature is not as useful as it conceivably could be.

And, in my opinion, these are the benefits I see coming from this:

1. It'll "even things up" on the page. As it now stands, the content is very heavily lopsided towards the left.
2. Significant increase in the amount of information conveyed. Go from having a name and a bit about taxonomy to having name, date, taxonomy, significance, attributes etc. And the increase doesn't even result in jumbledness
3. The way the table format physically arranges the content is nicer than just having it squished together or separated with dashed the way it is now.
4. The data becomes sortable.

Honestly, I'm not seeing how the former in any way outweighs the latter. Further, I don't even see how any of those objections are even valid. The first objection seems purely personal. If you don't want to help out with the changes, then don't! :P If WP:NOTSLAVERY isn't an official policy, someone should make it one. Nobody's gonna make you do any work you don't want to. Why should you not wanting to do the work prevent those of us who do (or at least me :P) from getting stuff done?

I'm not sure where the second one is coming from. Why would the table accumulate more vandalism than the bulleted list would? And why should we sacrifice content out of fears of vandalism? Never adding good info in the beginning to avoid vandals screwing up the info later strikes me as being self-defeating, like living your life terrified of potential terrorist attacks.

The last one doesn't make a whole lot of sense as an objection, either. I agree that not being able to sort the time periods chronologically is frustrating, but just being able to sort them at all is still an increase in functionality and usefulness over what we have now. A one percent increase in quality is still an increase.

If you guys are really dead set against this, I'll concede to the consensus. But, as it now stands I don't believe any of the voiced objections have been persuasive. None of the objections brought up any valid points against the actual proposal.

The first just discounted the objectors' personal involvement in the change, the second didn't even make sense, and the third was internally inconsistant as it cited a lack of the change to live up to its hypothetical potential as a reason to avoid letting the article be brought to the fullest potential that it actually has, as outlined by the new proposal. Abyssal leviathin (talk) 07:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as you couldn't make sense of what I was saying before I shall re-iterate. This would be a herculan task to undertake, which is not necessary for the project (although as you mention it would increase usefulness). The primary objection is what we really need is people adding to articles, not adding to lists (in this manner anyway).

If we were to modify the list as you suggest it would require constant maintaince as any change on the taxons geological age, taxonomic status, range expansion, etc would need to updated. In essence all you'd be doing is doubling the work. I'm completely adversed to this, as long as there is some note or protocol on the Dino WP for this. In addition, we have well over 100 links in this list, each of which would also need a 'description' in your table, further adding to this task. Just to be clear, what are your plans regarding invalid taxa, or taxa no longer considered dinosaurs?

As for your diatribe on vandalism above, I really don't see where that came from. As I said before, I think it is a really good idea but highly impractical. But to see the utility of your idea, how about you create a table like this for Q (or perhaps a longer one), and post it up here. That way we can judge the proposal more on its merits? Mark t young (talk) 07:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You know, I'd love to see a fully-referenced, clean, logically-sorted table of all dinosaur genera. I would. I can almost guarantee that it will never happen, however. For many reasons:

A) The sorting function only works if you want to sort alphabetically; this list is already alphabetical. The rest of the columns don't sort correctly; no one should waste his/her time adding tables to "sort" things which will never sort properly. The individual articles are already sorted by category, anyway. That's the point of the categories.

B)This list is actually already twice the recommended article size; imagine adding tons of wiki coding and short summaries to the current article; we're talking easily ten times the current size. Which means breaking the article into many separate pages. I really don't like the idea of List of dinosaurs (Aachenosaurus through Bactrosaurus)-type things, though I don't know how anyone else feels.

C) Referencing such a monstrosity (and it would require referencing, because it's a FL) would be the work of several full-time editors/authors over years (ala The Dinosauria). Not to mention the time-wasting "maintenance" tags people will add... And the junk. If you don't have 1,200 dinosaur articles on your watchlist, this is a point you will not understand. Reverting vandalism, POV edits and sourcing maintenance-tagged articles already take up a huge portion of the editing day. It doesn't leave a lot of time for GA or FA work, let alone adding semi-useless tables to a list. The "significant amount of information conveyed" has to be guarded against trivia-adders, maintenance-taggers, true vandals, POV-pushers, etc. It's too much for five or six regular editors already. There are still many articles on the short end of WP:DABS that need basic referencing and stuff. And the clean-up list keeps growing...

D) I'm generally against starting new projects which will remain incomplete. You've done a heck of a lot of work on WP:DINO and you're clearly a determined user, but (going back to 2006) there have been many, many incomplete projects on WP:DINO started by enthusiastic users who eventually lost interest after (or even during) letter 'A'! (I'm thinking of the "A-class" article tagging project recently, that stopped in the middle of letter 'A', but there were many others). You say WP isn't slavery, but there was a lot of hard work that went into this list, and I'd prefer not to see it devolve into an unfinished, abandoned project, and it would certainly require work on the part of the editors who worked on the list to make sure it kept its FL listing.

E) You raise good points, but things like how there's too much text on the left don't mean too much to me; as someone from the Western hemisphere, I'm used to left-heavy text. Your mileage may vary. I also don't see any problem with dashes.

Don't take these points as discouragement, Abys; I'd encourage you to give it a try in a sandbox or something. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Firs 100%. J. Spencer (talk) 23:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good on my work and school monitors too. :) Abyssal (talk) 11:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Revamping Part II

• My thoughts: perhaps if someone wanted to do all the work to make the initial table completely in their own wiki template, off of WP itself and see if they can maintain it that way THEN maybe propose it as a linked page it might be a middle ground. I say this because I would LOVE to see a page formatted as Abyssal leviathin suggests, but I tend to agree with the contention that creating and maintaining it might be too large an undertaking for WP and could potentially lead to an unfinished project.

Medleystudios72 (talk) 19:48, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I like Abyssal's idea. It would be a huge job, but maybe it could be an article under construction while this one remains.I could see the description boxes getting bigger and bigger- that would be a prob. But what I really like is the notation of the genus status. I have always thought it was a shame to exclude the nomina dubia and junior synonyms from the list. Perhaps that because I'm an older dinophile, and can remember when the nomina dubia werent so dubia! (Anyone remember Trachodon, Scolosaurus, Palaeoscincus?) Perhaps these could be added to the list. That wouldn't be so hard.--Gazzster (talk) 02:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I remember Trachodon and Palaeoscincus, not so much Scolosaurus, though. :P Anyway, those names already are on the list. And I do appreciate the support. :) Abyssal (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Not sure I get the point of this: List of dinosaurs is a list. Your proposing we essentially write separate stub articles for each genus. I think the point of the list is purely utilitarian, no need to create mini-articles for each animal with image, description, time period, etc. If I'm reading list of dinosaurs, I just want the name and maybe a bit of nomenclatural detail. Then I click the article and read that for the rest. I'd oppose this for the same reason I opposed the paleobox--no need to repeat information in smaller and smaller sound-bytes. also agree sourcing this thing would be a nightmare, and I personally would not be willing to keep track of two T. rex articles, etc., essentially doubling my watchlist. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

First off, I want to say that I'm not making some new push to get this implemented, just responding to your comments. Second, although I know where you're coming from with the idea of a purely utilitarian list, I don't think it's all that helpful to people who aren't obsessive dinophiles like us. If Joe Curious wants to learn about the different kinds of dinosaurs in a general way, the list of dinos would be a good place to start. However, he obviously can't look at every article, so where does he start?

With the list as it is he has no reason to click one link over another, so what good is it? A specialist doesn't really need a list like this- he knows what articles he wants to read- and a layman wouldn't be able to get much use out of it, so what good is it? My proposal would give some information about each dino- and thus some way of discriminating between articles he would find useful and articles on obscure genera that he wouldn't be interested in.

Sourcing this thing, while challenging, wouldn't be the nightmare you might think it would be. Because it documents only the most basic information, almost its entire content could be considered common knowledge. Which means we can source it at our leisure if at all. :)

Also, something else to keep in mind is that the table could be implemented in slightly different ways. You seem to have issues with the description column, but there are other things we can do. Abyssal (talk) 11:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but "common knowledge" still needs to be sourced. Right now, in your T. rex example, it would be something like...

Genus	Status	Age	Location	Description	Images
Tyrannosaurus	Valid.	Late Cretaceous	North America.	Described by Osborn in 1905, it soon became one of the most widely known dinosaurs. A flesh eater, Tyrannosaurus could reach lengths of up to 40 feet and weigh as much as 6 tons, making it one of the largest predatory dinosaurs. Complete skeletons, tracks, feces, and soft tissue are all known from this dinosaur.(cite for at least one of each) Tyrannosaurus is a possible senior synonym of several Tyrannosaurids originally believed to be distinct genera.(cite for at least two or one paper discussing multiple synonyms)	Placeholder

You're also gonna need some way to cite the time periods and locations. This isn't a problem in infoboxes in the articles, because there the info in the box is presented in longer form and cited in the text. But with no longer text here, literally every sentence may have to have several footnotes. Dinoguy2 (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Very little of that information falls under "likely to be challenged" per Wikipedia:V#Burden_of_evidence. I don't think sources for most of that would be necessary under site policy. Some yes, all, no. Abyssal (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Have you done Featured work? They want everything sourced. Also, there are several lists that you were working on last month that are still incomplete, with placeholder-type stuff still left in live articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 05:13, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the FA crew should ask for more than is necessary by policy </gripe>. Also, I'm not making a renewed push for this, as I said earlier, I'm just responding to comments. :) Abyssal (talk) 11:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I came here from List of crurotarsans and I though it best leave my opinion here which is also valid for the other pertinent articles.

Upfront, I should say my feeling is that editing style should be consistent throughout Wikipedia and not be dependent on such vagaries as article size. I don't think aesthetic arguments hold much water either: it being lopsided to the left is a consequence of our writing style. Live with it.

My biggest objection is with the blurbs, in that they seem unnecessary and deficient repetition of information. If people want to read up on the pertinent animal they have a readily clickable link at their disposal.

I do like the sortable quality of it (though the images could be better organized). I'm not sure it's actually worth the trouble just for that.

Finally, I'd propose this trimmed down version:

Genus	Author, Year	Fossil Range (Mya)	Geographic Range	Observations	Images
Tyrannosaurus	Osborn, 1905	Late Cretaceous	North America	Nomen conservandum/Nomen protectum. Objective junior synomym of Manospondylus.	Placeholder

Genus	Author, Year	Observations
Tyrannosaurus	Osborn, 1905	Nomen conservandum/Nomen protectum. Objective junior synomym of Manospondylus.

"Observations" being the column where you place taxonomic minutiae. Also I've considered "Age" and "Location" part of the blurb as there are already category listings of dinosaurs by continent and age (which should probably exist for other groups too).

Dracontes (talk) 18:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

How about "year" as an additional column, since that usually goes hand-in-hand with author in citations? Either way, I'm not concerned with pushing this issue. :) Abyssal (talk) 19:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd consider the "Year" as part of the taxonomical authority citation. Also I'm reconsidering my position on the "Age" and "Location" columns. So do check the version I proposed and the fail-all-else bare-bones version.

As far as the other genera lists are concerned you are indeed interested in pushing it and I'm interested in having a say in it as this here isn't exactly an all-out anarchy :-) Overall I think the effort put in writing descriptions for the lists would be better used in polishing the pertinent articles so Joe Curious gets a good overview of the clades there. This and other lists are just a subarticles for Curiouser George ;-)

Don't get me wrong, I do like the concept. It just needs to be optimized.

Dracontes (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Merging the year and the citation column will lose the ability to sort by year. :( Also, I don't think we should get rid of the images. I think "Observations" sounds a little Original Researchy, maybe "Notes" would be better? I very much like the way you've been thinking, though. :D Abyssal (talk) 16:34, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

• The new format looks good, but I think we should keep the information to the bare minimum, such as describer, range, stuff like that, everything else can be seen on the page itself. FunkMonk (talk) 17:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The observations part will still need citations (and T. rex isn't an objective junior synonym as it's not based on the same type specimen as Manospondylus, right?) Dinoguy2 (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

@Abyssal: It would be nice to sort by year, but one would have to toss something out as the list is getting as cramped as it is in its more developed state. I don't terribly mind the images getting the boot, so to say, due to that as like Funkmonk said they can be seen on the pertinent articles. I think the most important part of the citation is the author's name with the year sorting between the multiple entries. Also you might want to read up on Wikipedia:Lists and Wikipedia:WikiProject_Lists, if you haven't already ;-) Oh and you might run this through Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life so they can give you their opinion. It may be a good thing to apply on other taxonomic lists.

Fair enough: "Annotation(s)" it is!

@Dinoguy: Aren't the annotations on the current list already referenced? Good call on my T. impromptu one! :-]

Now allow me to thoroughly thrash the table format >:-)

Genus	Author, Year	Fossil Range	Geographic Range	Annotations	Images
Micropachycephalosaurus	Maryanska & Osmólska, 2008	Early Jurassic-Early Cretaceous	North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, Antarctica	Nomen conservandum/Nomen protectum. Objective junior synonym of Micropachycephalosaurus.

Genus	Author	Year	Fossil Range	Geographic Range	Annotations	Images
Micropachycephalosaurus	Maryanska & Osmólska	2008	Early Jurassic-Early Cretaceous	North America, South America, Europe, Africa, Asia, Australia, Antarctica	Nomen conservandum/Nomen protectum. Objective junior synonym of Micropachycephalosaurus.

Genus	Author, Year	Annotations
Micropachycephalosaurus	Maryanska & Osmólska, 2008	Nomen conservandum/Nomen protectum. Objective junior synonym of Micropachycephalosaurus.

Genus	Author	Year	Annotations
Micropachycephalosaurus	Maryanska & Osmólska	2008	Nomen conservandum/Nomen protectum. Objective junior synonym of Micropachycephalosaurus.

These are just examples. Of course it's supposed to be silly ::-)

I think that trying to stick to only two location names in this list would be a good thing coalescing whenever possible, i. e., North America + South America = Americas or New World, Europe + Asia = Eurasia, etc. Also one can use Worldwide except Antarctica type prepositions.

Also the fossil ranges could be given in numbers (Ma) with the corresponding periods linked in them: 185—118. If someone could figure a way of slapping the taxobox fossil range code here it'd be stellar. Then again, maybe not :-\

Dracontes (talk) 16:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I've tried using the FR template in tables before. The results were anything but stellar. :P I like the last table if you include an image column.

Genus	Author	Year	Annotations	Images
Micropachycephalosaurus	Maryanska Osmólska	2008	Nomen conservandum/Nomen protectum. Objective junior synonym of Micropachycephalosaurus. MPCS is GOIGN TO EECHU!!!

Abyssal (talk) 21:13, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing against an image column, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 21:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Me neither unless it hinders more than it helps. I'd favour a smaller image size though:

Genus	Author	Year	Annotations	Images
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931

Genus	Author	Year	Annotations	Images
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931

Genus	Author	Year	Annotations	Images
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931

Various iterations of a real option this time. Dracontes (talk) 10:57, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I prefer a larger image size; some thumbnails won't look as good with small widths as the ones we've been using as test images has. How big's your monitor, Drac? My examples look fine on mine. Abyssal (talk) 17:01, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

My issue with "Images" is that I'd like to see more than four names per pane and thus scroll less as I'm sure any other person would. Your option would look nice on my computer at home, however on my 1024×768 laptop monitor (set to Windows Classic display) it doesn't look that good and I've seen smaller laptop screens. Failing all else one could oust the images beside the right margin of the list though I'm not sure on how it could be done, and perhaps use smaller print as shown here. I'm not too sure on an unsorted column of images but I guess I can live with it :-] Dracontes (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I like the smaller print idea. I don't mind the smaller image sizes you've used for the image you used, but some dino images might not be as easy to see as the ones you used in the examples. Mind throwing up some examples that use a variety of different images? Abyssal (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Genus	Author	Year	Annotations	Images
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931	Placeholder
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931	Placeholder
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931	Placeholder

Thoughts? Abyssal (talk) 03:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to make the change? Because it seems like massive work. FunkMonk (talk) 18:04, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Not until we reach some sort of consensus here. I don't want to make major changes without everyone's blessing. Abyssal (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I meant it as in are you going to do it, not that it should be done right now, heh. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll help as much as I can. What do you think of it as it now stands? Abyssal (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it so far, so let's see what the other guys think too. FunkMonk (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I like it it the latest form--all nomenclatural info, which pretty much cites itself. I do think we also need to cite taxonomic opinions like junior synonyms, which we're not currently doing, if we include that. Maybe that can be part of the overhaul. I'll help with this kind of thing as well. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I misspoke: "...I'd like to see more than eight names per pane...".

@Abyssal: Actually I meant that the small print could be used if one could figure a way to avoid the images forcibly setting row height, either by displaying the outside the list or using the single cell "Image" column used previously. If that's not possible then normal letter size is the way to go. I don't know how the wiki community would react to our cropping images specifically for the list and I'm not sure that every name should have an image: could anyone dig up the original and only specimen of Aachenosaurus? I guess most radically new stuff I could propose has been exhausted by now, namely because, my wiki savvy is somewhat lacking (I tried what I proposed and found it not particularly useful. On the other hand <rowspan=""> declarations could be shorter). Dracontes (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much fine with going back to the single-cell column originally used in theory, although it does not mix well with the sort feature. Play around with the table in 1995 in paleontology and you'll see what I mean. Abyssal (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

@All(on the workload this entails): "Divide and conquer" that's the motto! Though I'm not sure I can help right away, college and all, I guess that people can either develop this list on their subpages tackling a subset of the names at a time or create a subpage of the list itself and work there. When we find it developed well enough let's submit it to the featured list team and see what they say.

I do hope that what is decided here holds for all other taxonomic lists we get our hands on :-P Dracontes (talk) 16:35, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

I've already started tables for some other lists.

• User:Abyssal/List of ichthyosaurs (draft)
• User:Abyssal/List of plesiosaurs (draft)
• User:Abyssal/List of mosasaurs (draft)
• User:Abyssal/List of pterosaurs (draft)
• User:Abyssal/List of placoderms (draft)

If they're too cramped, I could always implement the smaller text. Abyssal (talk) 19:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Genus	Author	Year	Age	Location	Annotations	Images
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	lK-uK	N. America S. America Australia	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	lK-uK	N. America S. America Australia	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	lK-uK	N. America S. America Australia	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931	Placeholder
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	lK-uK	N. America S. America Australia	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931	Placeholder
Pachycephalosaurus	Brown Schlaikjer	1943	lK-uK	N. America S. America Australia	Originally Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931	Placeholder

You guys haven't forgotten about this, have you? Abyssal (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Guys? And I split this section at the big gap between July and October to make ita bit more manageable. Abyssal (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks great to me. FunkMonk (talk) 01:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

The latest version has potential. The example, though, mixes genera with species: P. wyomingensis began as T. wyomingensis, but Pachycephalosaurus itself didn't. If we go into species, we're going to be in a heap o' trouble once we hit, say, Megalosaurus! (to say nothing of all the reassignments that never caught on)

What should be referenced? It would be easy to plug in, say, the dinosaur distribution chapter of Dinosauria II, or Holtz' encyclopedia appendix (which has the twin advantages of being from 2008 and being online, but doesn't cover the nomina dubia; not sure who if anyone has authoritative times and places for nomina nuda) for the time and place, but do we want the original description citation as "proof" it's a dinosaur? Or should that be pinned on Dinogeorge? J. Spencer (talk) 04:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the example could be reworded to say something like "Erected to house the misidentified species Troodon wyomingensis Gilmore, 1931"?

I think we can put N/A for the ages/locations of invalid genera or genera that have since been shown not to represent an actual animal but are nomenclaturally valid (like subjective junior synonyms). Because if that animal doesn't exist it couldn't have lived in any place or time. Nomina dubia shouldn't be too hard to source for dates and places.

I like the idea of citing the original description just for completenesses sake and for "Wow" factor, but I don't think it's necessary. We'd have a very long references section if we did that. But it would be cool. Anyway, thanks for the input. :) Abyssal (talk) 04:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I figured I'd add some thoughts that occurred to me about what needs to be done to finalize the table.

Genus: We need to decide which names to cite and what to cite for them. Personally I think we should cite original descriptions, but only for fairly recent names. We could just keep whatever names have been cited so far and just keep citing names as new papers are published. There are other things we could do, too. Like citing every name erected since the List was first started and that sort of thing.

Authors: I think we should do away with bullets to save space, each name should link to an article on the namer, and that we list by last name only, as opposed to first initial+surname and that sort of thing. Asian names might cause some confusion, we should be careful.

Year: I think we got it right in the example.

Status: We should decide how often to link to articles on each type of status. I'm fine with every non-"valid" entry linking to its respective status' article, but some people seem to get squeemish about having that many links. I think we might consider abbreviations like "Jr. Synonym" or "Misident." to save space.

Age: I think we have the age column right.

Location: Once again, I think we should get rid of the bullets to save space. We might consider abbreviating the continents if space becomes a problem.

Annotations: We should decide what and how much to annotate. Obviously taxonomic data is a must, however I think we should include an additional sentence or two describing the genus' importance. Like "First dinosaur confirmed to have feathers" "First dinosaur eggs discovered" "Largest pachycephalosaur" and that kind of thing. Not alot, but enough to give non-specialist readers the idea if they want to read its article. We might consider having more annotated info in rows that have been stretched vertically by having several authors so as to not waste space.

Images: I think we should go back to the original style of image display, with a single streched cell to form the image "column." We'd need to go back to having captions on the images since the pictures would no longer be perfectly aligned with their rows. We'd should also try to find a way around the way this setup doesn't get along with the sorting feature, but I don't think that it's critical that we do so.

Thoughts? Abyssal (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Sample

Here's a sample of the first 20 names from the "A" section. This can be our official draft. :)Abyssal (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Genus	Author	Year	Status	Age	Location	Annotations	Images
Aachenosaurus	Smets	1888	Misident.	N/A	N/A	A piece of petrified wood misidentified as a hadrosaur. The mistake caused the namer to withdraw from science out of shame.	Heyuannia Heyuannia Heyuannia Heyuannia Heyuannia Heyuannia Heyuannia Heyuannia
"Abdallahsaurus"	Maier	2003	Nomen nudum	uJ	Africa	Never formally described, but probably synonymous with Brachiosaurus or Giraffatitan anyway.
Abelisaurus	Bonaparte Novas	1985	Valid	uK	S. America	A large predator known only from a single skull. Lent its name to its family.
Abrictosaurus	Hopson	1975	Valid	lJ	Africa	Originally a species of Lycorhinus. Has some significance in the debate over sexual dimorphism in heterodontosaurids.
Abrosaurus	Ouyang	1989	Valid	mJ	Asia	Type species named after 11th century Chinese poet.
Acanthopholis	Huxley	1867	Valid	lK	Europe	Described by early advocate of evolution and "Darwin's bulldog," Thomas Henry Huxley.
Achelosaurus	M. J. Ryan A. P. Russell D. A. Eberth Currie	2001	Valid	N/A	N/A	Misspelling of Achelousaurus.
Achelousaurus	Sampson	1995	Valid	uK	N. America	Generic name comes from a Greek mythological shapeshifter who lost his horn. The type species was named for Jack Horner
Achillesaurus	Martinelli Vera	2007	Valid	uK	S. America	A contemporary of its relative Alvarezsaurus.
Achillobator	Perle Norell Clark	1999	Valid	uK	Asia	Generic name comes from the Greek mythological hero Achilles in refererence to the large Achilles tendon needed to use its sickle claw.
"Acracanthus"	Langston vide: Czaplewski Cifelli Langston	1994	Valid	N/A	N/A	Original invalid name of Acrocanthosaurus from an unpublished master's thesis.
Acrocanthosaurus	Stovall Langston Author	1950	Valid	lK	N. America	A large predator named for its tall vertebral spines, which formed a ridge down its back.
Actiosaurus	Sauvage	1882	Misident.	J	Europe	Probably a misidentified ichthyosaur.
Adamantisaurus	Santucci Bertini	2006	Valid	uK	S. America	A titanosaur known only from six vertebrae.
Adasaurus	Barsbold	1983	Valid	uK	Asia	A dromaeosaurid named for an evil spirit from Mongolian mythology, its relationship with other members of its family are poorly understood.
Aegyptosaurus	Stromer	1932	Valid	lK-uK	Africa	Its remains were found scattered over Northern Africa, but were destroyed in an allied bombing raid on Munich during World War II.
Aeolosaurus	Powell	1987	Valid	uK	S. America	Named for the Greek god of winds due to the climate of the region where it was discovered. There may be more Aeolosaurus species yet to be named.
Aepisaurus	Gervais	1852	Valid	lK	Europe	Named for a single humerus which has since been lost.
Aerosteon	Sereno et al.	2008	Valid	uK	S. America	A predator of uncertain affinities that shows evidence of a bird-like respiratory system. Its bones (including gastralia) were heavily pneumatized.
Aetonyx	Broom	1911	Jr. Synonym	lJ	Africa	Possible junior synonym of Massospondylus.
Afrovenator	Sereno Wilson Larsson Dutheil Sues	1994	Valid	lK	Africa	An African theropod related to the megalosaurs.

We'll definitely want cites for the annotation section. Now I'm interested in tracking the story of Aachenosaurus, as the article doesn't have a reference for the part about retiring in shame. J. Spencer (talk) 16:44, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was part of the story I hadn't heard either. Anyway, how open minded are you to the list being split? It's huge as it is and the table format makes it a bit longer. I wouldn't mind seeing it split into say, 3 articles. A-H, I-Q, and R-Z sound right. It's not the result I wanted, but I don't think it would be a big deal considering that there's already more than a thousand names there. Thoughts? Abyssal (talk) 03:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's an example of list-splitting, doesn't look too bad: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Star_wars_races FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's basically what I was thinking. Abyssal (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Could use a brush-through

If we only use references for those genera that aren't on the Dinosaur Genera List, shouldn't we remove them for those that have been added? Also, something's not adding up with the numbers, as there were 854 valid or dubious names on the DGL today, but the hidden note said only 833. J. Spencer (talk) 04:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree that we should remove citations for the ones which already appear on DinoGeorge's list. I also wondered a while back when the numbering would start going askew; the numbering was started years ago, and without scrupulous maintaining... Firsfron of Ronchester 06:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If the dinosaur genera are the only things prefaced with an asterisk, copy-paste the code into Word and replace the asterisks with something. A window will come up an say how many replacements were made. Abyssal (talk) 16:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I did a full count and came up with 1247 total, 801 valid or dubious. I think the latter number may be too subjective to effectively evaluate. Is Nanotyrannus a synonym (and thus ineligible) or its own taxon? Are other synonyms likely? Is Protoavis included? How about Razanandrongobe? Did the 50+ I didn't have include synonyms, or nomina nuda, or genera that are valid but aren't dinosaurs, or that pack of so-called Triassic ornithischians? You see what I'm getting at. J. Spencer (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with using Olshevsky's count for valid and dubious dinosaur genera? His list places the number at 857. I understand we list a few which he doesn't, but from what I can tell, every referenced name (the ones not on his list), with the exception of the new three, is a nomen nudum, a misspelling, or a junior synonym (and thus would not be in DinoGeorge's columns for "Well-established" or "dubious" anyway, as he has a separate column each for "rejected", "preoccupied", "vernacular", "junior synonyms", and "non-dinosaurian"). So this list now is back to being quite close to the DGL, after your work yesterday (BTW, thank you!). It's true that Protoavis isn't listed as dubious in the DGL, but Nanotyrannus is referred to Tyrannosaurus, so there's part of your answer. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be better to use 857 than try to figure out which exceptions are which. J. Spencer (talk) 18:53, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the Lambert cites which were already covered by Olshevsky's list; this still leaves about ten Lambert citations in the article. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:28, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Taxonomy discussions

Is this really necessary or even helpful for a non-specialist article on a different topic in a general encyclopedia:

"A name which describes the same taxon as a previously published name. If two or more genera are formally designated and the type specimens are later assigned to the same genus, the first to be published (in chronological order) is the senior synonym, and all other instances are junior synonyms. Senior synonyms are generally used, except by special decision of the ICZN (see Tyrannosaurus), but junior synonyms cannot be used again, even if deprecated. Junior synonymy is often subjective, unless the genera described were both based on the same type specimen."

Was there some reason this was chosen to be so word heavy and generally incomprehensible by anyone needing to read it to understand the labels? I can't even understand it, and I use taxonomy to research and identify synonymy.

Can it be rewritten to state the information concisely, with simply a link to the article on taxonomy?

"A junior synonym is a new name given to a genus that already has a valid genus name. This can happen when two dinosaurs are formally identified as two different genera, then later assigned to a single genus. In this case the nomenclature rules require that the first genus name published is a senior synonym and all other names are junior synonyms. Usually the senior synonym is used as the genus name, unless an exception to this is published in the literature. Please see article on taxonomic nomenclature for more obscure information."

As a starting point....

--68.127.233.138 (talk) 05:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

"Name"?

I know the scientific name should type in Name. But i see lots of scientific name were type in "Name". Why?

Is that official rules that Nomen nudum, Nomen oblitum, Nomen dubium should type in "Name"? or it is just a wikipedia rules? 01:43, 26 Nov. 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilfish1962 (talk • contribs)

Ichnogenera

Since the question of the treatment of ichnogenera has come up ...

... passing over the question of whether an ichnotaxon can be reliably identified as dinosaurian or otherwise ...

... couldn't they just be put after Z? Lavateraguy (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

They could be given their own separate article. Or they could be put after Z, like in the list of pterosaurs or Lavateraguy's suggestion. Abyssal (talk) 21:56, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, what a hell could have stepped into the marsh if it had not been a dinosaur? Komlosaurus carbonis was not existed?Fakirbakir (talk) 22:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't questioning 'Komlosaurus in particular. At one end I expect that distinguishing the footprints of early birds from related non-avian dinosaurs is difficult, and at the other end you'd have the same problem with thecodonts and early dinosaurs. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice WP:BOLD move. Your work is appreciated. However, these will need some citations from reliable sources, as they do not appear in Olshevsky's list. They are currently uncited in an article which is otherwise cited. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:08, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Are we sure there shouldn't be a separate article for dinosaur trace genera? Iimagine the list could get reasonably large and this page is already huge. Abyssal (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I've had a quick google - there doesn't seem to be a convenient single reference for oogenera, but it looks as if there's no more than about a dozen oogenera. Lavateraguy (talk) 17:45, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Currently, this list is very small, but from what I recall from four years ago (when WP:DINO talked about this last), I found dozens of ichnogenera names believed to be of dinosaurs. Of course, that was four years ago, and my memory is a bit hazy. If the list gets unwieldy, as Abyssal suggests, we should probably split it off, since the page is very large already (with a nice note to readers letting them know where to find the ichnogenera article). Firsfron of Ronchester 19:14, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A dedicated list would probably be best. The most comprehensive source would be Glut's 3rd supplement, which has an ichnogenera listing. From a quick count, there were (as of about 2003) just shy of 200 ichnogenera for tracks, and 30 for eggs. J. Spencer (talk) 01:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So, is there are preference for one article for both ichnogenera and oogenera, or one for ichnogenera and another for oogenera? (BTW, dinosaur eggs could do to have some material on taxonomy.) Lavateraguy (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

One possibility would to have a dedicated page for all trace genera, which lists tracks and egg genera under separate headings, with the oogenera list transcluded from the dedicated page to the Dinosaur egg article. Abyssal (talk) 19:49, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd start with one page, and go from there. 30 isn't all that much. J. Spencer (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Since there appears to be a consensus for a single page, the next question is what to use as a title. The immediate question is does the category of ichnotaxa include the category of ootaxa, and does the category of trace fossils include the category of egg fossils. (What does the ICZN say?) If not, the obvious "List of dinosaur ichnogenera" would not be correct, but "List of dinosaur ichnogenera and oogenera" is rather cumbersome. Lavateraguy (talk) 19:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not List of dinosaur trace fossil genera or List of dinosaurian trace fossil genera? J. Spencer (talk) 23:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Apart from the question as to whether fossil eggs are trace fossils, no particular reason; I wasn't giving an exhaustive list of alternatives, but illustrating where there might be issues of accuracy in titling. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

List of dinosaur-age trace fossil genera to sidestep the question of whether the originating creature was really a dinosaur? Or is that too cumbersome too?—S Marshall T/C 23:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

That would be List of Jurassic and Cretaceous trace fossil genera, which would be a different list - I'm sure that there are plenty of trace fossils of marine invertebrates of that age. Lavateraguy (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

We could have a List of dinosaur ichnogenera and just list the thirty or so oogenera on the Dinosaur egg page. Abyssal (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, done. I was tired of seeing the trace fossils dangling at the bottom, with their "citation needed" and all that. J. Spencer (talk) 04:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Aachenosaurus

Should the Aachenosaurus be in the list of dinosaurs, when it's not actually a dinosaur but in fact a plant? --Mjs1991 (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Please see the introductory paragraph, which explains the inclusion criteria. mgiganteus1 (talk) 03:34, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Today's Featured List

I submitted it to Today's Featured List. Link:

• Wikipedia:Today's_featured_list/submissions#List_of_Dinosaurs
  --Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Group by order

Should someone consider grouping the dinosaurs by order, i.e. diplodocid, tyrannosaur, hadrosaur, etc.? B-) (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Many articles on dinosaur taxa already have lists of members. Nevertheless I always thought we could do something similar to your proposal; split this into articles like List of sauropodomorphs and List of ornithopods. Many editors here are reluctant to make major changes thought because this article is kind of their baby and it means a lot to them that it keeps its featured status. Abyssal (talk) 16:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Any subdivison would be rather arbitrary and necessitate a lot of tiny lists for outliers. If we had a "list of ornithopods" and "list of thyreophorans", for example, would we need another two lists for basal ornithischians and non-ornithopod genasaurians"? MMartyniuk (talk) 19:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

That's true, but even if we cast a wider net and went with List of ornithischians it would still be a more usable article. Not that I'm going to push the issue, because as you mention there are plenty of potential complications. Also, we may be able to improve the article by breaking the bulleted list of each letter into columns so that people don't have to scroll so much. Abyssal (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We could put them under the banners where you have to click "[show]" to see it and "[hide]" when you want to hide it and so minimises the amount of scrolling having to be done. Rainbow Shifter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomen Nunda

Why are all undescribed brachiosaurs listed as "Probably synonymous with Giraffatitan" when the have never been suggested to be, and probably aren't, synonymous with it?142.176.114.76 (talk) 12:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Removing Scrotum from list

I have been thinking about removing Scrotum from the list because, as pointed out of Halstead and Sarjeant (1993), Scrotum humanum was never intended to be used in a taxonomic fashion and was merely a Latin caption that appeared elsewhere in Brookes' 1763 work, and also because the distal femur figured by Brookes and Plot is best considered an indeterminate theropod due to the presence of more than one large theropod from the Middle Jurassic of the UK (e.g. Cruxicheiros, Magnosaurus, Duriavenator).Extrapolaris (talk) 16:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian

Removing non-dinosaurs from this list?

I noticed that this list is rather long, which is fine if it's simply a list of all dinosaurs, but it also contains random items such as Aachenosaurus which is a plant. Would it be cleaner, and more manageable if this list included only dinosaurs? Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I think erring on the side of inclusion helps maintain stability given that taxa thought to be dinosaurs can come to be recognized as non-dinosaurian and vice versa. Abyssal (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A plant, though?? Is that realistic? Firejuggler86 (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

They're still keeping Libycosaurus, an anthracothere mammal, so, why not a plant, too?--Mr Fink (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm still so confused that the few people seem to control this page want to keep in a plant... and other clearly non-dinosauria. Despite so much confusion it causes. All the time. I give up. Mattximus (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Possible FLR

At least, need more source to confirm we have all genera here, and this is a complete list.--Jarodalien (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Indeed! --Meridiana solare (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903014352/http://www.macn.secyt.gov.ar/investigacion/descargas/publicaciones/revista/12/rns_vol12-2_217-231.pdf to http://www.macn.secyt.gov.ar/investigacion/descargas/publicaciones/revista/12/rns_vol12-2_217-231.pdf

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:37, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit warring

70.160.33.179 (talk) has continued to remove Paleosauriscus, Paleosaurus, and Paleosaurus sternbergi from the page even though there is consensus that it fits the parameters of this list. And it appears he's already been blocked multiple times for nonconstructive changes and edit warring. ▼PσlєοGєєкƧɊƲΔƦΣƉ▼ (Contribs) 21:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

How are we defining birds for the purpose of this page?

The beginning of the article says that the list excludes Aves. The problem is that there are multiple definitions of Aves. The closest two definitions in common use to the one apparently used in this article are Neornithes and Avialae. The article is not consistent with the latter, as it includes (at a glance) Avialans such as Archaeopteryx, Anchiornis and Balaur. However, the article excludes some non-Neornithes taxa such as the Enantiornitheans. The article seems to use a definition of birds that is neither explained nor consistent with any in use. ThatChapThere (talk) 18:38, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

The first sentence says "This list of dinosaurs is a comprehensive listing of all genera that have ever been included in the superorder Dinosauria". All genera you mentioned have been previously proposed to be non-avialian dinosaurs, thus they are included here. Enantiornithes have never been suggested to be non-avialian dinosaurs, so they are excluded. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:55, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Would it be more consistent if this were noted next to those genera? "Anchiornis - a possible Avialan" for example. ThatChapThere (talk) 18:52, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

This list should be so much more

I think it's time to reconsider the format of this list. The lead contains "The list includes " which would no longer pass current featured list standards. It's scope is also bizarre; it contains not only a list of dinosaur genera, but some plant species, some species that do not even exist, some with multiple names. At the very least these non-dinosaur genera should be split off into a separate category (such as List of nomen nudum dinosaur genera), or the title of the list is not inclusive of the contents.

There is also no way to sort these dinosaurs by period. How do we know which lived together in say, early Jurassic? How do we know which were found in China, and which in Canada? I noticed above there were *many* discussions about creating a table, and almost all of them are an improvement to the simple bullet list we have now. We don't even include the authority, which is standard practice in all featured lists of genera or species.

I propose creating a table, and splitting off the non-dinosaur genera from the list of dinosaur genera into their own lists to keep the size manageable. For example splitting off nomen nudum into their own list alone will reduce the list by 128!

What do you think? Based on above discussion this idea did have support but was never realized. Is the time now to improve this article?

For the list, I think we should keep it very simple. Something like this, but I would love your input before moving on:

Name	Authority	Temporal range	Fossil Location	Image
Aardonyx	Yates et al., 2010	Early Jurassic	South Africa
Abelisaurus	Bonaparte & Novas, 1985	Late Cretaceous	South America
Abrictosaurus	Hopson, 1975	Early Jurassic	South Africa
Abrosaurus	Ouyang, 1989	Middle Jurassic	China
Abydosaurus	Chure et al., 2010	Early Cretaceous	United States

Even with just the first few dinosaur genera we can sort by era and see which lived together, which is really cool. I also included authority which acts as the reference, which is missing in the current list. I think no matter what form it takes, we need at least those two features. What do you think? Mattximus (talk) 15:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This tells us almost nothing about what lived with what, the "Early Cretaceous" lasted tens of millions of years. Even within some single formations like the Cedar Mountain Formation we can see a number of different faunas represented which didn't co-exist. Also, the scope is not "bizarre" at all - it's entirely clear, anything that'd been considered a dinosaur genus. It doesn't muddy things because all the duds are labelled, so there's no confusion over what's real. Sources and the other basic info from this box can be found by going to the listed page. So this box doesn't really help with comparison and isn't necessary for a simple directory page that leads to full articles on all included topics. I mean, it wouldn't hurt, but I don't see why the enormous effort would be considered worth it at all. Regarding splitting off two other lists, this distributes the relevant information unhelpfully for no good reason. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 23:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomina nuda already have List of informally named dinosaurs, but are also here for convenience sake. Adding photos and other data would also double or triple the length of this already-large page. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:56, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

"List of awesome dinosaurs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of awesome dinosaurs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 19:36, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

"List of new dinosaurs" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of new dinosaurs. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:11, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Add Silesaurids to this list

Silesaurids have been found to be basal ornithischians on multiple occasions so shouldn't they be part of this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uedded (talk • contribs) 03:53, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't think there is any scientific consensus about this. FunkMonk (talk) 06:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Why are synonyms and informal names listed here?

I think this list could be much neater and more useful if we restricted it to valid genera, and at least restricted the junior synonyms to a column in a table (if we had one), next to their senior synonyms (if we need them here at all). As is, I don't even think the synonym list is complete, and the article would probably be double as long if all were added, so now it's just an arbitrary selection. Also, not sure why we need to list nomina nuda here when we now have the List of informally named dinosaurs. If we did away with all that fluff, we could have better tables, images, data, etc., as suggested in above sections. Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Agreed, nomina nuda already have their own list, and thus should be removed here. As for the synonyms, maybe we can do something like in the list of pterosaur genera, if that's what you mean by "table"? Hm, but I think the "notes" subdivision of the pterosaur genera table is kinda unnecessary, though. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 06:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I like the list as it is, I think it is much more useful to have all names listed. Why do we need a list of valid names only? It was always based on this list [1], which is a widely known source that is regularly updated since 20 years, and therefore I wonder if the list is really that incomplete. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, a table like in the pterosaur list, where there could perhaps be a column for synonyms. As for why, well, I would personally look mainly for valid names when looking at a list of dinosaur genera, and they're kind of drowned in invalid names now (including names that are already on another list), and the page is therefore difficult to parse. But it's a matter of taste, I guess, hence this section. I feel it's like having a list of modern birds, but then making it very difficult to look through because we also have to wade through synonyms. FunkMonk (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

For valid names, we already have the navigation templates that are prominently placed under every article, as well as the categories (since we only have articles on valid names). Yes, we do have the list of informally named dinosaurs. But this list here incorporates much more, including synonyms and taxa that have since been referred to different groups (e.g., crocodilians). If we remove that stuff, we lose information that we don't have anywhere else. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:50, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's where the columns could come in handy, because we could move the synonyms there and not lose anything. But in any case, I'm pretty sure the list of synonyms here isn't complete, I wonder if a dedicated synonym list could also be an option... But these are just some preliminary thoughts, we don't have to do act on it. FunkMonk (talk) 11:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

But if we put the synonyms into a separate columns, what do we do with synonyms of taxa outside dinosaurs (which won't have an entry here); e.g. "Brachytaenius – a metriorhynchid; junior objective synonym of Dakosaurus"? And if we have a separate list on synonyms, where do we put, e.g., "Belodon – a phytosaur"? I personally see great value in the fact that we have everything together in this list.

Concerning the completeness: Do you have examples of missing synonyms that are also absent from Olshevsky's list? If there really are many misses, we need to pay attention to this of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 11:20, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a middle way could be to put them all in a table where each kind of name is colour coded? That would make it much easier to parse and find what kind of name one is looking for. Similar to for example Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation. No colour could be a valid genus, grey could be synonym, red could be informal name, etc. And looking again, it does seem to be very complete in regard to synonyms, it's just so difficult to scroll through it now and identify anything because there is nothing apart from the letter headers to navigate after... FunkMonk (talk) 12:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

That could work maybe. I think, however, that the current list format is simple and easy and thus better for an overview. With a table, we would have more clutter and less names per screen page, which also can make it more difficult to navigate. Also, it would be a really huge table, and with so many names, I think the current format is just more accessible. I think that currently, valid names are already clearly distinguishable from other names, since they don't have a comment attached to them. I don't see why a color code would make it easier to use the list. An added advantage of the current format is the greater flexibility; we can indicate ambiguity with words like "probable", which is not possible with a color code. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I can only say that it's harder to parse for me personally than those other lists, others may not have difficulties, of course. For me, it looks like an endless wall when I scroll through it, with little means to manoeuvre it (points of orientation), perhaps it's a vision thing (mine isn't very good). FunkMonk (talk) 06:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems that I worry about exactly the same things, just from my perspective! Are you thinking of a single sortable table, or separate tables for each letter? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not him but I guess we could just put separate tables for each letter, it's easier to find genera that way, at least in my opinion. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 08:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't necessarily be sortable, because I imagine that wouldn't even work across letters anyway, but only for one letter at a time? I was thinking something like Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation, but simpler, perhaps columns wouldn't even be needed if it was colourcoded, but if we had columns, the status of each name could be stated there. But yes, in such a case it could maybe be cool if it was sortable, so one could for example see only synonyms first if one wanted to. But I'm not sure how that would work with the letter sections. Maybe someone more technically minded have some thoughts? I have no ambitions of any of this really being implemented, though, as I have no technical skills to do it, and I can't demand others will do it, so it's just airing some thoughts. FunkMonk (talk) 08:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, so it would just be adding the colour-coded table and leaving the content as is. Hmm, for me personally, that would make it slightly more difficult to parse and keep an overview (because more graphical elements that distract and less taxa per screen page). But if it significantly improves matters for some people, then I won't stand in the way of course. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I guess we could try it. But should we still keep the letter sections or just add one large table for everything? I didn't quite get what Funk said. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think we agreed to keep the letter sections. In any case, before making such a change to a featured list we should seek consensus at the WikiProject. But it would certainly help to make a draft in user space to see how this would look and feel. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe a sandbox experimentation could be done? But I don't think we should change the article itself before we have some kind of wide consensus here. I don't think having letters and columns are mutually exclusive, again, have a look at Paleobiota of the Morrison Formation (letters would just replace clades?). If there was a way to keep both the letters and make it sortable, that could of course be neat... FunkMonk (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Oh, now I get it, thanks. Perhaps a draft or a sandbox could be a good idea before changing something here (but then again we still need some consensus), either way, I'm not really good at making these types of tables, so maybe someone else could do it? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 09:23, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to help. I'm wondering if we can at least start with the removal of nomen nudum from this list as they are already on the List of informally named dinosaurs, where they should be listed, so they are redundant in this list. This will give us less total to work with as we change the format, making it more manageable. At the very least, all plants should be removed from a list of dinosaurs! I will be bold and make that change. Mattximus (talk) 15:20, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Also I think we can safely remove animals listed as "non-dinosaur" from the list of dinosaurs. I can't see that being controversial. Mattximus (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Should some early "dinosaurs" be marked here as "possibly non-dinosaurian"?

While browsing through Kiwi Rex's contributions, I noticed he changed the taxonomy templates for Tawa hallae, Chindesaurus, Daemonosaurus, and Herrerasauridae to mark them outside Dinosauria. This inspired me to want to mark these taxa as "possibly non-dinosaurian" here, but I'm on the fence; unlike silesaurids, herrerasaurids and co. are not recovered outside Dinosauria that often. What should I do? Atlantis536 (talk) 10:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This list is actually quite random. It includes pieces of wood, which are certainly not dinosaurs. I think that needs to be cleaned up as well, and this list should really be only dinosaurs from Dinosauria clade. Mattximus (talk) 17:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Those "random" non-dinosaurs are not actually random; they are all placed here because they were once assigned to Dinosauria, but have since been reclassified. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Non-dinosaurs should no longer be on this list. Or it should be renamed list of dinosaur and former dinosaur genera. The title does not match the contents of the table. The table is insanely long as well, and I don't understand why non dinosaur genera should be on a page called "list of dinosaur genera". The very first name on the list is a plant, not a dinosaur, because it was once mistaken for a dinosaur? That is silly. Mattximus (talk) 19:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that the consensus still supports Tawa, Chindesaurus, Daemonosaurus, and herrerasaurids as dinosaurs, so they don't apply to this discussion. Kiwi Rex has put a bit too much faith in a few controversial Ornithoscelida papers which occasionally place those taxa as non-dinosaurs, but an equal or greater amount of studies still consider them to be dinosaurian, and Ornithoscelida isn't that well-supported regardless. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 20:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

What consensus exactly? Who gets to decide that? I'm not the one putting faith in anything. I'm simply stating there are currently several different hypotheses regarding the placement of those taxa and we are not to make absolute statements of that kind. That's neutrality, not 'defending' anything. Are ichthyosauromorphs stem-saurians, lepidosauromorphs or archosauromorphs? Since there is no consensus, they are just considered a subset of Neodiapsida in the taxobox because all possibilities are consistent with that. Similarly, putting those constantly-moving dracohorsian taxa as subsets of Dracohors instead of specifying a less inclusive clade is not incorrect. See the taxobox in page house sparrow; it skips several clades for convenience and remains accurate.Kiwi Rex (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Ichthyosauromorphs are far more difficult to place than the taxa you mention. It's pretty much just a few Ornithoscelida analyses which consider herrerasaurids and such non-dinosaurs, and that hypothesis is contrary to most others (i.e. the consensus). I'm not saying it's impossible that Ornithoscelida is right, or that it is a fundamentally flawed hypothesis (it's not that bad), but most early dinosaur researchers prefer the traditional Saurischia-Ornithischia hypothesis. "Constantly moving" is a big exaggeration. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 02:19, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Ornithischia-Saurischia is just the idea that didn't conflict with any other from the 1990s to 2017. It's the same with avialan Archaeopteryx: not the consensus, just the idea that came first and was repeated enough to appear more obvious than it necessarily is. Ornithischia-Saurischia and Sauropodomorpha-Ornithoscelida appear to be similarly well supported, so neither idea should be dismissed. Caution is definitely good, which is why I criticized putting "Order: Ornithoscelida" in Swedish Wikipedia's taxoboxes. The thing is that, because those contrasting hypothesis are still being discussed, we can't act like there is a consensus determining what is best and "promote" one idea. We have a thesis and an antithesis but no synthesis yet. Saurischia and Theropoda are included in Dracohors, so using that clade in the taxoboxes would retain the accuracy without putting details that are potentially troublesome. Those details can be discussed in the page itself; the taxobox evidently doesn't need to be too complex or complete. Kiwi Rex (talk) 15:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you mean "Saurischia and Theropoda are included in Dinosauria?", because they are included, by definition. I generally agree with your point about caution and our intent not to promote a hypothesis, though I would still argue that the current state of dinosaur systematics finds less support for Ornithoscelida than the traditional hypothesis. In terms of taxoboxes, I've used a /? taxonomy template to accommodate uncertainty for hypotheses which are commonly but not universally supported (Eodromaeus as a theropod, for example). Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Dinosauria is a subgroup of Dracohors. An idea isn't necessarily safer even to use as placeholder simply because it was repeated more often. Analyses using the same method and data normally keep producing the same results, and those may be unreliable if there's not good enough data or if the amount of it is low. The methods themselves are difficult to compare because we have no genetic material and too much missing morphology [e.g. many recent papers found turtles outside Sauria even though genetic studies firmly place them within Sauria]. Essentially, all that is left to us is saying X said this and Y said that. This can change if a new study somehow demonstrates one specific method is more reliable and/or that certain conclusions regarding the placement of those genera (Tawa, Daemonosaurus etc.) are badly supported for whatever reason. There are currently none. We can safely say Tawa (or any of the others) is a dracohorsian because that's what all studies say, but anything more specific than that is currently up to debate. No one doubts picozoans are part of the Plantae+Chromista clade (Diaphoretickes) but being more specific than that in a taxobox is not ideal because their position is uncertain. Kiwi Rex (talk) 01:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

petrified wood

The first item is a "petrified wood". Is it a dinosaur? Is this article a featured one?! --Meridiana solare (talk) 19:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

That fossil was originally thought to be a dinosaur bone but is actually a plant. Anything that was once thought to be a dinosaur is included here for some reason. Yes, the article is featured. Kiwi Rex (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I thought the same thing. There is no way this would pass featured article now. A piece of wood is not a dinosaur, even though it was once thought of as such. Many things were once thought of as other things. The list is already very long, why not just include dinosaurs? Not "potential dinosaurs" or "once were thought of as dinosaurs but now wood". This list really needs cleaning up. Why not just stick to dinosaurs? I'm glad I'm not the only one to notice. Mattximus (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposal for a change in scope

Currently this list does not only list dinosaurs, but all kinds of other things (including plants!). I suggest that we break off all Junior synonyms, Nomen nudum, Nomen oblitum, Nomen manuscriptum, Preoccupied name, Nomen dubium into their own pages, and keep this page as only a list of dinosaurs with valid generic names. It's kind of insane that this list tries to include all these different things in one page. Mattximus (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

There was some discussion of it above:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 19:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry FunkMonk, you had the exact same idea as me, but you stated it even better than I have. Mattximus (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Regarding nomina nuda, is it really a good idea to put them in a different list? Even Asfaltovenator and Ubirajara are nomina nuda. Kiwi Rex (talk) 21:45, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

We already have list of informally named dinosaurs for that, but I don't think they count, because they're nomina nuda for different, technical reasons than those on that list, and will probably only remain so temporarily. FunkMonk (talk) 21:58, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

• I like the scope of the list as it is (and always has been). For valid genera, we already have the category system, and the taxon navigation templates which are prominently placed in each article. A list of valid dinosaur genera is therefore redundant in my opinion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

• I strongly disagree with this reasoning. 99% of people who click on this link are looking for a list of dinosaurs, and are very confused to see completely random things like a plant (!!) on this list. Several people, myself included, noted this in these talk pages. It's also overlapping the list of informally named dinosaurs which is an appropriate category. This list should only be valid dinosaurs. Imagine a list of cetaceans featuring a tree. Also this list is extremely long as is, no need to include invalid/non-dinosaurs along with actual dinosaurs. From and outsider's perspective it's a crazy combination. Mattximus (talk) 15:12, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

In any case, nothing should be done about this until a consensus is gained. I don't feel personally invested enough in the issue to strongly argue for one or the other way, but this should play out over some time, with many more editors chiming in. FunkMonk (talk) 15:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I was reverted anyway. What is the formal procedure for consensus for the removal of plants from the list of dinosaurs? I can't believe there are many people who want plants on this list... but ok. Could we also take it up for featured list review? Since this list contains things that are not dinosaurs, it's certainly warranted. What do you think FunkMonk? Mattximus (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, as above, we need more input from more editors before we know if we can or should do anything. So either we wait for it, or ask on the project page. FunkMonk (talk) 15:40, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree I think that it is necessary to keep in the list only valid genera and genera that have become nomina nuda due to the lack of registration with ZooBank, everything else just takes up extra space. HFoxii (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

• We're being asked to choose between two things that aren't mutually exclusive. It's perfectly possible to do both. You could have one list that's the whole list we've always had, and another list that's more selective. If both lists are on the same page then I suggest we make them both collapsed by default. We could also make them sortable.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be a bit excessive for one page. Why not just have two pages: "List of dinosaurs" for the valid dinosaurs and "list of informally named dinosaurs" for the invalid categories? This seems like the best compromise. There is no reason to have both of those on the same page with a list as giant as we have already. Mattximus (talk) 12:27, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Guys, let me explain my reasoning a bit:

• First we have to understand that a genus is per definition an arbitrary category without a biological definition (only a species can be defined this way). What constitutes a genus will necessarily be partly subjective. If paleontologists downgrade a genus to a species (and therefore make the genus name invalid), than this subjective decision has no direct meaning for the actual animals that once lived. The validity status may change frequently, taxa may become invalid and sometimes are re-validated again (e.g., Brontosaurus). The validity of a genus is thus simply not as meaningful and clear-cut at it might seem at first glance.
• A key problem with "validity" as criterion is that there is often no consensus in science, so we ran into WP:NPOV issues because we are forced to take a side even in contested cases. I am not sure if this is necessarily a no-go. But this is a featured list, and by restricting to valid genera we are creating a problem that doesn't exist with the current format.
• The scope of this list is well-defined, and based on a classic outside Wikipedia (Olshevsky's list), so it is not even something that was invented here. That the scope is reasonable has been further confirmed by the featured list nomination procedure. Much thought from multiple sides has gone into it. We should really think twice before changing such a long-standing instance that this list is.
• We already have the List of informally named dinosaurs. But the "List of dinosaur genera" contains much more. It contains information that we don't keep track of anywhere else, and just deleting it would be insane. Restricting it to all names except for the valid ones makes no sense to me as well. I consider this list a very useful resource.
• A typical use case for the casual reader is this: They remember a dinosaur name, but not its exact spelling (and thus can't search for it directly). They will definitely find it in this list. They may not necessarily find it in a list restricted to genera that are (at the moment) considered "valid". If those casual readers search for "Brontosaurus", one of the most popular dinosaur names, they don't care if the name is, at the moment, valid, invalid, re-validated, or secondarily invalidated (which might happen in the future). This use case is based on my personal experience.
• My suggestion for a compromise: I would not be against a separate List of valid dinosaurs. This one could be in table format, with additional information, all sort-able. It could contain the valid species for each genus as well (and hence is a list of "dinosaurs" and not "dinosaur genera"). This would give us a total of three separate lists of dinosaurs, each with different scopes; we could have a navigation box at the top left of each list to allow quick switching between each. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

While I think a separate list is the best compromise in theory, in practice I fear it will be difficult to maintain two very long lists with much duplicated material, and keep them both up to date (it'll take a lot of manpower). As I mentioned last time around, I think some sort of colour coding in this list might come a long way of keeping the material in one place, while also making it easier to see which genera are valid or not... If a sortable table could be made here that would be great too, but it will probably be difficult to do technically. FunkMonk (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

We should also consider that this is a featured list, and by including within the scope things beyond the title (for example, a plant), would mean it would no longer have featured status and should be removed. From a non-scientist perspective, a person clicking on list of dinosaurs and seeing a plant will be very confused. While some leeway on what is valid (as Jens said above) is needed, certainly things that are crocodiles or plants should not be on a list of dinosaurs. I'm not the only one who noticed this who posted this problem, so imagine the thousands of people who don't write in the talk page that see it and get confused. I strongly support two lists, valid and invalid. With the valid one being called "list of dinosaurs". At the very least can we remove the crocodiles and plants? Mattximus (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

The intro states "This list of dinosaurs is a comprehensive listing of all genera that have ever been considered to be non-avian dinosaurs." What, then, would be your alternative clear-cut and straightforward definition of the list's contents? Just adding "except for crocodiles and plants" would certainly not do? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Also, the list was featured while it had this scope[3], so it's not like it's something that just happened in the meantime, and it is therefore irrelevant to its featured status now. FunkMonk (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Easy, eliminated the "ever been considered" because for nearly every reader, it's ridiculous to include plants and crocodiles in a list of dinosaurs. Also it would not pass featured list today, as standards have significantly improved since it was nominated. Even the wording "this is a list of" is also no longer acceptable in featured lists. If the issue is not resolved here, maybe taking it to featured list review would be a good idea? It would get way more eyes, and we can see more opinions about inclusion of plants and crocodiles on a list of dinosaurs? Mattximus (talk) 02:30, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• With scope, one thing that I find somewhat troublesome is the exclusion of "avian dinosaurs" - I find this term to be rather ambiguous, as "avian dinosaurs" could refer to Aves, Ornithurae, or Avialae, among other things. I wonder if perhaps it would be better to include all Mesozoic dinosaurs regardless of avian status, akin to what Holtz did in his appendicies. However, I would like to point out a problem with only including valid dinosaur genera. Nobody is disputing the validity of Silesaurus, but should it be considered a dinosaur? There are a few studies that advocate this, but for the moment I think that general opinion is against its membership (though I wouldn't be surprised if this changed in the near future). If we decide to restrict the list's scope to only definite dinosaurs, then we'd have to remove Herrerasaurus, which a few studies found to be outside of Dinosauria, if I remember correctly, despite this taxon otherwise being almost universally considered a dinosaur; and then there are weird cases like Pisanosaurus, which is found both inside and outside the group quite frequently, and Smok, which, as far as I know, is of extremely tenuous placement, with multiple positions in Archosauria seeming quite good for it. Additionally, there are some taxa, like Teratosaurus, that had significant history within Dinosauria, despite having been firmly placed outside it by all recent studies. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 23:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

• This is a valid concern. If we do decide to include just valid dinosaurs, I would be inclined to err on the side of inclusivity with the genera you mentioned, with a footnote indicating the controversial taxonomy. My primary concern is not with these borderline cases (which I would still *include* on this list), but with the clear non-dinosaurs, such as plants and crocodiles. Mattximus (talk) 00:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• So you want to keep the mentioned Teratosaurus but not "crocodiles"? You want to replace our clear-cut inclusion criteria with your own nebulous idea of what should be in this list and what not, totally subjective and arbitrary? A featured list needs to be well-defined and complete. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:03, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• No, you misunderstood. We should not Teratosaurus because it is "firmly placed outside dinosauria by all recent studies". So it is not ambiguous. I said the genera where there is dispute should be included with a note. There is absolutely no reason crocodiles and plants should be on this list, as *no* studies place it currently in dinosauria. This inclusion criteria is very clear. Mattximus (talk) 12:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

If we do remove all names that are invalid per current scientific consensus, we would have to remove many very popular names, such as Anatosaurus, which is featured in most popular books about dinosaurs. This is what will confuse the readers. Why is that name not in the list?? Including them all, with explanation that they have since been considered invalid, is the information the reader wants. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

This is a very poor argument as Edmontosaurus can have a note saying formerly called Anatosaurus (or simply add former names beside it). So nobody will be confused, and you get to keep the outdated name. All I really want to remove are the clearly 100% non-ambiguously non-dinosaurs (plants and crocodiles). Several others on this page agree to this logic, how many more are needed? Mattximus (talk) 01:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Well you know, I have my own opinion about what "poor arguments" are (who on earth can find the name when not listed alphabetically?), and as said, a consensus is required before changes can be made, which certainly isn't there at the moment. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Plus, if we restrict this list to just valid dinosaurs, what do we do about a taxon that is firmly placed within Dinosauria but may be a junior synonym of another concrete dinosaur? (e.g. Sigilmassasaurus, which may or may not be a junior synonym of Spinosaurus) Would we add it to such a list or not? Atlantis536 (talk) 13:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, either with a note indicating it's status or next to the valid genera. I would err on inclusion. For me, we just really need to remove uniquivocally non dinosaurian genera from this list, such as the crocodiles and plants. Mattximus (talk) 18:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

What do you do with Archaeoraptor, for instance? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding the Mesozoic birds: Avialae is the cut-off point, and that makes some sense too me. We should specify this in the lead I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:20, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Who defined Avialae as the division point, and how does it make sense? I recommend reading Andrea Cau's extensive criticism[4] of the avian/non-avian distinction that uses Avialae/Archaeopteryx as the border line. This "line" simply does not divide anything meaningful. Archaeopteryx is not the "first bird" in any meaningful sense and there is no point in perpetuating the idea that birds are fundamentally un-dinosaurian anyway. This page should include all Mesozoic dinosaurs. Kiwi Rex (talk) 16:34, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Do any scientific papers consider it a valid taxon? If yes, include, if no include in the list of informally named dinosaurs page which already exists as a fork. It seems like you are the main opponent to change on this page, if consensus requires your approval, I don't think that is quite fair. Would you want to take this to featured list review, and get new eyes on the project and see if they think plants and crocodiles should be included on this list of dinosaurs? Mattximus (talk) 18:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Do you know what an "informally named dinosaur" is? For a start, Archaeoraptor is not one. And the featured list review is not a place to solve content disputes. And thanks for the personal attack. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: I don't know what I said above that you believe was a personal attack, but I apologize. I suggest the featured list review because we need other opinions to gain consensus whether plants and crocodiles should be included in the list of dinosaurs, instead of you going back and forth. Other people on this talk page also mentioned the strangeness of having plants on this list so it is worth exploring. I can nominate and inform the relevant groups. This will give us way more eyes and help determine the proper scope for a featured list. Mattximus (talk) 20:22, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jens Lallensack: Added. Atlantis536 (talk) 13:36, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Source removal

Olshevsky's list has been updated on May 23rd, so I'll remove the citations for the animals he added, as they can now be sourced to his list (although not via footnotes; the top of the page says "The vast majority of names listed below are sourced to Olshevsky's list"). Atlantis536 (talk) 14:39, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Just an Idea

Think we can type in after the name of the dinosaur who discovered it and when they discovered the dinosaur. The idea may be to hard and might take a long time but this is just an idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex65mya (talk • contribs) 03:47, 9 November 2021 (UTC)