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

Dinosaurs didn’t evolve. They were made on the 6th day of creation by Jesus!! We don’t have dinosaurs today because they got hunted and eventually they got to old and they died. Magge 08 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nowadays, all paleontologists recognize the fact of evolution. Your point is not supported by any scientific research published in a peer-reviewed journal, so it cannot be covered in this article. HFoxii (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That would then be, according to the Genesis creation narrative, the fifth day and not by the Son.--MWAK (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Bible (Gods word) is my evidence! Magge 08 (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence of there being a god, I personally think is not a god, for science and a large majority of the current populus of the North American region, and a large proportion of western Europe, (a large percentage of the global populus) believe that there is no diety, and hey, if there is one, we have no idea which one it is, I mean there are over 4000 religous movements, so, y'know. We don't know, there is no evidence of God, Stephen Hawking, has theorized that god cannot exist because there is no time for him to exist, and, a question that springs to mind in the arguement of there not being a god is, what came before god? And, who created a god, if you belive in the creationist theory?

Thanks for reading my rant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HahaPanzerV (talk • contribs) 10:43, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is your evidence that it is God's word? Anyone can write anything and claim it was told to them by God. You probably even dismiss the claims of other religions that their holy texts are the word of God, so why do you (and why should we) accept this claim for the Bible? --Khajidha (talk) 19:09, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a nice article for these questions: Existence of God.--MWAK (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I’m concerned about the worrying lack of citations on this article. It makes claims as grand as birds are reptiles and doesn’t cite anything, much less the recommended number of sources. I would flag it, but editing is locked. WahooSS238 (talk) 13:34, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you're talking about, the article body has citations for everything. If you're referring to the intro, they don't require citations, as they're just a summary of the article. And by the way, no one doubts bids are reptiles, it has been accepted since the 19th century. The idea that they're dinosaurs, however, is more recent. FunkMonk (talk) 13:47, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"And by the way, no one doubts bids are reptiles, it has been accepted since the 19th century". Sorry, but your wording seems too harsh to me. In fact, until the end of the 20th century, birds were never formally classified as representatives of the taxon Reptilia. This situation is more controversial because there are different taxonomic schools. Most paleontologists do believe that birds are reptiles (and I agree with them), but in neontology, "reptiles" still often refer to the paraphyletic group. HFoxii (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let's say descended from reptiles then (which I believe OP is arguing against, but who knows). FunkMonk (talk) 18:59, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What does anyone else feel about updating the classification scheme further in the article? I mean, it's nearly 15 years old, so it would be useful to give it a little revamping. Hiroizmeh (talk) 02:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article already states there are alternatives, so I don't think we should replace it with something newer which isn't even widely accepted yet. What would you change? Also, we should probably revive the now archived section about article improvements, whey weren't all finished yet. FunkMonk (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. I wasn't proposing anything specific for a classification scheme (the whole Ornithoscelida thing, if that's what you're referring to); just a consensus of what can be agreed on. I might start on it and have it below here in this talk page for anyone to tweak it. I read in the archive on citing something, but if there isn't anything, would you think it's acceptable to synthesize a taxonomic consensus? Hiroizmeh (talk) 03:23, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinosauria

• Silesauridae?
• Herrerasauridae?
• Sauropodomorpha
  • Guaibasauridae?
  • Saturnaliidae
  • Unaysauridae
  • Plateosauridae
  • Massopoda
    • Massospondylidae
    • Riojasauridae
    • Melanorosauridae
    • Sauropoda
      • Lessemsauridae
      • Vulcanodontidae
      • Cetiosauridae
      • Mamenchisauridae
      • Turiasauria
      • Neosauropoda
        • Diplodocimorpha
          • Rebbachisauridae
          • Dicraeosauridae
          • Diplodocidae
        • Macronaria
          • Camarasauridae
          • Brachiosauridae
          • Euhelopodidae
          • Titanosauria
            • Diamantinasauria
            • Nemegtosauridae
            • Lirainosaurinae
            • Aeolosaurini
            • Saltasauridae
            • Colossosauria
• Ornithischia
  • Heterodontosauridae
  • Thyreophora
    • Stegosauria
      • Huayangosauridae
      • Stegosauridae
    • Ankylosauria
      • Nodosauridae
      • Ankylosauridae
  • Neornithischia
    • Jeholosauridae
    • Parksosauridae
    • Thescelosauridae
    • Elasmaria
    • Marginocephalia
      • Pachycephalosauridae
      • Ceratopsia
        • Chaoyangsauridae
        • Archaeoceratopsidae
        • Leptoceratopsidae
        • Protoceratopsidae
        • Ceratopsidae
    • Ornithopoda
      • Rhabdodontidae
      • Dryosauridae
      • Iguanodontidae
      • Hadrosauridae
• Theropoda
  • Coelophysidae
  • Dilophosauridae
  • Averostra
    • Ceratosauria
      • Ceratosauridae
      • Noasauridae
      • Abelisauridae
    • Tetanurae
      • Piatnitzkysauridae
      • Spinosauridae
      • Megalosauridae
      • Carnosauria
        • Metriacanthosauridae
        • Allosauridae
        • Carcharodontosauridae
      • Megaraptora
      • Coelurosauria
        • Tyrannosauroidea
          • Coeluridae?
          • Proceratosauridae
          • Tyrannosauridae
        • Maniraptoromorpha
          • Compsognathidae
          • Ornithomimosauria
            • Deinocheiridae
            • Ornithomimidae
          • Maniraptora
            • Alvarezsauria
            • Therizinosauria
            • Pennaraptora
              • Scansoriopterygidae
              • Oviraptorosauria
                • Caudipteridae
                • Caenagnathidae
                • Oviraptoridae
              • Paraves
                • Dromaeosauridae
                • Troodontidae
                • Unenlagiidae
                • Anchiornithidae
                • Archaeopterygidae
                • Avialae

Consensusof paravian phylogeny by studies in 2021 only (descriptions of Tamarro, Kuru, Kansaignathus, Shri, and Papiliovenator) not consensing Xiaotingia because it collapses a lot since its been found to be an anchiornithid and a troodntid.

Strict (Nelsen) consensus of phylogenetic analyses from 2019-2021 (last 2 years) on Ceratopsia. Includes:

• [1]Dalman et al. (2021) (description of Menefeeceratops)
• [2]Dalman et al. (2021) (description of Sierraceratops)
• [3]Madzia et al. (2021) (Systematic reevaluation of Ornithischia)
• [4]Prieto-Marquez et al. (2020) (study on Ceratopsia)
• [5]Tykoski, Fiorillo & Chiba (2019) (study on Pachyrhinosaurus)
• [6]Campbell et al. (2019) (study on Vagaceratops)
• [7]Arbour & Evans (2019) (description of Ferrisaurus)
• [8]Morschhauser et al. (2019) (study on Auroraceratops)

Any kind of synthesis would be WP:synth, so better to stick to one recent source, and then note below what the alternatives are. Or better, maybe just keep it so simple that it avoids minor differences between studies (and minor, controversial clades). But lets see what others have to say. FunkMonk (talk) 03:34, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a simple consensus that everyone agrees with seems like it could be included. And on Wp:synth, there are other places on wikipedia, like the subgroups in taxoboxes, and classifcation templates at the bottoms of pages, that contain a combined consensus of a bunch of different works without reference, but are accepted. Does something like this within a wikipedia page fall within a different authority? Hiroizmeh (talk) 03:53, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't think it has ever been discussed. The taxobox info should just be a summary of what's in the article body, though, so if the different schemes are presented there with sources, the taxobox itself should be ok. FunkMonk (talk) 04:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your proposal shows the inherent disadvantages of such point lists. They grow evermore complex, while still not fully reflecting phylogeny or dinosaur diversity. They suggest a false equivalence to the reader, who will not easily understand them. Perhaps it's better to show a simple cladogram instead, limiting ourselves to some main clades. It could be sourced by most recent analyses. The "Ornithoscelida hypothesis" might be given as an alternative. Apart from that aspect a simple cladogram would not have to be updated often.

If we keep a point list, the descriptions given of each group had better been removed. They too have grown longer, ambiguous value judgments having been added ("primitive"). And sometimes they are quite inaccurate. Sauropods were not usually longer than fifteen metres.--MWAK (talk) 09:06, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we should keep it as simple as possible, that will also avoid constant maintenance and the chance of becoming outdated. FunkMonk (talk) 11:56, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

how do dinasor eat and live and servive and sleep — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:3CA:0:2E3:A58C:D3DB:7D21:A44D (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From reading a past discussion (Talk:Dinosaur/Archive 15#FA criteria), issues were raised and then addressed. However, also from reading the "How far are we 2?" section of the discussion, I'm still unsure whether improvements are enough to help the article retain its FA status. Furthermore, more work may be needed, but I don't know which issues to identify. The article is 255KB total, including 72KB in prose, and took some time to load. Due to its size, the article may be harder, more stressful, and time-consuming for just one person to fully review and to mark it as "satisfactory" in WP:URFA/2020VO. Establishing an FAR would invite those interested in reviewing the large, long article, but I hope the FAR doesn't lead to the article being delisted. --George Ho (talk) 08:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think to begin with we should identify which issues from last time around that still need t be fixed. I don't think listing it for formal FAR will gain anything, as it's the same people who will have to fix the issues, just at a more limited time frame. FunkMonk (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you want me to raise issues, I see "Discoveries in North America" subsection but not "Discoveries in <other continents>"... Turns out the whole subsection is about discoveries by American researchers. For some reason, I don't see Canadian or Latin American researchers mentioned or deemed reliable enough to be included. This could be viewed as US-centrism, but I could be wrong. Per Jens Lallensack's comments. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, the whole article written seems as if everything about dinosaurs is true mostly based on research and fossil discoveries. However, I couldn't find historiography concerning dinosaurs (and paleontology?) and reliable theories that would challenge most, if not mainstream and academic, views about dinosaurs (and paleontology). I guess alternative theories challenging the mainstream and academic views have been debunked, rejected, excluded from the article, or something. Right? Or, historiography isn't necessary? Per Jens Lallensack's comments. --George Ho (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I like how extinct species are listed. However, list of species categorized by (super)continents would be nice and good supplement to prose. Alternatively, a color past or present map representing fossils and/or species would do unless otherwise. Found Template:Dinosaurs by Continent. George Ho (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's all I can observe. Nonetheless, it looks still well written and organized, but it's still tremendously different from what it was in 2005. I'm not saying that overlooked issues still remain. But I just want to be sure whether the article still deserves to hold its FA star after more than fifteen years. If the issues above are just merely my opinions, then I guess I must have gotten worried over nothing. George Ho (talk) 07:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC); partially struck, 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that being different from how it was in 2005 is a plus, since articles from that time were generally not up to today's standards. But you raise some good additional points that should certainly be resolved, and I think we can try to dig up overlooked issues from this archived section:[9] FunkMonk (talk) 18:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the concerns:

1) North American centrism: I don't see this. "Discoveries in North America" is just the second "chapter" in the history of dinosaur research, which happened to take place in North America. Other continents (after Europe and North America) came much later, and are therefore no longer that crucial than those very early discoveries.

2) Minority hypotheses are often simply not relevant to a very general article like this. When they are, they are mentioned (e.g., the Ornithoscelida debate has a whole paragraph). Feduccia's views on the origins of birds are mentioned as well. So I don't see this issue.

3) I doubt we have space for an additional list, and we would need a number of maps for the different time frames; even when we have a separate map for "Lower Jurassic", then putting all Lower Jurassic dinosaurs on their would be misleading since they are not necessarily contemporary – the Lower Jurassic is a very long epoch. I don't think we can do something like this here. And see the List of dinosaur genera for an impression on how long such a list of species would be. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it should be noted that we do have more specialised sub-articles that are used to cover the minutiae of various competing theories, this here article should mainly reflect the most accepted theories, and be an overview without too much specific detail. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're right about the three. I didn't mean to appear desperate or something, but... Well, I don't know what else to say, actually. I'll be checking the progress from time to time then. --George Ho (talk) 23:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll narrow down to concerns that weren't addressed, i.e. hadn't received replies, in the previous discussion: inconsistent citation styling, unverifiable info, sources left unchecked and un-evaluated, a few uncited info, repetitive wording, some unclear words/jargon, etc. Uncertain whether the jargon issue has been already addressed. George Ho (talk) 06:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CITATION OVERKILL, do we need all of this, or can it be reduced to the most authoritative? ... an active predator that may have been warm-blooded, in marked contrast to the then-prevailing image of dinosaurs as sluggish and cold-blooded.[57][58][59][60][61][62] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other than one recent edit on the infobox removing categorization (diff link), I still haven't seen much improvements lately. However, seeing the results of the FAR on Quatermass and the Pit, which I initiated, makes me wary about starting an FAR on this article unless issues are serious enough to warrant the FAR (or FARC). I'm uncertain whether the remaining issues raised in the prior discussion are still serious sufficiently. Also, there will be demands for me to be more engaged and involved in reviewing this article, but I don't know how much stress I can take. My quick review: the article looks well written and well researched. No obvious overemphasis on one thing or another so far. Sources are mostly academic and highly reputable, hopefully. Furthermore, I can still seek subtopics related to dinosaurs. As said before, the article is too large for me to thoroughly review. George Ho (talk) 05:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfactory?

Two weeks later, if anybody here thinks it's "satisfactory", please mark it as such in WP:URFA/2020A. George Ho (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FunkMonk, Jens Lallensack, Lythronaxargestes, Femkemilene, JurassicClassic767, HFoxii, and Fanboyphilosopher: Please don't hesitate to mark the article as "satisfactory" at WP:URFA/2020A if you believe the article is sufficiently such. If so, then I may forego plans to take the article to FAR. George Ho (talk) 01:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]