Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs

This WikiProject was featured on the WikiProject report at the Signpost on 1 February 2010.

The current WikiProject Dinosaurs collaboration article is Confuciusornis.
The last article for collaboration was: Brachiosaurus.
Feel free to cast your vote for the next article.

Shortcut

WT:DINOWT:DINO

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be auto-archived by if there are more than 4.

Timurlengia Lead Section Improved - How do I remove it from clean up list?

Howdy all, I improved the lead section of the Tirmurlengia article. How do we remove it from the list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project? AndresVeraBello (talk) 19:00, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for that, much appreciated! The list you linked is automatically generated by a bot, based on the presence of maintenance templates. You already removed the template, so the list should be updated automatically at some point. On another note, you might wish to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology, where most discussion (including on dinosaurs) takes place. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:13, 9 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!! AndresVeraBello (talk) 05:14, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Jurassic_Park_(film)#Requested_move_17_August_2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Jurassic_Park_(film)#Requested_move_17_August_2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Ladtrack (talk) 05:44, 17 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Vitakridrinda up for deletion

Vitakridrinda, a Malkani taxon, is up for deletion after having been restored from a redirect: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vitakridrinda. Please participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quibble - "Citation overkill" in Hypsilophodontidae

Wikipedia:Citation_overkill says

While adding inline citations is helpful, adding too many can cause citation clutter, making articles look untidy in read mode and difficult to navigate in markup edit mode.

... examples like "Graphism is the study[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] ...

Extreme cases have seen fifteen or more footnotes after a single word ...

In Hypsilophodontidae, the lead paragraph says

there have also been many finding that the family is an unnatural grouping which should only include the type genus, Hypsilophodon, with the other genera being within clades like Thescelosauridae and Elasmaria.[5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

- Eleven cites there. If that isn't quite the record for Wikipedia, it is at least "a lot".

Should we trim this? - I don't know myself which of these cites might be worth keeping and which not.

Thanks - 189.122.84.88 (talk) 01:41, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely agreed they needed to be reduced. All those references would be useful if the article is expanded, but for now I cut the ones I felt are least significant. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 03:19, 10 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]