Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Palaeontology

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

• Found a section I made almost ten years ago, 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)

  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. ), 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. ). 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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• @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)

• @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)

Is there a clear preference for adding "extinct" to the short description when the entire group is extinct? I see that some trilobite articles, for instance, say "extinct genus of trilobite(s)" (whether it should be singular or plural is another matter) while others simply say "genus of trilobite(s)". — Anonymous 18:01, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

How do you request reassessment? Age determination in dinosaurs has been extensively edited since it has been last assessed. Bloopityboop (talk) 00:55, 31 January 2026 (UTC)

It should be the Page titled Draft:Yudomski event. pHLOGISTON eNTHUSIAST (tALK pAGE) 13:48, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Dimetrodon 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) 00:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a new merge proposal on the fossil ant genus page Talk:Ctenobethylus that needs input from editors.--Kevmin § 01:02, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion as to whether articles based entirely on descriptive paleontology articles violates WP:NOR given the outcome has a wide effect with regards to a large percentage of articles within this wikiproject, I am posting here for more input. Lavalizard101 (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Please share your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Quick straw poll on fossil species. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:12, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Please leave your opinions at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Palaeontology/Guidance#Halkieria African Mud Turtle (talk) 01:21, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

At the Discord server there was some discussion of what specimen articles that are good, and what kind we should encourage or discourage. For example, we have some dinosaur mummy and hominid skeleton articles with extensive scientific literature, history and importance, which I think most of us would approve, but then there are all the more random "biggest Trike", "most expensive T. rex" etc., where the sourcing amounts to press releases, news and auction promotion, but where there is little scientific literature or history to establish importance, but that's sadly the kind of specimen article we get most of by drive-by editors. So should we have a guideline under "what article should be created" that can be pointed to when either case is relevant? FunkMonk (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that it would be good to have a guideline since I do agree that it is reasonable in some contexts. SeismicShrimp (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

I would almost want to suggest that only articles for which a scientific publication of some sort can be cited are useful as standalone articles. Almost all sources for this project are scientific, so having articles on specimens that are entirely unscientifically-sourced feels backwards (and it justifies avoiding articles for the auction specimens or pop news random things that arise). Maybe that goes against the primary vs secondary citation thingy but it does follow reliability and we can always operate under a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 04:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I do suppose as this project focuses on academic subjects the principles of WP:SCHOLARSHIP apply and scholarly sources or high-quality non-scholarly sources should be the ones we use to determine if an article is justified. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:03, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree in principle. This sort of claim "the biggest" or "the most complete" is often very subjective and depends how one measures it. If these claims are made to increase the price for an auction, they are not reliable. For the "most expensive" specimen facts, we already have List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction. Another condition for a specimen article could be that the (non-trivia) facts to be covered do not fit within the respective genus article (or the dedicated specimen list such as Specimens of Tyrannosaurus if such a list exists); i.e, a stand-alone specimen article should be justified per WP:SPINOFF. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:51, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Doesn't this go against what WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says, as it is choosing to disregard a broader policy for this specific project? That page states: Impermissible: A group of editors (whether or not a WikiProject) decides that relevant sitewide policies and guidelines should not apply to particular articles. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:12, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

What guideline does it disregard? We have no broader guideline saying any random specimen should get articles based on non-scientific sources, rather the contrary. FunkMonk (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I presume WP:GNG (assuming those sources are secondary and reliable), since you said [m]aybe that goes against the primary vs secondary citation thingy. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:17, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

While looking at taxa with relatively short fossil ranges, I realized that the current {{Geological range}}, while helpful to put the timeframe into a broader context, wasn't necessarily precise enough to see the range itself. I wonder if it could be helpful to have a zoomed-in fossil range on the relevant individual period in that case, under the main range? I made an implementation at {{Period fossil range}} if anyone is interested, hoping to gain consensus for it to be allowed when necessary. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I think that could be a very useful addition. The question then becomes one of how to implement it, as just showing the period fossil range might be confusing to the average reader without the broader context. Perhaps there is a way to implement it so that both the geological range and the period fossil range are shown? The Morrison Man (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Great suggestion, I've wanted this for years. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I love this idea!

Could there be an option for it to display stages names (example for the Ordovician: Tremadocian, Floian, Dapingian, Darriwillian, Sandbian, Katian, Hirnantian)? This would definitely be very helpful. African Mud Turtle (talk) 02:12, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep, my idea was to show it below the main range, like this. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

That looks great in my opinion! I'd be all for including this on pages, but another practicality to consider first would be to decide what constitutes a long or short fossil range. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't think there should be a hard boundary (and especially not something mandatory), but I'm thinking about cases where we clearly have several points in time (instead of a single data point) with a better precision than epoch level, as age-level details are hard to convey on the main range. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems like an awesome feature, though I worry it might promote some our existing issues with uncertainty ranges being reported as the span of time the taxon lived. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Yep, in my opinion it should only be used when we want to display a range as a range, rather than, say, a whole epoch because we don't have better precision. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 22:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

I like it and I think it should follow the same implementation rules: If the specific age range isn't in the article and sourced so all you've got is an epoch, just leave it as the epoch and don't implement the zoomed scale. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 01:59, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I will also note that this level of resolution does not add too much to articles with a limited range within the Mesozoic say, because the period level of Triassic/Jurassic/Cretaceous only gets subdivided into their Early/Middle/Late components. I just tested it on Lambeosaurus (not saved because it wasn't ultimately better) for example and it does not elevate the current setup. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 02:03, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Agree than an age subdivision could be a good addition, as this was only a first draft of the concept. One thought I have is that some epochs (like the Early Triassic) might be hard to subdivide in ages while staying readable at that scale, so maybe a case-by-case setup could be helpful. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 02:38, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Quick facts Scientific classification ...

Palaeotherium Temporal range: Middle Eocene – Early Oligocene 43.5–32.5 Ma PreꞒ Ꞓ O S D C P T J K Pg N Da. S T Ypr. Lut. B Pr. Rup. Ch.
Scientific classification
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Mammalia
Order:	Perissodactyla
Family:	†Palaeotheriidae
Genus:	†Palaeotherium

Close

@African Mud Turtle @IJReid I made the template age-level for the Ordovician and the Cretaceous (display can be checked at {{Period fossil range/rangebar}}), can you tell me if that works for you so I can try the other periods? I was afraid it would look a little busy, but it looks fine. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 07:46, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I would break it down into an Early Cretaceous option and a Late Cretaceous option - while the current system works well enough for the Silurian or the Paleogene, the Cretaceous is nearly eighty million years long and almost any taxon range is going to end up so dwarfed by the length of the bar that it hardly adds much more resolution than the existing Phanerozoic fossil range. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Added those two as options! However, someone unfamiliar with the age names might reasonably mistake the Early/Late Cretaceous bar for the whole of the period, which might add some confusion. The Cretaceous already provides a resolution more than 8 times higher than the "default" bar (79 Ma vs 650 Ma), so I can see some use even if it isn't as detailed as the other periods.

Even if the taxon range is relatively small, being able to see at a glance where it falls within the Cretaceous can definitely be useful. To look back at the Lambeosaurus example above, it can be immediately helpful to see that it wasn't alive during the end-Cretaceous extinction, unlike many famous Cretaceous (really, Maastrichtian) dinosaurs. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:22, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

• The time scale in the taxonbox is supposed to make articles more accessible to general readers, giving them a hunch where in the geological time scale we are. The proposed addition however is an expert feature, and the added complexity makes it harder to understand for the general reader. I therefore would be reluctant to use it for most pages, but there may be exceptions, such as Pleistocene taxa. Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:17, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I understand the hesitation and I do think in the end this isn't something that can be applied in all situations. I've replaced the Lambeosaurus example which ends up looking a little more useful, and I do think there is the potential for use elsewhere. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 18:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

In that example it looks pretty useful indeed, I have to admit. Still, before a large-scale roll-out, it would be great to get some opinions from outside the WikiProjekt, too? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be taken to the WP:Village Pump? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:07, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Would be a good idea to get a broader set of eyes on it. The Morrison Man (talk) 21:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Works for me! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 21:42, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

@Chaotic Enby The Ordovician bar looks really nice! African Mud Turtle (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Zigrasimecia 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) 04:49, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Partially out of concerns of out-of-WikiProject pressure surrounding the use of palaeoart, many modern articles caption caption restorations with the term "speculative" added on. This has been noted as being very inconsistent in application, which is an issue in and of itself. However, I'm more concerned it may be giving the wrong impression. While the intent is obviously to inform people that aspects of the restoration are necessarily unknowable and filled in with speculation (ex. colour in life), I think we take for granted the concept of scientific speculation may not be intuitive to laymen. They may, for example, coming away thinking our life restoration of Alaskacephale (just added with the above caption) is a blind guess somebody made up, rather than the most informed possible reconstruction based on what we know of related taxa. "Life restoration informed by related species" or something along those lines would be wordier, but may give a clearer impression. Maybe even link the concept it's "informed" to Paleoart#Scientific principles, expanded to talk about how scientists know how to infer the life appearance of fossil animals in more detail. Public distrust in science is at an all time high, and feeding preconceptions that scientists simply make stuff up could be problematic. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

While in regard to life reconstructions, “speculative” is true in technicality, but it is at best redundant and at worst misleading. Article sections like paleobiology, paleoecology, and sometimes classification are also speculative in content, but they don’t seemingly require the “speculative” pretext. Similarly for size charts, skeletals, diagrams which include restored elements, and several other things commonly included in articles which typically aren’t tagged in the caption as “speculative”.

Again, while technically true that things such as life restorations are speculative (to varying degrees), once you start considering what else should be tagged as speculative, the whole science degrades in the eye of the layman. “Speculative” does not mean the same to the average person with no palaeontological knowledge as it does to those of us editing these pages. There are better terms to use if we truly believe contextual “warnings” of accuracy are actually needed. Ddinodan (talk) 16:28, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

• I use "hypothetical", which has been accepted at FAC. While just as redundant, it is less loaded than "speculative". FunkMonk (talk) 16:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't think it's really much better. Less loaded, sure, but still carrying the same implication at the end of the day. I get the motivation to satisfy FAC, but I don't think satisfying Wikipedians should be so prioritized that it takes precedence over our actual goal here: educating people. Honestly, thinking about it more I think the issue is that we kind of lack proper coverage of reconstructing extinct animals on Wikipedia. Life restoration currently links people to Paleoart, which is more about the concept and history of the discipline than anything. I think an article on Reconstructing fossil animals or something like that, going into the methodology of how scientists look at fossils and are able to infer life appearance in an accessible fashion, would be very welcome. It could talk about assigning fragmentary remains, phylogenetic bracketing, bone texturing and soft tissues, colour, comparisons with modern animals, unknowns in palaeoart, and maybe even talk about how skeletal mounts and stuff are made as well. Obviously we'd need to write the article, but if a core article is missing from the encyclopedia I don't think the fact it would take work is reason to maintain that status quo. Were such an article to exist, restorations could simply have the "Life restoration" link as a caption and it would address any questions or concerns how we can possibly know what dinosaurs looked like. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:02, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

This seems to me like a possible solution to two things, how we talk about the paleoart in articles, and our current relative lack of coverage of the process of paleoart itself. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:13, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not us that need convincing, but the rest of Wikipedia. Personally, I think "life restoration/reconstruction of" is enough, it implies a margin of error, but that's not enough for "layman" readers apparently. I don't see why the paleoart article shouldn't cover the concepts behind reconstruction, there's certainly space for it if we remove the huge gallery and lists that are discouraged in article space anyway, instead of making readers chase multiple content forks. FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Are we able to justify limiting it to "Life restoration" because we are following the literature? Just in a quick browse, Zanno & Napoli call it "paleoart of ..." or "Reconstruction ...", Czepinski & Madzia say "Life restoration ...", Vinther et al. say "Model ..." (it is a physical model), and I'm sure I can find more, even of the most speculative pieces (Maidment et al., 2026: "Life reconstruction"). IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:47, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

An expansion could work, but frankly I do think it makes sense for the article about the artistic discipline and the scientific principles of understanding fossil life appearance to be considered separate topics. Some readers looking to learn about that may never think to look in an art article. It should easily be able to sustain an article and I’m sure the sources exist to establish notability. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:50, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

Perhaps I made a controversy without knowing so. I just used that word on that article because I was used to it, not because I had any specific intention to make the artwork look less informed or to give any wrong impression. I will follow the consensus in this talk page after everyone agrees with what to do. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:05, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries, it's been a common caption for a while now and you just followed convention. Just this one in particular happened to spark me to think more about it. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:32, 3 March 2026 (UTC)

A sub-stub article on has been created (again) and is now nominated for deletion, comments are looked for on the deletion- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly (3rd nomination)--Kevmin § 17:37, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

I would like to perform an alphabetisation cleanup of the active participants list, as several entries are currently out of order. I will not touch any link formatting, personal entries, or other formatting outside the scope of simply sorting the list alphabetically. I will carry this out a few hours after posting to allow time for any concerns to be raised.

EDIT 05:32, 15 March 2026: No concerns raised; I will now be proceeding with the edit.

Winter.Lance (talk) 06:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

While researching I found a wide variety of size estimates for the skull very similar to the animal's mass and length.

The figures range from 1.5 meters to 1.75 meters however some sources suggest even greater up to 2+ meters for possible undiscovered specimens .

Which should we include for the articles on Wikipedia? KnowledgeCorp86 (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I've nominated Michael S. Engel for deletion based on significant COI editing and a lack of notability establishing coverage inn Secondary sources. Please comment here - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael S. Engel.--Kevmin § 01:37, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The participants list is currently bulleted, and this edit would be serve as a cosmetic QOL change as we would be able to see at a glance how many Wikipedians are involved in this project. The numbering would not require manual upating as Wikipedia syntax auto-increments numbered lists (using "#" rather than "*")

I previously edited the list to put the entries in alphabetical order, after leaving my previous post up a day or so to allow time for any concerns to be raised. As this new change would affect formatting, I will not implement it if clear consensus against it emerges.

Pros:

• Instant headcount
• Zero maintenance on numbering
• Does not interfere with alphabetisation

Please share your thoughts if you support, oppose, or have suggestions regarding this formatting change. Winter.Lance (talk) 11:59, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Sounds good. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

• Sounds fine to me too, perhaps prune out the many inactive members now we're at it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:10, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  What would we count as the cutoff for inactivity? I've previously moved users to inactive that published their last edit >1 year before. The Morrison Man (talk) 14:56, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

  Also, what should be done about editors who are active within the period, or at least made a handful of edits, but have not edited palaeontology articles since long before the cutoff? Try to contract them? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 15:13, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

1 year of no-palaeo related activity sounds fine, they can always just add themselves again if they return. FunkMonk (talk) 18:55, 17 March 2026 (UTC)