Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of dinosaur genera/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of dinosaur genera edit

Featured list removal candidates/List of dinosaur genera/archive1

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life

This list was nominated 15 years ago and is showing its age. It also has serious scope issues. The list of dinosaurs includes both plants (!) and crocodiles. It is also a fork of “List of informally named dinosaurs”. I tried to reach a consensus on the talk page, but none was able to be made so I’m nominating for featured list review in order to get more opinions. Here are the primary concerns:

The list is completely unreferenced. There are no in-text citations and only 4 general references included at the bottom.
The list includes plants (!) and crocodiles. If the title is “list of dinosaurs” the list should only contain dinosaurs. Numerous people mentioned this on the talk page, but edits were reverted.
Outdated terminology “this is a list of” shows its age.
Images do not have alt text
The entire scope and terminology is unsourced, and includes categories not found in the list. Mattximus (talk) 20:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is simply not correct:

Regarding the sourcing, it clearly states Uncited genera names can be attributed to Olshevsky's "Dinosaur Genera List", clarified both in the lead and references list.

It completely lacks intext citations, which is a requirement for featured lists. Mattximus (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The inclusion criteria are clear-cut: All published dinosaur names are included, including those that are now considered invalid. This also includes names that are now considered plants or crocodiles. Removing just these few cases would simply be inconsistent. Removing all invalid names requires much more WP:OR, and we would loose many popular names that people may be looking for.
The scope and terminology is not unsourced, and I don't know what categories are not found in the list. The scope of this list is in fact based on Olshevsky's "Dinosaur Genera List", a classic outside Wikipedia; it is not even something we invented here. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the non-dinosaurs go, I see the logic for including "things once incorrectly thought to be dinosaurs", that's interesting, but they should be in their own section if it's going to be a bulleted list like this, or else more lines need more clear explanation for why they're not a currently recognized dinosaur genus.
That said, I don't like that this is a bare bulleted list. I get that it's too long to realistically go for the talk page proposal from 2008(!) for a table like we do for modern animal families, but even a simple wikitable of name - validity - time period - citation would be much more useful to readers.
@Jens Lallensack: Can you explain what Olshevsky's "Dinosaur Genera List", a classic outside Wikipedia means? Because what I see is someone's personal hobby site, and I'm confused how that's a reliable source; I see that the text says George Olshevsky is a "biological nomenclature expert", but that's a strong (and important!) claim without a citation.
Assuming Olshevsky is alright- implicitly citing their work like this is a bad idea, because the result is that if anyone adds a new genus without a citation, it's de facto sourced to Olshevsky even if it isn't there. It forces active maintenance to revert bad additions by someone who knows the history of the article's sourcing, which isn't great. --Pres N 21:10, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Having individual sections for valid and invalid names: Maybe, though the reader searching for a particular name will generally not know if the name is, at the moment, considered valid or invalid, so they would have to check both sections. I don't quite see the advantage of having them separated. Adding more explanation is a good idea, but not sure if much more than "now considered a fossil plant" is needed?
Having this in table format is an option that was just recently discussed at the talk page.
This paper [2] appears to contain "George Olshevsky is a widely cited authority in dinosaur classification and taxonomic nomenclature" according to Google, but I don't have access to it.
Regarding the citation style: I don't know. What would be the better alternative? This list should still be identical with Olshevsky's list since both are regularly updated. Putting the inline citation of Olshevsky's list behind every name? Then, it might be better to cite the first description of the name directly, but this would mean we have to add around 1700 references. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:58, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Olshevsky is not just some hobbyist; he's a notable scientist who's did much to revise the taxonomy of dinosaurs, such as his 1991 work "Revision of the Parainfraclass Archosauria", so he's definitely a reliable source. However, @Jens Lallensack:, his website has mysteriously not updated since January 13, 2021 (after adding Shri devi), so I guess we should cite all dinosaurs from Dzharatitanis onwards? In any case, our list is not identical to Olshevsky's; the latter includes Omnivoropteryx and Ixalerpeton, as it has a wider scope that ours.Atlantis536 (talk) 02:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks; if Olshevsky's list is indeed no longer updated, we have to do something about it of course. If we make sure that all our names before 2021 also appear in Olshevsky's list (which I think is the case), and henceforth cite every new name individually, this should also solve @PresN: concern about implicitly citing the list? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess so. But then we have to solve the problem about where the once-dinosaurs would go, as it seems like the nominator really, really, really wants them gone. Atlantis536 (talk) 10:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We need consensus in order to make such a far-reaching change. In any case, I think we only have the choice between 1) keeping all names (status quo) and 2) remove all invalid names. I don't see how it could be justifiable to remove some invalid names (those that have been classified as non-dinosaurs since) but not other invalid names (junior synonyms, nomina nuda etc.). One more thought: The status quo list criteria are, at least, based on an external source. WP:Lists in Wikipedia reads Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. Now I wonder: If we go with "valid names only", what would our definition of "valid name" be, and what source do we use to back this up? The nominator suggested that we should "err on the side of caution", meaning that we should keep the names unless there is an unambiguous consensus that they are invalid. But again, which source do we cite for this definition of "valid name"? In many cases, we would need to rely on primary sources here: We would need to judge by ourselves if there is consensus amongst recent papers that a particular name is valid or invalid. This is a clear step away from what a featured list should be. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh, I guess we should keep the list as is. My personal definition for "valid name" is "genera with their own (non-redirect) Wikipedia pages with their taxonomy templates set to within Dinosauria", which falls into WP:Circular referencing and WP:OR. Any external source, imo, rarely touches on nomina dubia etc., and there could be synonymies that become consensus amongst scientists before being accepted here (Stygimoloch, Dracorex and Nanotyrannus come to mind). And there's also all the problems with removing or relocating the invalid taxa listed above and at the talk page. I think the list should stay. Atlantis536 (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to table-ifying the list: I did a quick test for converting it via search and replace regexs ([3]), just took a few minutes. Let me know if y'all'd like me to do that to the whole list or whatever you decide. --Pres N 14:21, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, good to know that stuff like this can be done so quickly! I would combine the "status" and "notes" fields (because, e.g., a plant or crocodile in this list can still be "valid" even though it is not a dinosaur). I also think that having the names left-aligned (rather than centred) could make it easier to read. I don't have a clear preference regarding the list style personally, though I like the bulleted list due to its simplicity; let's see what others think. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SlvrHwk: Thanks for adding inline citations to the list. But please wait with adding citations to taxa described before 2021 before we have reached a consensus here. I see that the nominator added two "citation needed" templates to the article. But I think they didn't understand that inline citations are not required when the sourcing is made clear by other means, which is the case here: Names are all sourced to Olshevsky's list, and as stated above, this becomes clear enough. I think we have some consensus that taxa described in 2021 do need an extra citation, since Olshevsky's list hasn't been updated. I'm not against adding the respective first descriptions to all names, but this would mean we need to add around 1700 different references in total – I'm not sure if this is even possible technically, and if it would increase page size beyond of what is acceptable. We really need to get consensus on such things first. For this reason, I am really unhappy about the nominator adding these templates, causing this confusion! I propose to at least remove the main template for the time being; the section template I will try to action an asap. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 07:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry! I totally got a little too excited there. I honestly didn't know this page existed... I'll remove those edits now. -SlvrHwk (talk) 15:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! We do need help with adding citations to the 2021 taxa, though, if you have some time available! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Jens Lallensack: Olshevsky updated his list on May 23rd, so I've removed most of the citations. I did leave notes on the talk page and the edit summary that the citation exists as a sentence instead of a footnote. Atlantis536 (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I don't see why this is even necessary, there is currently already a talk page discussion about how to improve the list. Nominating for removal should be a last resort, but here it has ben done prematurely, without any consensus having been reached. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not just what was talked about in the talk page about the bizarre scope (which was going in circles and needed more eyes), but there are severe sourcing issues that alone would bring this up for removal. It's my hope that the page is not removed but this is used to improve the article so that it is well sourced and similar in quality to other featured lists like List of felids. It is nowhere near that and shows its age having been nominated in 2006. Missing all inline citations is critical. Mattximus (talk) 17:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But you did not even mention the citation issue on the talk page. Doing major rework of a list of 1700 entries, should such be required, is not something we are likely to handle within the tight time constraints of this nomination. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that, even less so than FAR, FLRCs do not have a tight time line- even ones getting little attention can stay open for months, so as long as this list is being worked on there no need to worry about it being delisted. --Pres N 02:19, 12 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I think the above suggestion of cordoning off invalid names in their own section is completely untenable due to the fluid nature of this list and fact that some cases are disputed. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More people are commenting in the talk page wondering what plants and mammals are doing on this list of dinosaurs. This is a constant issue, it comes up every now and then and has for years... and a few people seem bizarrely fixated on keeping a plant in a list of dinosaurs, despite the confusion this is obviously creating. I give up. Mattximus (talk) 17:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I can't follow. The comment you are referring to is "They're still keeping Libycosaurus, an anthracothere mammal, so, why not a plant, too?". If anything, the author seems to suggest we should keep the plant. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sarcastic to me but I was referring to the comment right above that one. Mattximus (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a conclusion on having subsections to this list? The first section could be dinosaurs, the second could be crocodiles, the third invalid names (plants)... etc? This is a compromise because it will at least contain a list of dinosaurs, but also still contain the plants/crocodiles that some users inexplicably want on this page. Would this work? Mattximus (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

First, may I kindly ask you to stop these subliminal accusations like "few people seem to control this page page" [4] and "some users inexplicably want on this page". I am just unwilling to continue this discussion if this is not getting better, because it is just not fun. It also does absolutely not reflect reality, since nobody on this FLRC, except for you, wants to have the non-dinosaurs removed. Regarding your suggestion: I personally see more disadvantages than benefits in this. It would require a bit of WP:OR from our side to separate valid from invalid, and some famous names that users might looking for would be moved to the other list; so a user would need to check both to find them. I'm not totally sure what the advantage of your suggestion would be. If you are simply concerned with confused readers (those that don't read the lead), we could also solve it by just making the entries a bit clearer (e.g., "subsequently found to be a piece of petrified wood" instead of just "a piece of petrified wood"), would that help? --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, I won't participate anymore. But know it's not just me who is confused about plants and crocodiles being in a list of dinosaurs, it's regular occurrence on the talk page and has been for years. Which means many others that don't bother to post are confused too. It's just so bizarre that the list of dinosaurs has crocodiles on it... the reliance on a single source (that looks like a sketchy website) for a "master list" and not any academic source is also worrying. This should never have passed featured list, and would not today for being beyond the scope of the title alone. Mattximus (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As argued above, I do think we would violate WP:LISTCRIT, which states that selection criteria need to be backed up with reliable sources. As discussed above, we would need or own definition of what a "valid genus" is, which therefore appears to be a no-go to start with. A reference supporting the status of the "sketchy website" as a reliable source has already been added. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jens Lallensack: I do think that changing the wording to be e.g. "subsequently found to be a piece of petrified wood" would be helpful to readers (especially those who skimmed the lead)- there's plenty of horizontal space so it wouldn't be too wordy. --Pres N 20:56, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I went ahead and added those explanations throughout. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 21:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and close this- after several months, there's no consensus to delist, discussion has dried up, and changes have been made to adjust for the potential confusion of genera that are no longer accepted as dinosaurs. I do think that this list could be further improved, but this process is not currently working towards any changes or consensus to delist. --Pres N 18:37, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.