I was just searching about this taxa in Cheloniellida, but I found this may be nomina nuda. Article Cheloniellida shows "Vidal, 1998" as authority, but I can't find any publication about this taxa published in that year. According to Biolib.cz, this taxon is considered as nomina nuda as named in unpublished thesis Van Roy (2006). I am not sure which is true since I only can find a few papers that have name of this taxon. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Hm, looking into this for myself, I see that IRMNG's record for Eoduslia sources Wikipedia (!!!), GBIF's record sources The Paleobiology Database. However, PBDB doesn't have a record for Eoduslia at all, though according to Google results for "Eoduslia" Fossilworks may have had a record (but FossilWorks appears to be down as of writing...).

@Super Dromaeosaurus: Hi, seeing as according to this revision you added "Vidal, 1998" as the authority for Eoduslia on the Cheloniellida article back in 2019, do you remember where you got this information from by any chance? Monster Iestyn (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

No honestly. I tried to find hints by looking which pages was I editing back then but it was not of use. Super Ψ Dro 17:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus @Ta-tea-two-te-to: Hang on, I THINK I just found a trace of Paleobiology Database's record of Eoduslia complete with "Vidal, 1998" here: https://paleobiodb.org/classic/basicTaxonInfo?taxon_no=348152 Maybe you (Super Dromaeosaurus) got "Vidal, 1998" from the Fossilworks version of this page back in the day then? (Note: I was only able to find this because Google is currently indexing the Fossilworks record for "Eoduslia" online, even though Fossilworks is down, and from Fossilwork's URL I went to the corresponding page on PBDB with the same taxon ID; PBDB's search does not want to acknowledge this page's existence for some reason, somehow)

The article cited by PBDB happens to be here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1251805098800517 But I cannot see "Eoduslia" anywhere in the full text (unless I overlooked something), so I'm inclined to believe that PBDB/Fossilworks is in error and that Eoduslia was indeed first named by Van Ray's 2006 PhD thesis. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah that might have been how I got it, but I don't remember. Super Ψ Dro 18:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Super Dromaeosaurus Not to worry if you can't remember, thanks for responding anyway. Hopefully the mystery can be considered solved now anyway. Monster Iestyn (talk) 18:38, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Elasmobranchii#Merge_Neoselachii_into_this_article. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Mosasaur#Requested move 5 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 23:52, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

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)

Since Beretella has been described (in a preprint, but still) and Saccorhytida is thus no longer monotypic, which is the whole reason why it currently redirects to Saccorhytus, Saccorhytida should probably get its own page, even if it’s just a stub. IC1101-Capinatator (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I might work on a page for this new genus, if the draft gets accepted, I will change the redirect into a stub Abdullah raji (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Update: Beretella has been accepted and i will now change the redirect Abdullah raji (talk) 13:51, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Riversleigh rainforest koala#Requested move 24 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 00:20, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

See Talk:Eemian#Requested_move_28_February_2024. Participate if interested, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:31, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I was looking over the list of Hot Articles on the project page and came across this. The page was created two days ago and is as of now a practically unsourced and incomplete list of fauna. I was going to move it to a draftspace, but I frankly don't know how and also wanted to discuss whether or not this is a good page to have, considering the fact that we also have the category through which these animals can be found. Also pinging @Draco ignoramus sophomoricus, the creator of the article. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:12, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Having looked further, List of vertebrate fauna of the Maastrichtian stage suffers the same issues. The Morrison Man (talk) 20:22, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I would go with both are better treated as categories at most, and note that full lists would be close to wp:synthy Wp:or magnets. We can ask why are the Maastrichtian and Campanian more notable, or is this just a prelude to semi-redundant lists for every Cretaceous stage, every Epoch etc--Kevmin § 22:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree, the sourcing is the main issue. This only makes some sense if excluding nomina dubia, but there is no single authoritative source that states which taxa are nomina dubia and which are not. The only way to do it is to rely on Wikipedia itself (i.e., all genera that have their own page are included in the list), but this is, I think, not considered to be acceptable. Other problems are the incompleteness, the size of the page (which will become too large if every relevant genus would be included), and the huge amount of work that this list (and all the other stages lists that would have to be created for consistency) will cause in the future. The author should have discussed his planes here at the WikiProject before diving into this endeavor. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

As I stated at the talk page all stated taxa either reflect on their linked articles' sources and "manually" cross referenced with fossilworks. The issues you describe are mostly due to my unfamiliarity with wikipedia's codified linking mechanics and the community's rules regarding article creation, so I have to rely on more knowledgeable and experience users on this subject. Thanks for your understanding. Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 05:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Generally, there is no requirement to ask before creating an article, but it is highly recommended to consult the community when introducing a new article concept (such as this type of list). But how would you deal with the sourcing issue? According to basic Wikipedia rules, every statement needs an inline citation that is "likely to be challenged". As we are in paleontology, statements and data are rarely uncontroversial. Simply referring to the respective articles for sources is not considered sufficient as far as I understand. The List of vertebrate fauna of the Maastrichtian stage already has a "references-needed" tag since December. So how can this comply with WP:Verifiability? Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I know I am basically asking you to "take my word for it" but I can assure you every single taxon presented, minus some from the original article I copypasted has been cross-referenced with fossilworks. I admit I am somewhat intimidated with the modern citation system and do not really understand the mechanics of automated and codified citation of wikipedia so I did not make any attempt to make the citations myself. If anyone is up to the task I can provide individual paleontological sites' pages from fossilworks in the form of Chrome bookmarks and work it from there. Also regarding the completeness issue I am quite positive this page is far closer to being complete and verifiable than the original Campanian life alphabetical list. --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I really question the use of Fossilworks here. There are a variety of cases in which the information there has been found to be incomplete or outright wrong. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:11, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm also concerned with the upkeep, as Jens brought up earlier. To be completely honest, we're already running thin on people to manage everything under the topic of paleontology (as evident by the astronomical amount of stub articles we have, among other things), and even the smaller faunal lists for formations are not receiving the amount of upkeep they should. To add another, much larger category of list page to this pile would be absurd in my opinion. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:45, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

@Draco ignoramus sophomoricus: Regarding your "take my word for it": You do not have to prove this to us, but to the readers. They need to be able to verify every single information. Saying "for sources, see the respective genus article" does not really work even if you have verified the information they provide, because Wikipedia articles are changing constantly. The information between articles and lists might match today, but that will not always be the case in the future. This is why we need to repeat all the sources in all our articles (and lists) over and over again; we can't cite an Wikipedia article as source. Which means that, unless all those sources are added, these lists fail WP:Verifiability and that is a fundamental problem; we won't be able to defend those lists for long. Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:36, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I made a sample with extensive citations from the Pachycephalosaurs portion using the citations of the corresponding taxa articles. Would have make more for taxa with lacking citations in their own articles but fossilworks have been down for a couple of days. Please, evaluate if it's done properly. Thanks, for your attention. Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

The page Pseudastacus is currently up for FAC and I just got recommended by someone to tell others so that it doesn't fail from lack of response so here's this post. Olmagon (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll drop some comments if it hasn't reached three reviewers yet. The Morrison Man (talk) 09:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

From the looks of it, the pages for the collaboration articles for both our project and WP:DINO are very, very outdated and haven't been touched in years. Maybe it would be good to clean these up? The Morrison Man (talk) 09:40, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Probably, but maybe we should also figure out how many editors are even interested in collaborations? Seems people aren't really joining when it's proposed. FunkMonk (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Thats also true. Maybe starting with a fresh round of proposals (and a new collaboration) could help with that? Seems like the previous proposals are all 2-3 years old at the least. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:29, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I have requested that "Sauropsid" and "Synapsid" be moved to "Sauropsida" (from which it has recently been moved without discussion) and "Synapsida". please see Talk:Synapsid#Requested_move_26_March_2024 and Talk:Sauropsid#Requested_move_26_March_2024. Please participate if interested, thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Following up from the discussion I started last year, Fossilworks now is consistently timing out for me since about two or three weeks ago, making all Fossilworks taxon ID links in the taxonbar useless as of writing. Therefore it seems about time to me for Fossilwork links to be swapped to links to paleobiodb.org, so I have started a discussion over at Wikiproject Taxonomy on Wikidata to suggest this be done there. Monster Iestyn (talk) 12:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Since there is no sign of activity at Wikidata, I've modified {{taxonbar}} to get the identifier from Fossilworks taxon ID (P842) and link to PBDB. If wikidata has both Fossilworks taxon ID (P842) and Paleobiology Database ID (P10907) and they are identical the duplicate is deleted. If they are different (as in lion, which gets 46521 from Paleobiology Database ID (P10907) and 49734 from Fossilworks taxon ID (P842)) there will be two links to PBDB. If there are questions on this, please add to the discussion at the {{Taxonbar}} talk page. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

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) 12:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

FAC discussion relevant to editors here, and perhaps the MOS for images should have a note on how to deal with palaeoart once consensus emerges. FunkMonk (talk) 13:45, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

A collective merge discussion on a number of potentially redundant clade-level articles has been opened at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs#Mass_merge_proposal_for_redundant_clade_pages and may be of interest to this WikiProject. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)