Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology/Palaeontology collaboration

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Palaeontology collaboration is a coordinated effort to improve Wikipedia's palaeontology-related content. All Wikipedians, regardless of their level of expertise on the subject, are welcome to contribute. Contributors are not required to have prior expertise in article writing, nor detailed knowledge about the formal requirements a high-class article has to fulfill. Aside from the main benefit of creating better dinosaur articles on Wikipedia, this initiative will hopefully a) Attract new editors to work on the Project; b) Improve the writing skills of existing editors; and c) Demonstrate the value of collaboration on Wikipedia. The goal of each individual collaboration is to bring the nominee to Good Article, and, ideally, to Featured Article status.

It was originally activated in June 2019, as a complement to the long-running Dinosaur collaboration, and with the main objective to introduce less experienced editors into article writing.

Nomination procedure[edit]

Any user may nominate an article to be collaborated upon. Nominees should:

  • Be about any palaeontology-related topic.
  • Need a significant amount of work in terms of content, organization, prose, etc.
  • Not be in any edit conflict or be under protection.

If you would like to nominate an article, please add it at the bottom of the list of nominees along with a short note describing why you think it should be chosen.

For Nominators:
Please use the following code when nominating an article.

===[[ARTICLE NAME]]===
''Nominated [[MONTH DAY]], [[YEAR]];''


  1. (sign with four tildes)


  • (put your reason for nomination, sign again)


For Voters:
Please use the following code when voting to support an article.



Please list nominees below using the code laid out in the above section. Newer nominees should be placed on the bottom of the list. Feel free to vote for as many nominees as you wish, but only once per nomination. Please only vote to indicate support, do not vote in the negative. If you like, add a comment in the comment's section under nomination, or on the collaboration talk page. Articles will remain on the list for three "bites" of the collaboration cherry, after which time they will be archived. For the current collaboration, see the template at the top of the page.

The next Palaeontology collaboration will be chosen on June 15

Sanajeh (4 votes)[edit]

Nominated 7 June, 2019;


  1. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. --FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. --Audrey.m.horn (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. --Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • An undeniably cool fossil. We do not have a fossil snake GA yet, and for this one free image material is available. It would also be a very easy article to work with, and thus especially suitable for newbies and anyone without prior expertise in high-level article writing. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yeah, gotta agree with this one, having been named almost ten years ago, it is also "long" enough time for stability and more sources to have popped up. And there are tonnes of images left in the paper to add if needed. FunkMonk (talk) 13:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Agreed, for the reasons already provided. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cretaceous (6 votes)[edit]

Nominated July 24, 2020;


  1. -- Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. Support - a good idea, I might be more on the reviewing end for this one, as I'm not too well-versed in geology and very broad subjects. FunkMonk (talk) 08:48, 30 July 2020 (UTC)+Reply[reply]
  3. Support - seems like a good idea. the time periods should all be GA and FA. i support this. also per nom Clone commando sev (talk) 03:13, 5 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. Definitely worth it. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. Agreed, the Paleocene article was a great success and it would be amazing if the rest of the time period articles could reach that level of quality. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  6. Support I've spent a long time getting the Jurassic up to standard, it'd be nice to get the most viewed geologic period, (see [1]) up there as well, but the fact that so much happens in the Cretaceous makes the whole thing daunting. Hemiauchenia (talk) 05:08, 16 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comments: Let's try getting all the time periods up to FA standard as we now have a template in paleocene. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Kansaignathus (1 vote)[edit]

Nominated June 26, 2021;


  1. FORMALDUDE (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • Article is a stub and greatly needs improvement. —FORMALDUDE (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think this one may be named too recently and have too little literature to really warrant a broader collaboration. Could easily be a project for a single editor. FunkMonk (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Quetzalcoatlus (4 votes)[edit]

Nominated December 10, 2021;


  1. --LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  2. --Hiroizmeh (talk) 03:09, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  3. --FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  4. --Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  5. --Asparagusus


  • One of the most important and famous pterosaur taxa and just had an enormous wealth of new information drop the other day in the form of the Memoir/Monograph. Likely an overwhelming prospect for any single editor to tackle. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:31, 10 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I agree this is important to get up to snuff, but I can't spearhead such an effort due to other commitments, though I could contribute with a section or two. FunkMonk (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don't know how much open access material is provided on this genus, but I agree completely with it being a collab nominee. Fascinating from both a scientific and popular perspective, and finally given the comprehensive description it deserves. Fanboyphilosopher (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Articles for promotion and maintenance[edit]

If you think an article is good enough to be a Featured Article Candidate, feel free to nominate it. However, it is recommended that you have the article peer reviewed first. Peer reviewed articles are generally more polished and are often more likely to receive votes of support on the FAC page. If you would like to discuss a particular article before sending it to be reviewed, bring it up on the talk page of the article in question, of this page, or the WikiProject Palaeontology talk page. If you do send an article for peer review or to the FAC page, please let us know by adding it to the appropriate list below so that we can support it!

In terms of criteria consider proximity to FAC candicacy in terms of work required + personal preference + global importance WRT other dinos or FA list and wikipedia in general, in whatever ratios you wish...

Today's featured articles

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Featured article candidates

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Articles to be merged

Articles to be split

Articles for creation

Potential future nominations[edit]

  • Broomistega (temnospondyl)
  • Pannoniasaurus (mosasaur)
  • Eoplesiosaurus (plesiosaur)
  • Cryonectes (plesiosaur) - all material figured in free images, limited literature that is almost entirely available
  • Polonosuchus (archosaur)
  • Smok (archosaur) - plenty of free images, and has a pretty interesting literature already in spite of being recently named
  • Alanqa (pterosaur) - published in PLoS, has a limited literature
  • Dromaeosaurus (theropod) - known from limited material, important for being the first recognised dromaeosaur
  • Argyrosaurus (sauropod)
  • Cryptovenator (sphenacodont)
  • Andrewsarchus (mammal) - very famous, only one skull known, therefore limited literature
  • Neuquensaurus (sauropod) - one of the oldest described titanosaurs with good literature