Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology

About Pliosaurus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Speaking of Pliosaurus, found this free photo[2] of the P. kevani holotype which shows more of the reconstructed parts and therefore perhaps makes it more understandable for the reader, if that can be used for anything, Amirani1746. FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks a lot and great find on your part FunkMonk ! I'll use it right away in my draft. However, I wouldn't mind a more cropped version of the image, just to highlight the skull more. Amirani1746 (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2025 (UTC)

  Hello again to Jens Lallensack, FunkMonk, A Cynical Idealist & LittleLazyLass. I want to tell you that I have now largely rewrited the article about Pliosaurus. However, I still need some of you to help me refine the two missing sections: one about the skull anatomy, and the other about the Kimmeridge Clay Formation. And yet, even though I think I can easily finalize the cranial anatomy of the taxon as well as the differences that reside between the recognized species, my knowledge of geology is too limited to allow me to concentrate on the Kimmeridge Clay Formation. Indeed, this locality is so over-documented in the scientific literature that I wonder how I could write this alone and correctly. However, after some research, I think the following sources may be useful: 1, 2, 3, 4 & 5. I thank in advance all those who will accept my proposal, cordially Amirani1746 (talk) 13:07, 4 September 2025 (UTC).

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

List of index fossils is up for deletion

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

Good general purpose taxonomic databases?

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

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

Valentia Stål, 1865

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

Valentia Stål, 1865 is a valid genus of assassin bugs in Salyavatinae according to page 522 of [3] page 522. Meanwhile, the conodont Scotlandia Cossmann, 1909 has a synonym Valentia Smith, 1907, according to page 380 of [4]. In fact, going by the original publication by Cossmann establishing "Scotlandia", it looks like it was intended to be a replacement name for Valentia Smith, 1907 (it being a junior homonym of Valentia Stål, 1865 after all): [5] Monster Iestyn (talk) 04:40, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

request

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

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

Particuliar interrogation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Issue with the "Shansitherium" page

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

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

Proposal to merge Alickmeron into Alwalkeria

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

Exapophyses merge proposal

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

Time ranges in taxoboxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with the above opinions. If we have a specific age of a dinosaur in the literature, we can write it in the taxobox, giving a footnote at the same time. Unfortunately, in many cases, there is a lack of well-spent rock formations, which is why publications only provide time units, e.g. Aptian, Albian. In such situations, it is best to provide a template of smaller time units without specifying their entire time range. Aventadoros (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Paleo illustration request list draft

If you have any thoughts about a revamped illustration request, please chime in here:[6] FunkMonk (talk) 00:54, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

Move request for "horned gopher"

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

Problematic sourcing for Baryonyx and Cretoxyrhina

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

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

Exactly. We also should not abbreviate all author first names just because we do not know the full names of all the authors, per this discussion: [7]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Taxonomy (biology)

Taxonomy (biology) 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. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Review draft please?

Draft:Kielania I've been quite some time now waiting for review, I hope someone can accept this submission for me? Abdullah raji (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I think at this time there's some information could quite easily be found and added. For starters: where has Kielania been found? What species are known? The Morrison Man (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Archaeoraptor

Archaeoraptor 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. Z1720 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Weird grammar in Adelobasileus

Adelobasileus says

Adelobasileus predates and descends from the non-mammalian cynodonts Tritylodontidae and Tritheledontidae by 10 million years.

My naive reading of this sentence is that Adelobasileus both lived before (predates) Tritylodontidae and Tritheledontidae, and also lived after them (is descended from them). Presumably both of these things are not true. Can somebody rephrase this? ~2025-36261-79 (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed the nonsensical sentence for now, but the article is obviously in a very poor shape and we need somebody to spend more time on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)

@~2025-36261-79, you should probably be putting this on the talk page of the article not here. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris| Talk^ 22:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

This page is also fine, and might get seen quicker than that for Adelobasileus. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Two mass extinction article move requests

See Talk:Permian–Triassic_extinction_event#Requested_move_27_November_2025 and Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event#Requested_move_27_November_2025. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)

Life restoration or Life reconstruction

I’ve seen both of these terms in articles, I believe that the first one is correct but IDK. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris| Talk^ 15:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

I don't think either is correct per se, just personal preference of the writer. It is probably best to stick with one form consistently within one article, though, to avoid the reader thinking there is a distinction. Gasmasque (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

Discussion about WikiProject banner templates

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)

Litomatopus identical to Litometopus?

The information about them is nearly identical. I have found records for both "Litomatopus, Rasetti (1966)" and "Litometopus, Rasetti (1966)" in databases, as if the same person described them in the same year. Is one an alternative spelling of another? The sole source for Litomatopus does not list Litometopus. Of course, some databases list both. RanDom 404 (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)