List of dinosaurs

Clearly very comprehensive, and thanks to the Dinosaurs Wikiproject, now with a healthy ratio of blue links. Useful and stable too. (Partial self-nom; I've made some minor edits.) Soo 03:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments - Good stuff, but
  1. Is there an authoritative list of dinosaurs known to science that can be referenced, or does no such list exist?

     Unfortunately no such list exists. This is usually considered the most comprehensive available, although it does have some omissions which we have corrected wherever possible. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     I think we should standardize on the Dinosaur Genera List, and footnote all exceptions. Olshevsky's list has 1075 genera and this list has 1087, so it shouldn't be that much work, and I think it's absolutely required for verifiability. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  2. Is this list complete (in the sense of including all known dinosaurs) or have some criteria been used to decide which ones to include and which ones to exclude? I was a bit surprised that, for example, Dimetrodon, was not mentioned.

     We've only included animals which have been classified as dinosaurs; the nature of paleobotany is that animals often get reclassified, so not everything in the list is still considered a dinosaur. Dimetrodon, however, has never been classified as a dinosaur. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Not wanting to trepass on areas where I am not qualified, Dimetrodon says it is "not a dinosaur, despite being popularly grouped with them". Are there other animals that might popularly be thought of as dinosaurs but are now? -- ALoan (Talk) 17:30, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Anything that's dead and vaguely reptilian is commonly considered a "dinosaur". Plesiosaurs, ichtyosaurs, pelycosaurs (like Dimetrodon), thecodonts, etc. Hopefully it's clearer now that I expanded the intro. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  3. The lead is rather short - it could explain, for example, why some animals have been but are not now considered to be dinosaurs.

     Fair point, I will try to expand it. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Expanded a bit. -Pat | 68.84.34.154 21:00, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  4. I appreciate the efforts of the WikiProject, but there are still quite a few redlinks from "D" onwards (most of "J" and "K", for example). How long will it take to turn the rest blue?

     Yeah, the blues are a bit top-heavy at the moment, but still the overall portion is about 2/3 blue, and certainly improving all the time. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  5. Some images would be lovely.-- ALoan (Talk) 11:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

     Agreed, I'll see what we can come up with. Soo 16:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I like it. Conditional support, if you get more references and use the correct style. Take care, —Nightstallion (?) 20:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I stumbled upon this and saw that Elvisaur is a sort of nickname for (sorry if this is spelt wrong) Cryolophosaurus, yet both are included on the list. I've got no objection to it but was thinking how many examples of this there would be on the list, and maybe a note should be placed where this occurs. AlbinoMonkey ^(Talk) 04:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now. A two-thirds ratio of blue to red isn't quite high enough for me. I'd like to see more information in the list: as an absolute minimum, which of them are no longer scientifically accepted names; ideally, when and by whom the name was first used (as on the Dinogeorge site). Also, shouldn't this be at List of dinosaur genera to make clear that it's not species? Finally, some pictures would be nice (though their absence alone wouldn't be enough for me to oppose). --OpenToppedBus - Talk to the driver 12:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • About one third or less of the articles have pictures, would you like us to stick them all on? This to me, would make it look tacky, but that's just me.... Spawn Man 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Something like one image per letter section would be nice. -- ALoan (Talk) 01:45, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • • I've started putting on pictures fro random articles about one page length apart. Hope it looks some better... Spawn Man 04:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its now about 75% blue and continues to increase rapidly. Soo 00:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: What I'd like to see changed is that there should be a main list, with only accepted names of genera really belonging to the dinosaurs group, and sub-lists at the end for alternate names and for animals erroneously believed to have been dinosaurs. —Nightstallion (?) 12:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The very first item on the list, Aachenosaurus turns out to not be a dinosaur but a piece of wood. Clearly more comments are needed on the list. A hate to turn this into Featured "table-form" lists but isn't there something more we could do than a simple list. The bird lists are much more impressive in appearance. Rmhermen 15:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You make it sound like a bad thing! Which list would be on if not the list of dinosaurs (as it was thought of as a dinosaur)? The list of dinosaurs who were thought to be fossils but really turned out to be a piece of crappy wood?
    • I think comments on the list should note facts like this. There are already comments about renaming and classification disputes. Rmhermen 04:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Support of course!! The list has come a long long long way in the passed few weeks. I think we should cut it some slack as the list is huge! Needs some major work still. I think it was way too soon to have put this on FLC, & I do not expect this to go through & I'm usually right.... But will still support anyway. Spawn Man 00:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• You admit it still needs work but want it promoted already? Rmhermen 04:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment While the comprehensiveness of this list is impressive, wouldn't it be more useful as a resource if it provided more information such as which era each species belonged to, whether it was carnivorous, or where it lived? I like to think of a featured list as significantly value added over a category. Durova 05:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]