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: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 automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Overhaul of palaeoart review pages

For the few of you who are not already also watching the palaeoproject talk page, a discussion:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 23:25, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merges of list articles

I've put forwards a proposal at WT:PALEO#Page merging to suggest the consolidation of List of years in paleontology articles, and redirection of "Timeline of research" articles as part of the revamping and reorganization efforts of the paleo project. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal (Epanterias to Allosaurus)

A proposal has popped up to merge the article for the dubious allosaurid Epanterias into the Allosaurus page. Posting here to get some more input, please participate if interested. Thank you Talk:Allosaurus#Proposal_to_merge_Epanterias_into_Allosaurus The Morrison Man (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the content

I want restore the content on:

Doiusar (talk) 16:12, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All of these were merged after discussions because the content has a better home under either their senior synonyms ( for Rubeosaurus and Mojoceratops) or higher taxonomic clades for the rest. Restoring content is not needed. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:28, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you want these restored? We had a lengthy discussion about merging them and pretty much everyone was in agreement that most of these nodes do not warrant their own articles. A Cynical Idealist (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exist. I want to known the world about these subjects. Doiusar (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And information on them can be found on the pages they redirect to. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:36, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I want restore the content Doiusar (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no need to. Information on the subjects can be found easily after searching for them and splitting the articles out wouldn't have any added value in my opinion. The Morrison Man (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is necessary. Please remove the informations on the pages which redirect. Doiusar (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should stop evading your block when you've been blocked from Wikipedia? Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That makes a lot of sense. The Morrison Man (talk) 19:29, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]