This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Palaeontology This page 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

We usually give time ranges in million years in taxoboxes, such as "Temporal range: Late Cretaceous (Cenomanian), 100–94 Ma" in the article Spinosaurus. These are often intended as an accessibility feature (readers can't assumed to know when the Cenomanian was). However, they usually just map the boundaries of ages (in the example above, 100–94 Ma are simply the (rounded) upper and lower borders of the Cenomanian). A recent discussion came to the conclusion that at least for the Nemegt Formation, the Ma ranges should be removed altogether. For example, the taxobox of Tarbosaurus (a dinosaur of the Nemegt Formation) now only simply has "[[Late Cretaceous]], {{fossil range|Maastrichtian}}", relying on the fossil range bar without giving numbers to make the information accessible.

The practice of providing the boundaries of ages or formations in taxonboxes comes with several problems. First, general readers will assume that we know precisely that a taxon occupied that full range, which is usually not the case. Second, when more tightly constrained, such information is often unsourced, or involves some degree of WP:Synth (i.e., the time ranges are not directly verifiable). Third, they are a major target for vandalism/hoaxes, which is helped by the fact that they are inappropriately sourced.

Also based on the mentioned earlier discussion, I propose the following for your consideration:

1. We should generally not provide numbers in taxonboxes, unless we have a recent source that directly states that the taxon in question existed during that interval. This means that in articles such as Dilophosaurus and Allosaurus, the age ranges should be removed from the box, just keeping the bar, as we already did in Tarbosaurus.
2. To ensure accessibility per WP:MTAU, we should provide mya ranges in the article lead (and main body), while making clear what those ranges represent (e.g., "The genus lived during the Aptian age, which lasted from 121 to 113 million years ago"). Such context/explanation is regularly requested at FAC, and I don't think we can do without that entirely.
3. When providing boundaries of periods, epochs, or ages, we should always use the templates instead of providing the numbers directly, using the "round=" parameter where appropriate. This ensures that the numbers stay up-to-date, and it also discourages vandals from changing them. For how to use these templates, see here.

Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:57, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think that the numbers are relevant accessible information when they are definite and citeable ranges (ex. Edmontosaurus or Triceratops, and removing them for vaguer information (time bars may be hard to interpret for lay readers, "Late Cretaceous" is vague, and Maastrichtian is only meaningful to nerds) is a needless loss. That said, I can absolutely support the removal of vague timespans that are just ex. the entire range of the Albian, as these are definitely misleading. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:43, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that's precisely what I was trying to suggest; when we have citeable ranges we should put them in the taxonbox, and if we only have the timespan of an age (e.g., Albian), we should not. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and I think this is a good representation of what I was trying to say there: if we have mya dates that are citable, we can use them, but otherwise we should not. "middle Aptian to Albian" doesn't directly translate to 116-107 mya, and we should not pretend that is does just to get convenient numbers for comparison. I think in the taxobox it ends up falling under the same things as WP:SYNTH and WP:OR to provide something not directly in the appropriate and cited source in the Paleoecology etc section. Within text I am fine with the clarification of context, as long as it is clearly presented as the age of the geological time period rather than the taxon. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:06, 5 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above opinions. If we have a specific age of a dinosaur in the literature, we can write it in the taxobox, giving a footnote at the same time. Unfortunately, in many cases, there is a lack of well-spent rock formations, which is why publications only provide time units, e.g. Aptian, Albian. In such situations, it is best to provide a template of smaller time units without specifying their entire time range. Aventadoros (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have requested a move for "Horned gopher" to Ceratogaulus, see Talk:Horned_gopher#Requested_move_25_October_2025. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:35, 25 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, I’m writing this message because I am currently very busy with my ongoing projects to expand articles on the French Wikipedia. Although I fully agree that these articles about these animals deserve their Featured Article status, I’ve noticed that some of their references could use some attention. Several citations are missing key details such as accessibility information, and in some cases the authors’ names are either omitted or misspelled. Since the Featured Article criteria require strict adherence to citation standards, the Baryonyx and Cretoxyrhina articles appear somewhat inconsistent in this respect—especially regarding the formatting of authors’ names, which are sometimes abbreviated and other times written in full. I would therefore like to kindly request that another editor take the time to review and correct these citations to ensure consistency and accuracy throughout. Thank you very much for your understanding and help. Best regards, Amirani1746 (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Accessibility information is not required for FA, but sure, can't hurt if you want to add it. FunkMonk (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. We also should not abbreviate all author first names just because we do not know the full names of all the authors, per this discussion: [1]. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:08, 31 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy (biology) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kielania I've been quite some time now waiting for review, I hope someone can accept this submission for me? Abdullah raji (talk) 15:47, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think at this time there's some information could quite easily be found and added. For starters: where has Kielania been found? What species are known? The Morrison Man (talk) 10:16, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Archaeoraptor has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 17:24, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adelobasileus says

Adelobasileus predates and descends from the non-mammalian cynodonts Tritylodontidae and Tritheledontidae by 10 million years.

My naive reading of this sentence is that Adelobasileus both lived before (predates) Tritylodontidae and Tritheledontidae, and also lived after them (is descended from them). Presumably both of these things are not true. Can somebody rephrase this? ~2025-36261-79 (talk) 07:19, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I removed the nonsensical sentence for now, but the article is obviously in a very poor shape and we need somebody to spend more time on it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:59, 25 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@~2025-36261-79, you should probably be putting this on the talk page of the article not here. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris| Talk^ 22:41, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This page is also fine, and might get seen quicker than that for Adelobasileus. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:14, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Permian–Triassic_extinction_event#Requested_move_27_November_2025 and Talk:Cretaceous–Paleogene_extinction_event#Requested_move_27_November_2025. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve seen both of these terms in articles, I believe that the first one is correct but IDK. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris| Talk^ 15:59, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either is correct per se, just personal preference of the writer. It is probably best to stick with one form consistently within one article, though, to avoid the reader thinking there is a distinction. Gasmasque (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Different sources use different terms, but it's basically just synonyms. But yeah, each article should stick to one term. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it could be good to decide on a single term for use throughout the project? The Morrison Man (talk) 12:05, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would verge on WP:instruction creep? We do have multiple options allowed for section names, which is even less trivial. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, and I don't think we should encourage any editor to edit every single article just for changing "life restoration" to "life reconstruction" or vice versa. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 13:40, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We could maybe argue that we should use either of those and try to avoid terms like "artist's impression" for palaeoart, which was popular in Wikipedia captions at some point, though one can't have an "impression" of something one has never seen, and such a term is not used in the literature. FunkMonk (talk) 14:33, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

But see Artist's impression. NASA really likes that term, too. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:07, 8 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I don't think I've seen it used for palaeoart outside Wikipedia, though. FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Artist's impression/interpretation was definitely used for paleoart sometimes in older sources, I can recall seeing it. I disagree that the project should use a standardized term because I don't think it really matters very much, and I've apparently used both on various different articles I've worked on without even thinking about it. That goes for the less popular artist's interpretation/impression/rendition too, although I haven't seen a page using that wording in a long while and it seems to have fallen out of use in paleo generally. Gasmasque (talk) 12:54, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Found a section I made almost ten years ago[2], quoting a book: "Palaeontologist Dougal Dixon explains in "The Age of Dinosaurs" (1984): "A mounted skeleton, as often seen in a museum, is called a reconstruction by palaeontologists. On the other hand, a restoration is a portrayal of what the entire animal would have looked like in life. A restoration can be a painting or a sculpture - or a photographic presentation, as in this book - and invariably is much more speculative than a reconstruction." It's of course not that clear cut, but that's the only published attempt I've seen that tried to make a distinction. FunkMonk (talk) 13:19, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  A trawl through recent works published in Palaeontologia Electronica yielded multiple uses of the term "life reconstruction" as opposed to "life restoration" when referring to the animal drawn in-life (e.g. [3][4][5][6]), and uses of "restored skeleton" when referring to both illustrations of the skeleton in side profile over a body outline and 3D renderings (e.g. [7][8]). It is definitely worth looking into this more, but at least in my sample of convenience Dixon's distinction doesn't seem to be maintained. Gasmasque (talk) 13:59, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, searching for "life restoration" paleontology gives 464 hits on Google Scholar, while "life reconstruction" paleontology gives 755 hits. "Artist's impression" paleontology gives 152 hits. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 14:52, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I found artist’s restoration in the Ikaria article today. Houcaris\Zhenghecaris|Talk 22:50, 17 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, the banners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners. Stefen 𝕋ower ^{Huddle • Handiwerk} 19:47, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

The information about them is nearly identical. I have found records for both "Litomatopus, Rasetti (1966)" and "Litometopus, Rasetti (1966)" in databases, as if the same person described them in the same year. Is one an alternative spelling of another? The sole source for Litomatopus does not list Litometopus. Of course, some databases list both. RanDom 404 (talk) 04:32, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Litomatopus is most likely just a misspelling of Litometopus that originated in Sepkoski (2002). It looks like that is the same view that is taken at PBDB. Monster Iestyn (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that Wikipedia's ammonoid, ammonite, heteromorph ammonite, etc. pages include the proposed Paleocene occurrences in the taxobox as if those are certain. On some of the lesser pages (like Ammonitida) the controversial nature of this isn't mentioned in the text. I was very much under the impression that the scientific consensus was still that Paleocene ammonite survival was questionable and that reworking is another plausible explanation. The dedicated Paleocene ammonite article still frames it this way, but has this consensus really changed so dramatically in the last few years to treat Cenozoic ammonites as a certainty/the most likely explanation? Gasmasque (talk) 06:48, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By complete coincidence a paper published in Nature today seems to have answered my question. The evidence in favor of Paleocene ammonites is much stronger than I had assumed. Gasmasque (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is an entirely separate question, but does the Paleocene ammonites article certainly warrant separation? I personally believe it can be merged with the Ammonoidea article, specifically as a subsection of the Evolutionary history section, though I want to hear some opinions before I (or maybe someone else) decide that it's appropriate to open a merge discussion. Junsik1223 (talk) 05:30, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is a dispute about subgroups should be included in the subgroups of Parareptilia. The discussion is here: Talk:Parareptilia#Taxobox_subgroups. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:41, 29 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a consensus now in the literature that there is only one valid mesosaur genus, Mesosaurus, as such I've made a proposal to merge all of the other mesosaur-related articles into Mesosaurus see Talk:Mesosaurus#Merge_proposal. Please participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I’m a WikiPortraits member offering help with photographing notable paleontologists and contributing portraits to Wikimedia Commons under a free license. I've noticed that many of the articles about even the most prominent paleontologists working today are lacking portraits. Wondering if there was anyway either myself or another member of WikiPortraits could help? SpiritedMichelle (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, more such photos would certainly be useful, it's just a matter of getting them somehow! FunkMonk (talk) 22:30, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I know nothing about the world of paleontology, so are there any annual large conferences or events that many prominent paleontologists attend? SpiritedMichelle (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are Society of Vertebrate Paleontology conferences, but I think it's for members only. Others may have some ideas. FunkMonk (talk) 23:01, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

For public events, I believe Dino Con is a good one to go to, although it is entirely restricted to the UK mind. If you are able to make that though, this years one is taking place on 25th & 26th July (see here for some more info stuffs). DevonHalDraedle (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

DinoCon is more of a public convention than a scientific one per se, judging from last year there are likely to be less academics than at SVP. Far as I'm aware that meeting is open to anyone who wants to join (with admission costing more if you're not a member of the society), but it is quite a bit more expensive and usually restricted to the United States. For this year, DinoCon will be held in Birmingham on the 25th & 26th, and the SVP meeting will be in Cleveland on November 11-14. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the SVP, there are the annual conferences for the Geological Society of America (GSA) and Botanical Society of America (BSA) which are attended by the global paleontology communities, who often have mini-meetings and sessions in the larger conferences. This year GSA is back in Denver (Oct 11-14), and BSA is in Tucson (Aug 1-5). GSA is likely the best opportunity for many of the invertebrate and insect paleontologists, while GSA and BSA are both good options for paleobotanical and adjacent workers.--Kevmin § 19:02, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't it easier to simply message the paleontologist in question, asking if they would donate an image of themselves? They should have a personal interest in having their photo included in their Wikipedia pages. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jens Lallensack: to be honest, likely not. Asking someone that has no experience with Wikipedia or Commons to upload an image is more likely to fail compared to asking in person if you can take a picture and upload it with no need for them to learn a whole new website. Plus in person means its easier to talk about concerns/questions and much less likely to be lost in the emails.--Kevmin § 04:29, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kevmin: It is actually easier to upload the photo that the paleontologist sent you directly to Commons yourself, and then ask the paleontologist to use this link (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator) to release the rights. It is very simple, I did it several times already. It is easier in many ways, as conferences are expensive, require travel, accommodation, and a lot of time. Only a fraction of relevant paleontologists would be represented there, and high-profile people (those who are likely to have their own Wikipedia page) sometimes only show up on specific dates at specific times that you cannot predict. Retired professors might not show up at any conference. Simply sending an email can indeed be simpler and certainly more efficient. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:10, 15 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]