Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

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

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

Good article reassessment for Cultural depictions of dinosaurs

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

Merge proposal for Caenagnathoidea into Oviraptorosauria

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

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

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

Mass merge proposal for redundant clade pages

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

• Heterodontosaurinae
• Huayangosauridae?
• Nodosaurinae
• Ankylosaurinae? (maybe have an article for Ankylosaurini instead?)
• Thescelosaurinae?
• Cerapoda
• Hadrosauromorpha
• Massopoda
• Gravisauria
• Opisthocoelicaudiinae
• Saltasaurini
• Neotheropoda and/or Averostra (having both seems unnecessary, but which to cut if not both I'm not certain on)
• Furileusauria
• Carnotaurini
• Orionides
• Avetheropoda
• Neovenatoridae (disuse)
• Eutyrannosauria
• Daspletosaurini?
• Pennaraptora
• Caenagnathoidea (see above)
• Sinovenatorinae? (might be enough material for a page, not sure)
• Troodontinae? (outside of my area of expertise, unsure if meaningfully distinct from other troodontids)
• Saurornitholestinae, Dromaeosaurinae, Velociraptorinae (contents too unstable)
• I don't know birds well enough to judge which, but I'm sure half of the nodes within Avialae could be condensed

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

We could maybe get rid of Avebrevicauda and Ornithothoraces, which are both very similar to Pygostylia in content. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 22:24, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

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

• Support adding: Genasauria (into Ornithischia), Iguanodontia (into Ornithopoda), Bagualosauria (into sauropodomorpha), Plateosauria (into sauropodomorpha), Alvarezsauridae (into Alvarezsauroidea), Deinonychosauria into Paraves
  

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

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

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

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

Subproposal, Ornithischian taxonomy

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

Ornithischia (incl Saphornithischia, Genasauria)

Silesauridae (incl Sulcimentisauria)

Heterodontosauridae (incl Heterodontosaurinae)

Thyreophora (incl Thyreophoroidea, Eurypoda)

Stegosauria (incl Huayangosauridae?)

Stegosauridae (incl Dacentrurinae, Stegosaurinae)

Ankylosauria (incl Euankylosauria)

Parankylosauria

Polacanthinae

Nodosauridae (incl Nodosaurinae, Struthiosaurini, Panoplosaurini)

Ankylosauridae (incl Shamosaurinae)

Ankylosaurinae (incl Ankylosaurini, Euoplocephalini)

Neornithischia (incl Cerapoda, Marginocephalia?)

Thescelosauridae (incl Jeholosauridae, Orodrominae, Thescelosaurinae)

Pachycephalosauria (incl Pachycephalosauridae, Pachycephalosaurinae, Pachycephalosaurini)

Ceratopsia (incl Neoceratopsia, Archaeoceratopsidae, Euceratopsia, Coronosauria, Ceratopsoidea, Ceratopsomorpha)

Chaoyangsauridae

Leptoceratopsidae

Protoceratopsidae

Ceratopsidae

Centrosaurinae (incl Nasutoceratopsini, Eucentrosaura, Centrosaurini, Pachyrhinosaurini, Pachyrostra)

Chasmosaurinae (incl Triceratopsini)

Ornithopoda (incl Clypeodonta, Iguanodontia, Euiguanodontia, Dryomorpha)

Hypsilophodontidae (incl Hypsilophodontia)

Rhabdodontomorpha

Rhabdodontidae

Elasmaria

Dryosauridae

Ankylopollexia (incl Styracosterna, Neoiguanodontia)

Hadrosauriformes (incl Iguanodontidae, Hadrosauroidea, Hadrosauromorpha)

Hadrosauridae (incl Euhadrosauria)

Saurolophinae (incl Austrokritosauria, Brachylophosaurini, Saurolophini, Kritosaurini, Edmontosaurini)

Lambeosaurinae (incl Aralosaurini, Tsintaosaurini, Arenysaurini)

Corythosauria (incl Parasaurolophini, Lambeosaurini)

• My general feelings are that nodes are not very useful as there is not much to discuss beyond shared traits and ancestry, which can also fit in the parent article. Tribes are normally very limited in scope and don't get much information beyond the genera (except if there is good cases for stuff like anagensis, which could then be discussed at the smallest clade containing it). Substantial uncertainties (Hadrosauriformes and Hadrosauroidea are almost identical and differ in the placement of Iguanodon, causing many genera to be one or the other) would cause duplication of genera if not contained within a single parent. And lastly article size, some nodes like Marginocephalia even though they are important, really can't have much content since their subgroups are so different. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:37, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I should also mention that I'm more than willing to tackle the ornithischian taxonomy pages and revamp, even though I'm not that active overall, since its directly relevant to some things I'm doing elsewhere. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I agree more or less. Marginocephalia is important enough that it should have an article in my opinion, even if it turns out to be very short. There are a few changes I would make, but this whole exercise is making me think we should limit this to just ornithischians or just theropods for the time being and then move to another clade. Otherwise this thread is going to get absurdly long. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 05:45, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

  I essentially agree with your proposed merges except for Marginocephalia. I have found the proliferation of node articles unhelpful at best and confusing at worst, so eliminating is a positive in my eyes. Support. SilverTiger12 (talk) 06:00, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've made this its own subsection just for ornithischians to help divide the workload up. Some thoughts about Marginocephalia and other nodes.

The two subgroups of Marginocephalia are too divergent at this point for any real discussion of anatomy, evolution (we are missing ~40 million years of pachycephalosaur evolution), and even history. The biggest thing I can see in favour of it is its been a strong clade (except some phylogenetic studies don't recover it well; and that doesn't stop us from accepting a Genasauria lump), and it being a possible place to discuss the history of pachycephalosaur classification. Except that the history of pachycephalosaurs spans across all of Neornithischia (sister to Ornithopoda, Ceratopsia, or outside both) making the latter a better place for it. Plus the article as it stands is small so a merge now can be undone later to very minimal loss.

Iguanodon is a problematic taxon because it has so many similarities to taxa around it, so using Hadrosauroidea and excluding Iguanodon means theres ~20 genera (from Barilium inclusive to Alrithinus exclusive) that would need to be mentioned on both Hadrosauroidea and Ankylopollexia since they are 50/50 hadrosauroids or not. It's easier I think to just accept the polytomy at Hadrosauriformes and put the article there, allowing us include everything on "iguanodontoids" that may either be a clade or a grade within one article.

Orodrominae (burrowing), Austrokritosauria and Arenysaurini (biogeography) and Pachyrhinosaurini (anagenesis) might have topics to warrant their own articles, but it doesn't hurt much to separate them out later; no articles I'm suggesting to merge are too big to risk loosing information. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The Iguanodon situation echoes the many taxa that dance around Camptosaurus - I wonder if shifting the Ankylopollexia split to either Dryomorpha or Styracosterna might be a good idea now that more and more taxa are popping up around there and splitting in and out of nesting with Camptosaurus itself. Both are terms are, in my experienced, more widely used in the literature as reference points than Ankylopollexia is. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose the deletion or merging of Marginocephalia. It serves the same utility as Thyreophora. It's one of the "canonical" major groups of dinosaurs and its exclusion could needlessly confuse readers. Additionally, there is already a List of marginocephalian type specimens which would probably need to be split if this article goes under because it wouldn't make sense to have two separate articles for the clades themselves and only one article for their types. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:34, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Support all other proposed changes. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    Thyreophora has multiple subclades and genera within it that are clearly not part of the two main subgroups, so we can trace the ancestry and evolution of thyreophorans. Marginocephalians we cannot. Plus the list of types article is very easy to split if needed, or it can even remain since the ~15 pachycephalosaurs to ~70 ceratopsians is not a huge issue. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

    While the suggestion gives me extensive pause, I think a look at the current content highlights why such a move may be relevant. The attempt to cover the group as a single topic feels incredibly unnatural and forced because it's trying desperately to draw comment biological ground between two different topics. While it's perhaps the most notable of all node articles, it is very much nothing more than that. Still, I'm not currently committing firmly to either position for that specific article. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

• I'm personally more fond of tribe level articles than others seem to be - while there are some that simply collect a few taxa and leave little to discuss, I think the usual similarities between their constituent members, often intertwined taxonomic histories, and hyperfocused scope gives them a lot more potential as articles than nodes and arbitrary stopgaps. I think you could definitely make small but complete feeling articles for groups like Nasutoceratopsini, Triceratospini, Pachyrhinosaurini, Ankylosaurini/Euoplocephalini, Panoplosaurini, Struthiosaurini, and most if not all of the many hadrosaur tribes (I think Parasaurolophini and Lambeosaurini are more wieldy on their own than united as Corythosauria, which I'm highly suspect would work naturally despite sounding intuitive on paper). That said, I'm not opposed to the suggestion of merging them for now and leaving the door open for re-separation if anyone decides to put in the work to actually write the articles. The nodosaur tribes in particular might be worth keeping separate or require separation at later date given the proposal of nodosaur paraphyly. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• I think Stegosauria could honestly all be collapsed into a singular article. Stegosaurids dominate the topic of stegosaur research and I feel when you add more basal taxa onto that topic you don't mandate that much more article space. Having both seems, to me, to just be doubling the workload unnecessarily. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
• Are there any strong opinions on Chaoyangosauridae being meaningful or not? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Subproposal, Theropod taxonomy

Theropoda (incl. Neotheropoda, Averostra)

Herrerasauridae

Coelophysoidea (incl. Coelophysidae)

Ceratosauria (incl. Abelisauroidea)

Ceratosauridae

Abelisauridae (incl. Carnotaurinae, Majungasaurinae, Furelisauria, Carnotaurini)

Noasauridae

Tetanurae (incl. Orionides, Avetheropoda, Carnosauria)

Megalosauroidea

Spinosauridae

Spinosaurinae (possibly consolidate these?)

Baryonychinae

Megalosauridae

Piatnitzkysauridae

Allosauroidea

Metriacanthosauridae

Allosauridae

Carcharodontosauria (incl. Carcharodontosauridae, Neovenatoridae)

Coelurosauria (incl. Maniraptoriformes)

Tyrannosauroidea (incl. Eutyrannosauria)

Proceratosauridae

Megaraptora

Tyrannosauridae (incl. Albertosaurinae, Tyrannosaurinae)

Ornithomimosauria (incl. Deinocheiridae, Ornithomimidae)

Compsognathidae

Maniraptora (incl. Pennaraptora)

Alvarezsauroidea (incl. Alvarezsauridae)

Therizinosauria

Therizinosauridae

Oviraptorosauria (incl. Caenagnathoidea)

Caudipterygidae

Caenagnathidae

Oviraptoridae

Scansoriopterygidae

Paraves (incl. Deinonychosauria)

Dromaeosauridae

Halszkaraptorinae

Unenlagiinae

Microraptoria

Eudromaeosauria (incl. Velociraptorinae, Dromaeosaurinae, Saurornitholestinae)

Troodontidae (incl. Troodontinae, Jinfengopteryginae, Sinovenatorinae)

Avialae (I'm not touching this)

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

Some thoughts. For convenience, maybe we also merge Carnosauria into Tetanurae since the support for Megalosauroidea + Allosauroidea isn't definitive yet and otherwise it would be equivalent to Allosauroidea. Abelisauroidea could be merged up since noasaurid placements are volatile (see eg. Huinculsaurus paper). Coelophysoidea can include Coelophysidae and Coelophysinae if they aren't already combined (or in this case we could merge down and have Coelophysoidea at the Coelophysidae article). Dilophosauridae might be good to merge up, its not certain if its a clade (see Dilophosaurus redescription). I would merge Spinosaurinae and Baryonychinae up, but the expansion work around those clades means they might be big enough to keep (note a lot of the content is just phylogeny and when taxa were named). Coeluridae could be merged? And Proceratosauridae should be kept (solid clade + crested means anatomy can be discussed). Jinfengopteryginae could be merged, and personally I think Sinovenatorinae and Troodontinae as well. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 06:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I've implemented most of the changes you proposed, because I think they're overall very good. I was hesitant to merge carnosauria just because of the historical importance of the name, but discussion of that can easily be folded into the Tetanurae article. The reason I was hesitant to merge therizinosauridae with therizinosauria is that both articles are quite substantial and therizinosauridae includes mostly one morphotype and excludes enough taxa that there is little redundancy in my opinion. --A Cynical Idealist (talk) 07:05, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

I would personally oppose the merging of Carnosauria. It's probably tenable to cover it at Tetanurae, but between its expanded historical usage and modern uncertainty as to the potential inclusion of megalosaurs, I think there's enough to hold up an article and as long as that's possible I think its worth doing for such a major clade. That said, I think the pivot to Carcharodontosauria is incredibly slick and give it strong support. Abelisauroidea also gives me a bit of hesitation given it does see extensive usage as an operational unit in liteature, but my own Stegosauria logic about irrelevant basal taxa does make me willing to go along with canning it. I'm also inclined to stand up for Majungasaurinae and Carnotaurinae, I feel that's a pretty clean divide. Not gonna die on the hill if everyone else wants them gone, though. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

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

Subproposal, Sauropodomorph taxonomy

Sauropodomorpha (incl. Bagualosauria, Plateosauria)

Thecodontosauridae

Unaysauridae

Plateosauridae

Massopoda (incl. Anchisauria)

Melanorosauridae

Sauropoda (incl. Gravisauria, Eusaropoda, Neosauropoda)

Lessemsauridae

Vulcanodontidae

Cetiosauridae

Mamenchisauridae

Turiasauria

Diplodocoidea (incl. Flagellicaudata

Rebbachisauridae (incl. Kebbashia)

Dicraeosauridae

Diplodocidae

Diplodocinae

Apatosaurinae

Macronaria (inter-group relationships between the titanosaurs is very hectic right now, so this is as far as I've gone)

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

I was reflexively ready to reject merging all the way to Neosauropoda, but when I think about it that really is just a node article with some extra bells and whistles. My general understanding of the science behind sauropods doesn't really change anywhere in that entire span. Other than I'm pretty amicable to everything here (good catch on me missing Flagellicaudata), and I'd even go a step further to suggest that Diplodocinae could probably be ditched too, there's not really as much uniting history and biology as there is with apatosaurs. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)