Dinosaur is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 1, 2006.
Article milestones Date Process Result October 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted December 17, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Dinosaurs FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology FA‑class Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Amphibians and Reptiles FA‑class Top‑importance Dinosaur is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Tree of Life FA‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles FA This article has been rated as FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0 Spoken Wikipedia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Spoken WikipediaWikipedia:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaTemplate:WikiProject Spoken WikipediaSpoken Wikipedia articles Template:Vital article

	Other talk page banners
Template:Past cotw

Not reptiles, if we include birds as "feathered dinosaurs" - so what is the best way to resolve this inconsistency? If birds are a surviving lineage of dinosaur, but are indeed not dinosaurs because they are descendants (and thus "birds"), then Dinosaurs "were". A suitable analogy is that chimpanzees (Pan) are one of the class of great apes, but are not apes themselves...or, perhaps change "reptiles" to "a class of extinct reptiles and also modern birds"? Hires an editor (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This really gets into exactly what the words "reptile" and "dinosaur" and "bird" mean. By layman terms, they are all mutually exclusive except for maybe "dinosaur" < "reptile". By modern scientific terminology, birds are dinosaurs, which are also reptiles. There have been many talk page discussions on this subject, but at least in my view the current article does a reasonable job of presenting current scientific thinking with the necessary caveats. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:38, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

birds are reptiles but not really. if you follow that birds are reptiles then humans are fish. Clone commando sev (talk) 23:29, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there's a scientific basis behind saying something like that, but not a lay basis. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:02, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) But its in current scientific usage. If you look at Google Scholar, there is six thousand hits for non-avian dinosaurs, as scholars see birds as dinosaurs and thereby use the term "non-avian dinosaurs" if they want to exclude them. No such cladistic usage of "fish" exists, as far as I'm aware. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 00:10, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok a better example would be calling an early fish a cyanobacteria. Clone commando sev (talk) 00:13, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that's just literally not correct? Eukaryotes did not come from bacteria. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 00:30, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oh i must be confused. i thought that cyanobacteria was the first life? Clone commando sev (talk) 00:36, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean multicellular life? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 03:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes. did eukaryotes evolve from cyanobacteria or are cyanobacteria the first eukaryotes? Clone commando sev (talk) 04:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither? It's in the name. Bacteria. "Eukaryote" doesn't mean "multicellular". Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 13:17, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosaurs are reptiles. Birds are dinosaurs. Birds are reptiles. That's it. It's an open and shut case and anything else is inaccurate. 98.10.3.178 (talk) 03:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This opening sentence is inaccurate from a scientific standpoint:

Dinosaurs are a class of extinct reptiles[note 1] and modern birds of the clade Dinosauria.

It is highly inaccurate to present birds as being separate from other reptiles. It goes against modern phylogenetic classification, in spite of what some people on here have stated. Their arguments make no sense if they are viewed scientifically and cladistically. I'd like to request that the opening sentence to be reverted to its previous state to read as follows:

Dinosaurs are a class of reptiles[note 1] in the clade Dinosauria.

This is all the opening sentence needs. It is accurate and the article explains the differences between dinosaurs and extant "traditional" reptile groups. Birds are not a separate class of animals in modern phylogenetic classification. They should not be presented as such in any accurate article any longer.

98.10.3.178 (talk) 03:03, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have reintroduced earlier wording, latest edits created problems. Jules (Mrjulesd) 03:27, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you very much for doing that Mrjulesd! That opening sentence really made no sense. I appreciate your editing it!! 98.10.3.178 (talk) 04:16, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mrjulesd If birds are reptiles, why are they birds? That doesn't make sense. Birds are not reptiles. Reptiles are cold-blooded, birds are not. Also, the rest of the article differentiates between birds and other dinosaurs - "avian" vs "non-avian". So by definition, birds are indeed dinosaurs, and are not reptiles. Hires an editor (talk) 21:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Except dinosaurs are reptiles in the phylogenetic sense (which is the only reasonable scientific definition)? It depends on the definition. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

change are to was ChrisHansel (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:30, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That probably wouldn't make sense. Maybe there's a place where "are" should be changed to "were" or to "is", but messing up both plural/singular and past/present isn't likely. If you want to point out a specific location that should be fixed, please do. It will be easier if you quote the sentence where the fix needs to happen. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:2499:DAED:827E:97CA (talk) 18:44, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article would make one think that birds are reptiles. Clearly this isn't so... 139.138.6.121 (talk) 03:34, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually... Abyssal (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that "Dinosaurs were the dominant terrestrial vertebrates of the Mesozoic Era, especially the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods. Other groups of animals were restricted in size and niches". I am not sure if such a statement is correct. For example, crocodylomorphs can be called an exception to this. HFoxii (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that seems like a bit of a generalization, it obviously doesn't apply to something like Deinosuchus. I think that is more talking about the amphibians and mammals, rather than the reptiles. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello dinosaur editors. I'm afraid this article doesn't quite meet the FA criteria anymore in terms of being well-researched. There are quite a few bits that are out of date.

Examples of (possible) out-of-dateness

• In the general description-part it says according to a 2006 study, over 500 non-avian dinosaur genera have been identified with certainty so far, and the total number of genera preserved in the fossil record has been estimated at around 1850, nearly 75% of which remain to be discovered. Surely a newer estimate is out there
• By September 17, 2008, 1,047 different species of dinosaurs had been named. What about now?
• Paleontologists think that Eoraptor resembles the common ancestor of all dinosaurs cited to 1999 study; do they still think that?
• ’’ Scientists disagree as to whether non-avian dinosaurs were endothermic, ectothermic, or some combination of both. (2009 source);’’ still true? Or is one now preferred?
• ‘’The extraction of ancient DNA from dinosaur fossils has been reported on two separate occasions; upon further inspection and peer review, however, neither of these reports could be confirmed.’’ 1997 source, still valid?
• ‘’In addition, several proteins, including hemoglobin, have putatively been detected in dinosaur fossils.’’ (latest source 2010, still true?)
• ‘’Current evidence suggests that dinosaur average size varied through the Triassic, Early Jurassic, Late Jurassic and Cretaceous’’ (1999 source doesn’t support the word current there).

Lacking citations

• The renaissance section is poorly cited. There is a 1986 book without page numbers, and a newspaper article. The newspaper article doesn’t verify all the text in the paragraph before that.

Prose, MOS and citation

• I find the prose / jargon difficult to understand. The article has a broad appeal, and and much as possible, should be written for a broad audience.
• The citation style is not quite consistent, with some in-text citations combined with refs: aleontologist Max C. Langer et al. (2018) determined that Staurikosaurus from the Santa Maria Formation dates to 233.23 million years ago, making it older in geologic age than Eoraptor.
• l Robert T. "Bob" Bakker; weird to have "bob" in there

Femke Nijsse (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]