Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 34

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 30←Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35Archive 36Archive 37

Evolution of dinosaurs article

This article has languished for years, despite averaging around 165 views per day. Is it worth just redirecting this to the main dinosaur article at this point? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I think so. It's more or less a content fork. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:57, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and little of it is even sourced? Which means it would be a huge job to even try to salvage any of that text. Would dinosaur classification be a better place to redirect it? FunkMonk (talk) 07:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this is not very useful. This topic (I would call it Dinosaur evolution) is principally valid as a sub-article of dinosaur, but it needs to be completely re-written, so better make it a redirect for now. I would argue to redirect to dinosaur; at the moment the article contains a lot on classification but actually it shouldn't. Evolution and Classifications are two separate sections in the dinosaur article as well. Maybe we should redirect directly to the "Evolutionary history" section of the dinosaur article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
This should indeed be a redirect to Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event in my opinion. That article already contains a paragraph on paleogene dinosaurs, and I think that paragraph already has everything important that the Paleocene dinosaurs article also has. I wouldn't even expand/merge the two articles, just make it a redirect and we don't really loose anything. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:02, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, much of that article isn't sourced either, so we can't do a straight merge anyway. Should we add merge tags just to get more views? Or just go ahead and redirect? FunkMonk (talk) 12:04, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we can wait a bit to see if we have consensus here, and then just make it a redirect? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep, it'll most likely be the same people commenting on individual pages as here anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Other questionable dinosaur articles

Is there really a reason to have this as a separate article from Stegosauria? Especially as the spikes are not distinctly differentiated from the plates in some taxa
Entirely hypothetical and poorly structured, content better covered elsewhere. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree, but see the response to my proposal to merge the first one here:[1] Seems non-paleo editors are more concerned with the pop-culture aspect of it, but I still don't think it warrants separation... FunkMonk (talk) 12:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The arguments for inclusion were pretty weak and unconvincing, bringing it to AfD might get a better response. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Done, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thagomizer. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think it would still need to be a redirect, though, as it is a term used in the literature after all. FunkMonk (talk) 12:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The AfD is still a proposal for deletion (technically), as the article content is simply removed from article space rather than being merged. I agree that Thagomiser is a notable enough term that the article should be redirected, and I have made that clear in my vote. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:50, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Alright, I'll do the same. AfD is better than relying on the mercy of random editors with little interest in the broader topic. FunkMonk (talk) 12:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The Dinosaur Intelligence article lacks sources in a lot of statements, especially in the "Birds" section, it'll be better off as part of the Dinosaur article itself in my opinion, maybe somewhere in Paleobiology? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:45, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, and it's odd that the dinosaur article doesn't once mention intelligence. I think it could merged, if all the fluff and unsourced statements are pruned out, perhaps a good paragraph or two could come from it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I feel that AfD isn't the correct way, since the Thagomizer article contains valid information that isn't yet included in Stegosauria or Stegosauridae. It has to be merged, if anything. Not sure if it should, I tend to prefer to keep it as a separate article. Regarding Dinosaur intelligence, I would be happy to see it gone, since it is so poor. However, the dinosaur article does not seem to have anything on intelligence at all, so a simple redirect won't work at the moment. I would opt for keeping both articles for the time being, since both need work before merging or deletion can possibly be proposed. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:48, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Redirecting doesn't preclude a content merge, as it preserves the edit history of the article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:53, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
But we have to merge before we redirect, not the other way around, I think. The Thagomizer article also discusses applications in mathematics, and has details on the etymology; not sure if we want all of this detail in the Stegosauria article? Keeping this as a separate article won't hurt I think, and separate articles definitely have their benefits also. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The content should be selectively merged. To me the mathematics paper seems minor and comes under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The connection to The Far Side only needs a single brief sentence to cover, without going into the full context or etymology, something like "The term was first coined in a 1982 strip of The Far Side comic." The remaining paleobiology related sentences can easily be merged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:03, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
The mathematics term has several papers just on this topic, therefore it might be even more relevant than the palentology term. It is clearly relevant information that can't be simply thrown out. I also see no reason to remove the information that Carpenter introduced the term into paleongology; I think this is interesting and important, why do we want to remove such stuff? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
If the mathematical use of the term "thagomizer" is notable, then it should be noted in the relevant mathematics-related articles. As it stands, it doesn't look like a very notable term (only being used in a few dozen papers, most with barely any citations), and is just one of many terms used in the mathematical literature to refer to technical mathematical concepts that lack broader relevance outside the very specific subfield it is utilized in. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
It objectively fulfills all of Wikipedia's criteria for notable information I think. This makes Thagomizer an interdisciplinary article, which is clearly an argument for keeping it separate. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Does anyone have issues with me redirecting Dinosaur intelligence and Evolution of dinosaurs to the main Dinosaur article? I will do so tomorrow if there are no objections. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd support those, but we should of course make sure no usable information is lost in the process. And there could be a "intelligence" section in the dinosaur article as a result. FunkMonk (talk) 13:12, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Probably ok, but lets wait a few days to see if there is consensus on this. Will take a look myself as soon as time allows; we should of course also take into account that the dinosaur article can't get too long, as it is an absolute overview article! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:26, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Sure, its just that often times things get discussed and then they get archived and never dealt with. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:30, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Nope, both are poorly sourced, so I support redirecting them. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:59, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Support from me, not attached to the prose quality in either of those articles. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:49, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems like another lacklustre artice. I think a redirect to Dinosaur#Behavior is in order. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:07, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Seems that this one is better sourced than the other ones. However, much of the info in this article (e.g. behaviors of Oryctodromeus, Majungasaurus or Sinornithomimus) is already stated in the behavior section of Dinosaur, so yeah, I pretty much agree that this article should be redirected. Oh, and a merge was proposed in the talk page before, but it looks like no one has expressed concern of it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 10:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser

A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful, especially if you create new articles. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

Hope its helpful

John Cummings (talk) 11:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

In the info box, should we be using epochs (e.g. Late Cretacious) or ages (e.g. Maastrichtian) or both?

Hey all, I'm just wondering about consistency regarding the time period when inputting the fossil range in the info box. Should we be using epochs (e.g. Late Cretaceous) or ages (e.g. Maastrichtian) or both? Or not worry about consistency? Here is an example of just epoch: Anabisetia. Here is an example of just age: Macrogryphosaurus. Here is an example where I just used both: Haya griva. And here is an example of recent edits where editors appeared to be disagreeing on how to show this: Talenkauen. My thoughts: the lay person is probably more familiar with the epochs (e.g. Late Cretacious) rather than the ages (e.g. Maastrichtian), so I see value there. But also the specific ages are more specific and accurate, and also have value. But then does it become too crowded having both? And is there some redundancy because we also show the years? Thanks. Cougroyalty (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

My practice is to put ages in the taxobox, epochs (both would also work) in the lead. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Most of the time it just randomly depends on editors. I usually put just the ages if sources specify, but in my opinion, I think the consistency of one or another doesn't really matter much. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_22#Birds on the category status of birds and dinosaurs

The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_22#Birds needs attention from this WikiProject. It seems to be part of a campaign to alter or confirm the relation of bird and dinosaur categories. — Neonorange (Phil) 21:49, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The status of birds as a subgroup of Dinosauria is pretty much settled science. This "debate" has been held dozens of time on the Dinosaur Talk Page, and logic behind the statement that "birds are not dinosaurs" has always fallen flat. Dinosaurs have a clear scientific definition and usage, regardless of popular misconceptions. Same with Planet, Gravity, Climate, etc. I wouldn't necessary disagree with removing something like "The Birds" from a category of dinosaur films. But that does not mean we should otherwise conform to some ill-defined "English" usage of the term dinosaur, which has been used for everything from plesiosaurs to politicians. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 23:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
My take on the fundamental category issue: Is this categorization useful? Probably not. Does it hurt? Also probably not. Ergo, no strong reason to remove. John's separate issue has been beaten to death across multiple talk pages so I'll refrain from commenting on it here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Epanterias --> Allosaurus ?

Allosaurus#Synonyms says

Creosaurus, Epanterias, and Labrosaurus are regarded as junior synonyms of Allosaurus.[23]

On the other hand, we have a standalone article Epanterias

Should we sink Epanterias into Allosaurus ?

- 2804:14D:5C59:8833:D528:E55D:BF4E:3521 (talk) 01:47, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

We generally keep articles about dubious genera. But if it is now considered a dubious species within Allosaurus, it should be merged there. FunkMonk (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
It is unfortunately not assignable to the genus so long as Saurophaganax is considered distinct. It can't be distinguished from either (probably because Saurophaganax is a mere Allosaurus, but I digress). Likewise for the other "synonyms" like Creosaurus, Labrosaurus, and Antrodemus, as it so happens... LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:12, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the conclusion by Smith (1998) that Saurophaganax is merely a large species of Allosaurus, it's important to note that a postorbital and a few quadrates are the only cranial elements known for S. maximus, and that the diagnosis for S. maximimus by Chure (1995) rests on contains postcranial characters only and multiple individuals each having a few unique characters. Allosaurus lucasi is also as big as Epanterias and Saurophaganax, so its possible that if few undescribed cranial remains are found among allosaurid fossil collections in the repositories that house specimens of Epanterias and Saurophaganax, they might confirm Smith's (1998) opinion or at least show that Allosaurus lucasi and Saurophaganax maximus are synonyms of Epanteriasa amplexus, because Greg Paul's position that Epanterias is distinct due to it being from a higher level of the Morrison Formation than the types of either A. fragilis or A. jimmadseni is somehow tenuous because a large Allosaurus specimen was found at Felch Quarry 1 in the 1870s and is reportedly twice the size of USNM 4734 (topotype of Allosaurus fragilis) (Carpenter 1998).70.187.171.236 (talk) 15:18, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
Mortimer's theropod database has a great summary of the whole Allosaurus mess, including the problematic diagnosis of Saurophaganax. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

"Jurassic Park: Unauthorized Jewish Fractals in Philopatry" in: A Fractal Scaling in Dinosaurology and other self published dinosaur taxonomic documents

We currently have 9 citations to this document per [2]. For context, this document was apparently self-published in 1995 by Stephan Pickering, also known Chofetz Chayim ben-Avraham, who has no palaeontological expertise as far as I can tell, and few people have ever seen this document. according to Mickey Mortimer the descriptions themselves are lacklustre, and have never been referenced in the scientific literature. In my opinion, taxonomic names coined in self-published work that has never been mentioned in the peer reviewed literature should only be mentioned at List of informally named dinosaurs, if at all. Exceptions to this are when the self-published names have subsequently been legitimized in the peer reviewed literature, as in the case of Ullansky's Riabininohadros. I also don't think that informal naming by non-palaeontologists for taxa that have been given valid (even if dubious) unique taxonomic names such as "Zanclodon" cambriensis (which was named "Newtonsaurus" by Pickering in 1999) which would otherwise have valid articles being relegated to the List of informally named dinosaurs based on totally unreliable sources.

I would also like to revisit Kayentavenator. Kayentavenator was described in a 2010 book by Robert Gay using the self-publishing service Lulu.com. This caused a minor controversy at the time, see Talk:Kayentavenator and this SPVOW article. Since then it has only been mentioned once in the peer reviewed literature, where it is considered an informally named taxon. In my mind this puts it in the same category as Malkani's dinosaurs such as Pakisaurus, which do not have separate articles but do have entries on the List of informally named dinosaurs. As such I propose that Kayentavenator should be moved into a section of the List of informally named dinosaurs article. Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

We don't have any article's for Pickering's taxa based solely on his papers, do we? I covered one of them in the FA Dilophosaurus by only indirectly referring to his publication that named D. breedorum, without citing it itself. As for Kayentavenator, whatever we do, we should probably be consistent. FunkMonk (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
My point is that we shouldn't reference Pickering's work at all outside the list of informally named dinosaurs if it has had zero impact on the scholarly literature, which seems to be the case to me, and we shouldn't include taxa on the "List of informally named dinosaurs" if they already have had valid taxonomic descriptions, even if in modern times they would be considered dubious, as is the case for "Zanclodon" cambriensis, we have plenty of articles on dubious dinosaur genera, such as Ceratops, and a totally ignored proclamation doesn't overwrite that. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Isn't that what we're doing already? As for "Zanclodon" cambriensis, it's a bit of a unique case, because we list it under its informal genus name, just so we don't have to have a separate article for the species, which we wouldn't otherwise have. FunkMonk (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
I thinks it's fair to mention D. breedorum as the naming was directly referenced in the scientific literature, while a lot of other names coined in Pickering's work, such as "Liassosaurus", have never been mentioned in the literature, and thus I think their inclusion in the relevant articles is undue. I don't see why "Zanclodon" cambriensis cant' be covered under Zanclodon and is arguably adequately covered in Megalosaurus#Species_named_in_the_20th_century. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
It could, but I think it's because the genus and species are not considered closely related at all. As for D. breedorum, I think the only valid publication that mentions it by name is Gay 2005. FunkMonk (talk) 20:04, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
"Z." cambriensis is certainly not a clear cut case. To give specific examples of what I am talking about, I don't think "Liassaurus", "Merosaurus", "Altispinax lydekkerhueneorum", "Walkersaurus hesperis" or "Elaphrosaurus philtippettorum" which are cited in relevant articles based on Unauthorized Jewish Fractals in Philopatry and make up over 50% of the citations to that source have ever been mentioned in the peer reviewed literature, and therefore I don't think they should be mentioned in the respective articles at all. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:13, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Unenlagiidae

I do not think that the family Unenlagiidae is widely accepted. Most likely, at the moment it is wiser to keep the conservative classification in Taxobox, referring Unenlagiinae and Halszkaraptorinae to Dromaeosauridae rather than Unenlagiidae. HFoxii (talk) 02:53, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

They are still additionally listed at Dromaeosauridae, though, with a similar situation in the navbox. Both models are accounted for, though I would be very surprised if Unenlagiidae doesn't take the lead once the literature has had time to switch to the Lori matrix. We even saw the first example of this just the other day with the Tamarro paper. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:06, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Suborder Sauropodomorpha?

If, in the classification presented in Automatic taxobox, Sauropodomorpha do not belong to any of the orders, how can it be a suborder? HFoxii (talk) 01:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Content on the List of dinosaur genera

There's a discussion on Talk:List of dinosaur genera that you might be interested in. It's about the status of possible early dinosaurs and the inclusion of non-dinosaurs that were once assigned to Dinosauria. Atlantis536 (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Bagaceratops synonyms & Bagaceratopsidae status

Hey guys, how y'all doing. So, I'm doing very well with my upcoming expansion for Protoceratops (85 refs. so far) and now I've started working on the Classification section, which got a little bit intercepted by the current placement of Bagaceratops. Gobiceratops, Lamaceratops, Magnirostris and Platyceratops have been synonymized with this taxon and used to represent growth stages [3], not to mention that at least Gobiceratops and Magnirostris hold a number of citations in literature because of their questionable validity. What should we do with the articles? Now, in this very same paper bagaceratopsids and Bagaceratopsidae are completely ignored/dismissed, and Bagaceratops is largely considered as a protoceratopsid. I'm not educated about this topic but probably both Protoceratopsidae and Bagaceratopsidae got synonymized at some point (?). Some authors also found uncertainties in whether bagaceratopsids form a different group as generally proposed or not [4]. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Bagaceratops was traditionally included within Protoceratopsidae. Alifanov named a separate family and named all of those invalid taxa. His idea never largely caught on beyond a few other Russian palaeontologists and frankly Wikipedia should have never adopted the family into its classification scheme to begin with. Protoceratopsidae as a united family including Bagaceratops has been the consensus and remains as such. Also, it is Bagaceratopidae, not Bagaceratopsidae; Alifranov's nomenclatural ability seems as lacking as his taxonomy. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Damn never realized such unusual typo! I have also seen that most recent analyses recover Bagaceratops and Magnirostris within Protoceratopsidae, so having an entire section about Bagaceratopidae in the Marginocephalia template looks off now. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Where does this place Ajkaceratops then? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
The recent description of Ferrisaurus recovers it close to Zuniceratops. Not quite a consensus but it's something. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 19:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Should we be merging all those articles into Protoceratops like we did with Nanotyrannus and Stygimoloch?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  21:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Why Protoceratops? it has little to do here. I would agree in merging all the formally synonymized taxa above with Bagaceratops. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 22:33, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
Oh sorry I read that as Bagaceratops, Gobiceratops, etc. got synonymized into Protoceratops. I'll start the merge discussion   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:29, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
But are we sure there's consensus in the literature that these genera are all synonyms? FunkMonk (talk) 17:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
We really should set up some kind of system to handle synonymizations, because this is bound to continue happening. How long do we give dissidents before we just merge? It's been 2 years, but I guess COVID may have stalled publication of other opinions   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  17:36, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Well there's no wide consensus for all of them, only Czepiński 2019, but as I said before Magnirostris and Gobiceratops have been criticized several times. PaleoNeolitic (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
In that case, I don't think it's enough for a merge already. But yeah, we probably need some kind of guideline for when to merge proposed synonyms... FunkMonk (talk) 09:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
Not so sure as is hard to generalise - each case for merging has its own merits and weaknesses. Is about trying to get some sort of consensus from the literature on each case. I have not kept up to speed with much dinosaur research in the past decade though....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Casque

I've recently started a casque (anatomy) article. While my reason for doing so was related to birds, I'm finding a fair few dinosauar references as I search for sources, so thought someone in this project might want to add information about dinosaur casques. If so, I'd suggest we break out sections for each group of animals, i.e. birds, modern reptiles (basilisks, chameleons, etc.), non-avian dinosaurs, etc. MeegsC (talk) 09:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I think mainly the crests of oviraptorosaurs have been compared directly to cassowary casques? FunkMonk (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Tawa size

According to article on Tawa hallae, "Tawa was estimated to have been 2.5 metres (8 ft 2 in) long as an adult, with a weight of 15 kilograms (33 lb)". However, Paul in his The Princeton Field Guide to Dinosaurs does not specify, which specimen is being evaluated. Most likely, it is a juvenile individual (holotype), and not a fragmentary adult. HFoxii (talk) 08:32, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

There are many Tawa specimens, most of which are undescribed, and it's hard to estimate the max size due to that factor alone. Still, maybe someone can add in Tom Holtz's estimate just as a comparison. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

List of dinosaurs is undergoing a review as it no longer meets featured list criteria. Please drop by if you would like to contribute. Mattximus (talk) 20:35, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Carcharodontosaurinae and Giganotosaurini

@Jakegaming7788: has created the article Giganotosaurini that was originally a redirect. In my opinion this is redundant with Carcharodontosaurinae, given that Giganotosaurini has one less member that Carcharodontosaurinae (which I created). In retrospect I think creating Carcharodontosaurinae was a mistake, as the content can be covered in the main Carcharodontosauridae article, and I therefore propose the redirecting of both Carcharodontosaurinae and Giganotosaurini to Carcharodontosauridae, thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:01, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need to have an article about every single clade ever named. But it's hard to figure out what the cut off point should be. FunkMonk (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
At the very least having two separate articles that only vary by the inclusion of a single genus seems to be beyond the cutoff point. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm thinking it would be nice if we could formulate it into a general guideline somehow, because this clade is not the only one with such an article. FunkMonk (talk) 13:25, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I was also thinking of redirecting Carcharodontosaurinae to Carcharodontosauridae before, but I thought it would need discussion first. Obviously, the creation of Giganotosaurini is completely unnecessary, since its content is already covered in the former pages. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:24, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok sorry guys i though the more pages the better but whats the point in removing extra sections doesn’t it just make the dinosaur wiki better? Jakegaming7788 (talk) 13:34, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Redirect proposal

Giganotosaurini + Carcharodontosaurinae --> Carcharodontosauridae

  • Support per above comments, Giganotosaurini has been created again, and it is pointless when Carcharodontosaurinae already exists, given that they vary by only a single taxon. Carcharodontosaurinae itself can easily be covered within the Carcharodontosauridae article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be within Carcharodontosauridae? Carcharodontosauria seems to be a redirect to Allosauroidea. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:41, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Right, corrected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Whats the point in that i think we should keep both articles and put a redirect at the bottom to show the main article. Jakegaming7788

Ah, I was planning on doing a collab with you some time in the future, since I've seen your "to do list", hehe... But I think it may not be much of a priority for me as of now... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
It won't be in the immediate future anyway, so maybe by then! FunkMonk (talk) 19:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok so, i think that creating giganotosaurini was a bad idea now but im thinking that we should keep the redirect at the top but still have the article underneath just so that if anyone wants to have a look at it then they can Jakegaming7788 (talk) 15:39, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

But that's not how articles or redirects work. If something is a redirect to an article, then it's just a redirect to article, and if something is an article, then it's just an article. It doesn't make sense to do what you're proposing. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
ok but why not it doesent hurt anyone and it seems sensible to me why doesent it make sense? Jakegaming7788 (talk) 15:53, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Jake, they are making a redundancy argument. They are saying that it is redundant to have more than one article that basically all say the same thing. Your best counter-argument would be to provide some way to distinguish the different articles. I'm just not sure you can do that at this point with the available information that is out there. Cougroyalty (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
Alright sorry about this guys i guess i just dident see the point of removing them. Jakegaming7788 (talk) 17:25, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Jakegaming7788 further competence issues

Jake has just spent today edit warring to include a reference to Dave Peters The Pterosaur Heresies into Yutyrannus, as well as adding unsourced edits to Tyrannosaurus. I'm increasingly convinced that Jake is a net negative to the project, and I think it may be worth escalating to ANI, but I am not sure yet. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I say we should begin looking into this because he's admitting that his unsourced edits at Tyrannosaurus are WP:SYNTHESIS.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I think Jakegaming7788 needs to use the talk pages more before editing. FunkMonk (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
What good would that do?--Mr Fink (talk) 19:05, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
To avoid stuff like this happening in the future so that we can talk before hand. and possibly compriminise. Jakegaming7788 (talk) 19:06, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
It didn't stop you from editwarring, and it didn't convince you to provide the requested sources, and I don't see how your admitting to WP:ORIGINAL RESEARCH that you will not rescind, nor making a spiteful counter-demand for citations is much of a compromise.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:11, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
There are many scientists who say what i have said and how can you say that my request was spiteful when its over the internet? Jakegaming7788 (talk) 19:15, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
also im not sure how to make cites i only know how to add them in from existing articles Jakegaming7788 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
If there are scientists who are out there, saying what you're saying, then learn how to cite them.--Mr Fink (talk) 19:18, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
alrighty Jakegaming7788 (talk) 19:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This could have been avoided if there was no edit warring to begin with. If something you feel strongly about is reverted two or three times, you should always start a talk page discussion to sort it out. Edit comments are not long enough to properly make your case. Regardless, never, ever use a Dave Peters website (pterosaurheresies or reptileevolution) as a source. They are fringe hypotheses coming from someone who has a lot of time and arrogance, but no ability to run a decent phylogenetic analysis. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 19:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm also largely part of this, I've reverted a lot of Jake's edits as well. I warned him about adding unsourced content, both in his talk page and in edit comments, I also tried to be nice to him, but he kept adding unsourced or poorly sourced stuff. I agree that we should stop edit warring, there's no point on doing that. Oh, and btw, Jakegaming7788, maybe WP:Citing sources can help you learn how to cite sorces. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:58, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Carnotaurini

Hiroizmeh has created the article Carnotaurini back in March, a tribe which contains 3 taxa. I don't see why this article needs to be separate from the sparse Furileusauria, and arguably Furileusauria doesn't need to be separate from Carnotaurinae either. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:09, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

I doubt we need so many separate articles... Furileusauria also seemed like it would just be a good redirect, but apparently the page got expanded a bit, though in my opinion I'd still merge all of them to Carnotaurinae... JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 13:18, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The 10 most-viewed, worst-quality articles according to this Wikiproject

  • 57 Dinosaur 13 10,895 351 Stub Low
  • 149 Gigantosaurus 3,479 112 Stub Low
  • 179 Menefeeceratops 2,945 95 Stub Low
  • 186 Kem Kem Group 2,820 90 Stub Low
  • 212 Pennaceous feather 2,390 77 Stub Low
  • 221 Tyrannoraptora 2,203 71 Stub Low
  • 229 Iguanodontia 2,127 68 Stub Low
  • 257 Lambeosaurinae 1,869 60 Stub Low
  • 258 The Ballad of Big Al 1,856 59 Stub Low
  • 265 Maniraptoromorpha 1,809 58 Stub Low

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Popular pages--Coin945 (talk) 06:54, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure those those hits for Gigantosaurus were actually searches for the very popular Giganotosaurus. But interesting statistics. FunkMonk (talk) 12:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs Icon - SVG

The current WikiProject Dinosaurs icon is a PNG file and is listed as one of the "Top 200 images that should use vector graphics." Some of the dinosaur silhouettes shown in the current icon are fairly low quality (Archaeopteryx, Heterodontosaurus). It could be beneficial to have a high-res alternative. I have been working on drawing a vector version of the icon (see the high-quality PNG version of the SVG file here). I also took the opportunity to update the Mantellisaurus silhouette by Steveoc, since the current icon is using an outdated version. Would it be useful if I uploaded the SVG file? -SlvrHwk (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

So...it's been about a week without a response. I thought it might be good to reach some kind of consensus before I upload a new image and start replacing instances of the old one. Thoughts?SlvrHwk (talk) 23:44, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Honestly, it's only ever going to be seen in thumb view, so it's not necessary to upgrade it to SVG. Hemiauchenia (talk)

Taxonomy template vandalism alert

Hello all, recently Sulaimat edited a few taxonomy templates to redefine all theropods as mammals. Fortunately they have been reverted, but it goes to show that one edit to an important template can completely mess with the entire project as long as the cache doesn't update. Considering the pattern of the rest of their edits, I don't think it was done in good faith. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 15:38, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

My friend just showed me that on instagram, so I got back here, I was confused. I thought this might have been a bug. But this is a person?--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
so I did some digging, and I found this guy has been here since 2007 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:4444hhhh#Chimps_and_Human_Evolution) I would have been 3 years old back then so that shows you how long this guy has been here. He has being doing shit like this for a long time. We may need to notify someone on this. Does anybody know an admin?-Bubblesorg (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it's a bad idea to accuse 4444hhhh of this level of sockpuppeting and vandalism, they seem to be a perfectly normal editor with no relation whatsoever to Sulaimat's actions. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Here is the thing,when I looked at who made Maniraptors mammals, it was this account https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Taxonomy/Maniraptoriformes&action=history--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Unless I am missing something? I am very new to this situation--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Actually, going a bit into it, it turns out it might not be him, the main evidence was a misunderstanding of the issue. Apologies--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:48, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I will let you guys handle the situation--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Sulaimat has recently been blocked indefinitely as a vandalism only account, so hopefully this will no longer be a recurring issue in the future. DrawingDinosaurs (talk | contribs) 20:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Patagotitan redirects under discussion

A number of redirects for Patagotitan that were created before its naming are currently under discussion. The discussion seems to have ceased so additional input would be helpful. [5] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:44, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, L. I've weighed in. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

IPA-Style Pronounciations

In terms of IPA Style pronounciations, where would they be placed in an article? In my opinion it should have its own section inside the taxobox as well as a section explaining what the name translates to in English, and from what language. Thoughts?

These look like this: Baryonyx (/ˌbæriˈɒnɪks/), showing how to pronounce the names. We have them right in the first sentence of the lead (see, e.g., Baryonyx). The etymology (what the name means) is a different thing, and we usually provide that information in the "History of discovery" or "Taxonomy" sections. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:19, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
See WP:MOSPRON for guidance how to do them. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty! Thank you for your help!! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Cladograms

I was wondering, since the cladograms are taken from older papers, they should definitely be kept the same. But we should also add the most updated Cladograms if the only ones present are outdated should we not? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 03:26, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Good question. I often wonder myself when to keep old ones and when to replace with newer ones. I think it all kinda just depends on the situation. It helps to think about what message you are trying to convey. Two dramatically different cladograms can be useful to show conflicting theories. But if a newer cladogram is only slightly different from an older one, then I might just delete the older one, since having both doesn't add much. And of course it also depends on the study you are getting the cladogram from - sometimes you really gotta read the paper instead of just looking at the cladogram in the study. Are there any cladograms in particular that you are concerned with? Cougroyalty (talk) 04:48, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Some examples I can name off the top of my head are Unenlagiidae, Unenlagiinae, Halszkaraptorinae and Zhenyuanlong as all either completely disregard Halszkaraptorinae, list it as outside of Unenlagiidae or only meantion one member of Halszkaraptorinae and don't give meantion of the subfamily. There are definitely more examples of this that should be fairly easy to find. And I'm not saying replace the old ones of course, the history is good, but none of them are accurate to what we understand of their phylogenetics currently, which can be misleading to somemone who doesn't know any better. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 07:02, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
At WP:FAC, at least, we are usually asked to provide the most recent cladogram available. It is generally considered an improvement to replace old ones with new ones. But I think we shouldn't decide on a particular cladogram just because certain groups are (or are not) recovered, because if we do so, we would introduce bias. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:08, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, we have recently begun including two conflicting cladograms side by side, as for example in Lythronax and Cimoliopterus. But if a newer cladogram only adds more taxa, but has basically the same topology as older ones, I don't think this should be necessary. FunkMonk (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Ah okay that makes a lot of sense, thanks for clearing that up Sauriazoicillus (talk) 01:18, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Archiving Image Reviews

I'm so sorry for my constant questions, but how do you archive a section in the image review? I'm having a hard time understanding and I don't want to mess any of the other sections up. Thank you in advance, Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

It's done automatically by bots, so you don't have to do anything. I've now added a mention of this in the talk page header there, seems we forgot to mention it when the archives became automatic (it was already described at the WP:paleoart page). FunkMonk (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Oh okay okay thank you, sorry for the inconveniance. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
It's fine, because it reminded me to add that explanation to the page, so hopefully no one else will be confused. FunkMonk (talk) 12:25, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

List of Mesozoic birds

Since our coverage of Mesozoic birds is far less than our coverage of non-avian dinosaurs, I've created this (incomplete) list of Mesozoic birds. I hope this inspires others to expand and/or create Mesozoic bird articles. Atlantis536 (talk) 02:57, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

I am surprised we haven't had such a list already. Thanks for creating! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Me too. You're welcome! Atlantis536 (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
What a splendid article! Kudos to you!! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 03:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Atlantis536 (talk) 04:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
This definitely was a much-needed list, nice work! I do have one (relatively minor) critique though: I do think that we should avoid citing the Theropod Facts & Figures Encyclopedia and the Theropod Database, though (the former was ruled by us previously to be an unreliable source, and the latter is a tertiary source). --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 16:27, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I only mentioned Theropods: Facts and Figures as an example of an expansive list of Mesozoic birds, and cited Theropod Database because it's the only source out there for some of the more obscure ex-birds (e.g. Stremmeia and Priscavolucris). Atlantis536 (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I think I need to agree with Slate Weasel here though. Taxonomic decisions made by the Theropod Database are generally not relevant for inclusion (because they are not formally published in the academic literature). Whenever the website functions as a primary source (original claims not made elsewhere), it should not be used in Wikipedia in my opinion (because these claims are not relevant for Academia either, they are not going to be cited/contested/confirmed anywhere). I think that Stremmeia technically does not belong in this list, because it looks like it has never been actually considered to be a bird (correct me if I'm wrong). Regarding Priscavolucris, I do have the first description; send me a Wikimail if you like to see it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Just got your email. Also, according to Mortimer (sorry for using her as a source so often) notes that before the description of Stremmeia, it was thought to be related to Archaeopteryx. Atlantis536 (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Just replaced the refs to the Theropod Database with those cited by Mortimer, with the same conclusions. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Regarding Stremmeia: The specimen has been considered a bird before the taxon was named, but the taxon itself has never been, so I would be inclined not to put the taxon on the list. But my point of view here is of course very pedantic and I am not completely sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, the source now cited for Stremmeia does not state that it (or the fossil it is based on) has ever been considered a bird … --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Removed. Atlantis536 (talk) 09:55, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Korean theropod IP back

See 2001:2D8:E139:54B6:A971:E1A:3F49:23E6 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I've reverted almost all of their edits, apart from one where they removed a Malkani dinosaur, which is fine by me, given that we remove them to the list of informally named dinosaurs. Given their frequent targeting of Dilophosauridae I honestly think it would be better if Dilophosauridae were merged into Neotheropoda, given that a broader Dilophosauridae has been found to be paraphyletic in most recent analyses. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

I say revert everything, do not give in, don't merge, do not relent, adhere to WP:DENY, even if it means duct taping ourselves to another giant meteor.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
My issue with Dilophosauridae is that it probably not-monophyletic and is redundant with Neotheropoda, not that the Korean IP is targeting it. The problem with the Korean Dinosaur IP is that a signficant fraction of their edits are just bad and don't follow recent scientific literature, but I think some of them are ok. The problem is that the IP makes no attempt to communicate or explain their edits, possibly because they are a monolingual korean speaker. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:19, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Understood. It's just that these sort of uncommunicative editors are more trouble than they're worth, and that sparing the precious few of their good edits is the Wikipedia equivalent of having to sift through tons of raw sewage for pearls, i.e., having to deal with the "Megafauna Man" vandal. And if we're going to discuss merging Dilophosauridae into Neotheropoda, we should page-protect both pages so we can discuss it without the sap from Seoul interfering.--Mr Fink (talk) 05:27, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Sure. The range block that was implemented in November on 2001:2d8::/32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) was effective in stopping their disruptive editing for the 6 months it was active, until the editor caught wise that they were unblocked. The question is whether Drmies will extend the range block again. Given the incoming IP masking, this may not be a permanent solution. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Back again at 2001:2D8:213:4F2E:B181:B724:1FA8:2DA4 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Sigh. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:17, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Forgive me for my noob-ness, but why dont we just merge the article into Neotheropoda ourselves? Is there some sort of admin permission we need? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 06:49, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Angela Milner has died

Angela Milner has recently died. She is probably best known for having codescribed Baryonyx. Her article has always been a two sentence stub, and is in need of major work. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Level/5#Animals

I nominated some prehistoric animals for Level 5 Vital article listing. There are also some outstanding nominations also on living animals. Would appreciate your participation in the nominations. starship.paint (exalt) 02:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Ankylosauria

Sauriazoicillus has created a WP:WikiProject Ankylosauria, but I'm not sure this is really the way to go, and it should have been discussed here first. There is simply no reason to spread discussions out when we have so few editors, which is also why the pterosaur project was made into a taskforce of the palaeo project. FunkMonk (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

(Just to be clear it was a joint idea between TimTheDragonRider, Ankylosaur_Enthusiast and I, so they deserve to be a part of this discussion) I'm very sorry about that, I'm pretty sure we all got a bit too excited with the idea of running our own project to overhaul ankylosaurian related articles. So what should we do since we've already made a lot of progress? Should we become a taskforce of the Dinosaur Project? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
It indeed was a joint idea and we're busy realising it into a joint project. I understand the concerns about having so few editors, but if your really want us to become a taskforce that would have to be discussed. Besides that, we thought it'd be good to just have the three of us in said project seen as we plan on focussing primarily on the Ankylosaurian articles anyways. We'd like to stay seperate if possible, perhaps with an affiliation/collaboration? TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Could I just ask, what do you mean when you say "when we have so few editors," because when I look on the WP:Dinosaurs I can see a lot of editors, so are you refering to our numbers, the number of active editors, timezones or something different? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Most of those listed at the WikiProject there are not active anymore. We should really clean that page up! I am happy to see that you guys are interested in improving the ankylosaur articles. But I agree with FunkMonk that such actions should be discussed and coordinated first, and that general discussions should take place here where everybody can see them. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:27, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll take that into account in the future and as will my associates if we ever do something like this again. So where do you recommend we take our project from here? Sauriazoicillus (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
And, as the three of us would like to know, what would becoming a taskforce of WikiProject Dinosaurs imply?TimTheDragonRider (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You can see WP:WikiProject Palaeontology/Pterosaurs task force here. In practice, it makes it clear that this is a subsection of the dinosaur project and enables focused work, but as you can see, the pterosaur project was inactive for years, and even after it was made a task force, there has been little activity, and that's the general fate for most wikiprojects that are basically subtopics of a larger subject which already has few editors. With so few active editors around, having a central discussion area at the dinosaur project makes it easier for everyone to notice sections and weigh in. And it's not like I have anything against ankylosaurs, I co-wrote the only featured article about one, Ankylosaurus, but I have just seen too many niche projects become inactive after a few months that I'm cautious about them. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Also note that we have Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Peer review ("Fact checks") if you want to discuss how an individual article may be improved. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I already knew of said page, seen as i talked on there about my upgrades to the Ziapelta article. As for your arguments about a seperate Wikiproject, they seem convincing, though I think I am required to discuss it with my associates.TimTheDragonRider (talk) 17:22, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I think you better make a taskforce. Thus, you will get some degree of independence, but at the same time we will not have another inactive wikiproject. HFoxii (talk) 15:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I think a lot of your worries are around having another inactive project/taskforce, and I completely understand that, but maybe have a little faith in us? I don't plan on quitting any time soon and I'm pretty sure my associates agree. Though I personally am more than happy to become a taskforce. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 01:06, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in inactive wikiprojects, who's it really harming?   User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk  02:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
An active WikiProject can attract new editors. If they come to an inactive one instead, and see that nobody has been there for some time, we may loose them. However, maybe it would indeed be pragmatic to just stick with the new WikiProject, since a new task force would require yet another page. But not sure. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
That makes sense, I'm comfortable with anything, as long as we can still have some sort of offical organised workflow. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 10:56, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it has to be a new page, it would just be moved, like the pterosaur project was. FunkMonk (talk) 11:27, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to move it myself, I'd just need to figure out how to do that since I've only ever merged articles. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
If we were to move, would the work we've done so far stay or would all of the templates have to be removed and stuff?TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Looking at the pterosaurs (e.g., Pteranodon), there is still a link on the article talk page pointing to the task force (although combined with the WikiProject). If the WikiProject is moved, it would become a redirect to the task force page, so the templates would still work I think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:07, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah don't worry the templates won't be affected at all, they're stored outside of the project page. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 12:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I forgot to say here but I've moved the page to a task force page, I think I can say on behalf of my associates that we're all very happy with the move! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 07:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Looks good! Now it's just a matter of whether a new talk page tag, like the one for the pterosaur taskforce that is integrated in the palaeo project tag, can be made here. FunkMonk (talk) 12:11, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
And the new icon looks nice in the dino project template. By the way, I just reviewed an article for the military history project, which is probably the most active project around, and they only have one project tag, with many task forces listed, see the talk page of Operation Berlin (Atlantic). That project is probably the best model to follow for effectiveness, and if they do it like this, there must be good reason. FunkMonk (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Alrighty noted! Thank you so much for your help and support! Sauriazoicillus (talk) 23:37, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs/Archive_34&oldid=1051937012"