Talk:List of informally named dinosaurs

Unavailable?
What is meant by this? I think we could have a more precise title. Anyhow, good initiative! FunkMonk (talk) 01:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm a bit confused by the title. Would "invalid" not be a simpler way to state it?  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 01:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess what is meant is unavailable name, but that is still a bit opaque. FunkMonk (talk) 01:22, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I used the ICZN term unavailable, so I guess that could be explained in the article. Basically an invalid nomen nudum is "unavailable", whereas nomen dubiumand nomen oblitum are also invalid, but are "available". Basically the shortest wording I could find on a nomen nudum or equivalent that excludes nomen dubium. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If we use the term "informally named", we could also add stuff like Lori, the archbishop, and the "Shake and Bake theropod", as well as those placed under specimen numbers or made up names like "giant Patagonians titanosaur" we had once. If we call it "list of unnamed dinosaur taxa", like the category, we could maybe even add those pesky species without genera. FunkMonk (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess unnamed works well, now to move the article hahaha. Once one more person comments. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:04, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * People might flinch at the term "unnamed" when the dinosaurs listed do have "names". So perhaps "scientifically unnamed"? FunkMonk (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah alright this kindof brings around why I used "unavailable" originally, because its the most concise wording for what I thought we would be having. We could try "List of informally named dinosaurs" which could also be interpreted as nicknames etc? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:19, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Unavailable" would exclude nicknames, so yeah, informally named could be good, but then it doesn't seem to cover something like the "unnamed Patagonian titanosaur" (former article title for Patagotitan) or "North Carolina dromaeosaur", whose name seems to be made up for the article. FunkMonk (talk) 15:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would be in support of using "List of informally named dinosaurs". I would further propose that "List of unnamed dinosaurs" redirect here, since it's technically accurate but just too misleading to be the primary title. "List of dinosaur nomina nuda" would also be a redirect. Would anyone object to either of these?
 * Redirects are fine. But be prepared for a big task of retargeting the redirects for all the articles that have so far been merged here once the article is moved. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)


 * If no one objects, I/someone can probably move this article to List of informally named dinosaur genera within the day. FunkMonk (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are we limiting the list to genera? If the wording is changed to List of informally named dinosaurs then we can also include informally named specimens and species, not simply genera. The redirects suggested above seem fine. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Also, I think we should use the more well known names like "Lori" rather than specimen numbers, where that article is placed now. Do we also place garbage like Amphicoelias "brontodiplodocus" here? FunkMonk (talk) 17:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Well thats certainly a nomen nudum so I'd say yes, unless we'd rather discuss it on Diplodocidae (since its far too broad for just Amphicoelias). IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 18:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Stuff to add
Some informally named genera have already been redirected to family articles, but it would probably be better to redirect them and merge them here. It will be a mess to find them, but some could be located through the contributions of, who redirected a bunch of them. It seems there are also some informally named genera that never got a Wikipedia article, such as Wulatesaurus, Saltillomimus, and Sabinosaurio, what should we do with them? There is also Saltriosaurus, which has grown sizeable, though most of it seems to be WP:original synthesis, using sources that don't even mention it. FunkMonk (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The "Coming Attractions in Dinosauria?" post at the Equatorial Minnesota blog also gives a good overview of what could be added: Also see the "Where are they now" series of posts: FunkMonk (talk) 04:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been going through the list of dinosaur genera and adding them in sections here even if there is no content. Over time I will manage to add in or verify the information. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Good idea, some of the articles that have already been redirected to family articles can have their info rescued by looking at their earlier revisions. Perhaps when this list is completed, the "official" list of dinosaurs might not need to list invalid names anymore... FunkMonk (talk) 05:10, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the list now and every taxon I could find I added, except for Saltriosaurus because of how large that article is. Not sure how to handle it. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 05:29, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It should be cut down. The paleoecology section isn't needed here (I copied it to the formation's article), the intro duplicates the article body, and much of the rest seems to be synthesis, some unsourced entirely. FunkMonk (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirected Saltriosaurus. This titanosaur mount is apparently based on "Xinghesaurus", an informal name I can't find any reliable references to, only blogs it seems. But it would seem to fit the criteria for inclusion here? Same goes for stuff like "Ronaldoraptor" and the "Zuni coelurosaur". FunkMonk (talk) 23:12, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Xinghesaurus does appear in the theropod database (with no entry, but with a place on the cladogram) and Olshevsky's list (but not in a single DML post, surprisingly), so I gave it a really short entry as an example of what inclusion of such taxa would look like. Should we implement taxa like this? Also, could someone check my work on the two references? I'm not entirely sure I did those right, I'm not used to citing websites.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 00:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, if nothing more than a sentence or short paragraph can be cobbled together, that shoudl be fine, as this is just a "list" anyway. FunkMonk (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * And this list in Spanish Wikipedia can serve? They are only mentioned, but I can see several names there that are not on this list. Super   Ψ   Dro  09:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * If sources of some kind can be found, of course. FunkMonk (talk) 11:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Looking briefly at that Spanish list, at least some of the names on it not found here are because of a different scope. Ugrosaurus, for example, is a validly coined junior subjective synonym of Triceratops, albeit a very obscure one (from the eighties no less, they really had no excuse on naming this one). Rejected name Tetragonosaurus and nomen oblitum Tylosteus are also there.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 15:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Just found out "Wulatesaurus" I mentioned above was actually named Bannykus the same year (we had a photo with the informal name since 2012). Could be the case with others on the list, it is very hard to keep track, I only knew due to this Twitter post:. On the other hand, I added "Sabinosaurus" to this list, since it hasn't been considered Kritosaurus for some years now. FunkMonk (talk) 03:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Now that the list has been shrinking recently, I wonder if we should add the Zamyn Khondt oviraptorid? After all, we don't know whether it'll just become a species of Citipati, or a new genus. FunkMonk (talk) 17:34, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I see no downside to adding it right now. I'm not the most up to date on the informal names but theres a chance it will be a while before it is described. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 18:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Now added Zamyn Khondt oviraptorid and "Gallimimus mongoliensis" for good measure. Should we finally add "Amphicoelias brontodiplodocus"? Or does it correspond to known taxa? Or do we even know yet? FunkMonk (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Some of the specimens ("einstein" for example) were in Tschopp ea 2015 where it was placed within B. parvus or something but really all the material is undescribed including the "holotype" so I think it is a nomen nudum. I would have to recheck the original paper to verify whether the "holotype" was placed anywhere or not. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 01:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)


 * A few years on, and I gotta say I think this is one of the most exciting articles around, it's always interesting to see when someone edits it, whether it means a new genus has been described, or if another forgotten name has been pulled out from obscurity... FunkMonk (talk) 12:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Shri was a nice surprise just earlier this year... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 18:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of unavailable dinosaur genera
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of unavailable dinosaur genera's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "norellmakovicky1999": From Velociraptor:  From Deinonychus:  From Dromaeosauridae:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 05:09, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Lists of unavailable genera
One question, will this kind of list only apply to dinosaurs or also to all other prehistoric organisms? Super  Ψ   Dro  13:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * To answer your question, Cinizasaurus and Cryptoraptor were placed outside Dinosauria by Nesbitt et al. (2007) due to their lack of dinosaurian characters, so they should not be in this article, just mentioned in Archosauriformes and Archosauria respectively. You mistakenly placed "Unicerosaurus" in this article, when in fact the specimen informally dubbed "Unicerosaurus" is a specimen of the fish Xiphactinus and should be mentioned in that article. "Stereosaurus" has never been considered dinosaurian in any work listed on Google, so shouldn't be on the list.

References:
 * Nesbitt, Sterling J.; Irmis, Randall B.; Parker, William G. (2007). "A critical re-evaluation of the Late Triassic dinosaur taxa of North America". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. 5 (2): 209–243. doi:10.1017/S1477201907002040.Extrapolaris (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian
 * As for the kind of list, I don't think anyone is planning to make one for other groups. But most other groups don't have this many articles for invalid names either. FunkMonk (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cinizasaurus and Cryptoraptor were once in Dinosauria, so I followed the list of dinosaur genera and included past referrals. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 15:13, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Seems "Unicerosaurus" should be merged into Xiphactinus then? Because we won't cover names here which have been concluded to be the same as specific genera, as far as I understand. FunkMonk (talk)
 * I was assuming we would be covering those, with them not being added yet since they hadn't had articles before.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 16:28, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I guess it would be best to remove Unicerosaurus, I did not mean to have this list including any taxa that have been certainly referred or named to something valid, we could always add a single-sentence summary and a Main article for those sections if we do keep them? IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:16, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Could an equal list be made for the pterosaurs? I counted in total 7 nomen nudum in their list. Super   Ψ   Dro  17:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not too sure, maybe bring it up at WP:PALEO and see if one can be made for other sauropsids, because I would presume Suchia has plenty as well, but probably not as many as Dinosauria. IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 17:31, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mention at genera list
I added this article to the "See also" section of List of dinosaur genera, but should it also be mentioned somewhere in the beginning of the article, before the list itself? Presumably at the end of the "Scope and terminology" section.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 16:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I also wonder if we should remove informal names form the main article once they are all covered here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I would keep them in, since that's supposed to be a record of every dinosaur name. Taking these out because they're on another list too (one with a different purpose) seems to defeat the point. We should probably de-link them all if we add a link to this at the start, though.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 16:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Scope
Thanks guys for putting this up, this is impressive – I didn't know there are so many of these informal names. I have however some questions about the scope of the list. The current title is "List of informally named dinosaurs". However, the list includes descriptive names (e.g., EK troodontid), and I would argue that such dinosaurs are not named (i.e., "unavailable" according to the definitions of the ICZN) at all. It also seems to include nicknames given for specimens (e.g., "Lori"). This does not necessarily mean that the specimen nickname is meant to apply to the new species; a second specimen of the new species might get a separate nickname. So I see two options: We could keep the lemma as is, and exclude specimen names and descriptive terms alltogether. Or we rename it "List of unnamed and informally namend dinosaurs". If we choose the latter, however, I think it should also include new species which are just known by the specimen numbers of their main fossil (anyway, the presence of a nickname such as "Lori" or a descriptive term such as "EK troodontid" does seem to be a poor criterion for inclusion to me, because it has nothing to do with its actual relevance or importance). These are just very quick, instant thoughts. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Literally, names like "Lori" and "archbishop" are "informal" names, in the common sense of the word (see also Category:Informal personal names), though not in the taxonomic sense (if I understand the objection correctly). But I feel it is good to be inclusive here, just so we can catch as much as possible... FunkMonk (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hm, but still, I find the title confusing. It somehow suggests that "naming" is used in the biological sense, particularly since the introduction is talking about unavailable names. The title furthermore seems quite restricting, implying that it is dealing with informal names of potential taxa only, not with names for individual specimens (the potential new genus the specimen "Lori" might belong to has no name if I understood correctly). I agree we should include specimen names though, and I can't really think of a better title … maybe "List of not formally named dinosaurs" (= every dinosaur that is without a formal name)? Somehow convoluted wording though. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I feel the current title perfectly describes what you're looking for.  Luso titan  (Talk | Contributions) 21:32, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I had a suggestion earlier of "list of scientifically unnamed dinosaurs", which might be more precise? FunkMonk (talk) 21:51, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I think this is better, although "scientifically unnamed" looks a bit constructed. As an alternative, maybe "List of invalid and unnamed dinosaurs", by stating in the lead that "invalid" refers to "objectively invalid" names only. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Can't say I have strong feelings about this, but at least the current title is concise. Maybe more people will chime in. FunkMonk (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * True, just leave it as is until somebody comes up with a better idea. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:48, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

"Abdallahasaurus" et al.
The various names from Maier (2003) were never intended as serious taxonomic names, but as informal field names for various specimens, and shouldn't be presented as potential names. Honestly, at most they only ought to be mentioned on the pages of the actual dinosaurs they represent. For reference, they include:

Giraffatitan:
 * "Abdallahsaurus"
 * "Blancocerosaurus"
 * "Ligomasaurus"
 * "Mtapaiasaurus"
 * "Salimosaurus"
 * "Wangonisaurus"

Dicraeosaurus:
 * "Issasaurus"
 * "Mtotosaurus"
 * "Nyorosaurus"
 * "Selimanosaurus"

Tornieria:
 * "Mohammadisaurus"

Janenschia:
 * "Nteregosaurus"

J. Spencer (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure why they were resurrected here, but yeah, they should just be redirected then. Seems like a pretty baffling idea to give these names to specimens which already have numbers... FunkMonk (talk) 09:50, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems only "Abdallahsaurus" and "Blancocerosaurus" had entries here, now redirected. FunkMonk (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2019 (UTC)


 * On a related note, it seems many of Malkani's dubious Pakistani titanosaurs have been synonymised (by himself): Not sure how to deal with it. FunkMonk (talk) 06:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

"Zunityrannus" probably named Suskityrannus
Newly described by Nesbitt et al: 219.70.188.141 (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Incorrect DOI, and I can't find any scientific article using the term. More details please? -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Bad DOI? Try a direct link: 219.70.188.141 (talk) 16:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems correct, and the Suskityrannus article has already been created. FunkMonk (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yup, article is up now. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:38, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sidormimus holotype upon discovery.jpg

Regarding Alamotyrannus
So here is some info on Alamotyrannus. I emailed some of the people involved with the issue of Alamotyrannus, apparently it is invalid. They published it on mistake (similar to Airakoraptor). They re naming new dinosaur (not going to name the group, but its pretty big) genera from the formation, but it will be named something different. I may receive a pdf once the paper is out!--Bubblesorg (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Bakesaurus is Bactrosaurus?
The entry of Bakesaurus says: ""Bakesaurus" is an informal name for an ornithopod dinosaur from the Late Cretaceous of China. It is based on a maxilla assigned to Bactrosaurus in 2001.[20] The nomen nudum was created and pictured a Chinese-language book by Zhou (2005).[21]". It would appear it should the just redirect to Bactrosaurus, as it doesn't seem to have been intended as a new taxon name? FunkMonk (talk) 02:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've merged it into Bactrosaurus. I'll also merge Wyomingraptor into Allosaurtus. FunkMonk (talk) 12:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of informally named dinosaurs
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of informally named dinosaurs's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "APM2013": From Cerro del Pueblo Formation:  From Saurolophinae:  From Acristavus: Prieto-Márquez, A. (2013). "Skeletal morphology of Kritosaurus navajovius (Dinosauria:Hadrosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of the North American south-west, with an evaluation of the phylogenetic systematics and biogeography of Kritosaurini". Journal of Systematic Palaeontology. in press. doi:10.1080/14772019.2013.77041 From Hadrosaurus: </li> <li>From Kritosaurus: Prieto-Márquez, A. (2013). "Skeletal morphology of Kritosaurus navajovius (Dinosauria:Hadrosauridae) from the Late Cretaceous of the North American south-west, with an evaluation of the phylogenetic systematics and biogeography of Kritosaurini." Journal of Systematic Palaeontology, (advance online publication) </li> </ul>

Reference named "JIKetal06":<ul> <li>From Kritosaurus: </li> <li>From Naashoibitosaurus: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 22:07, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Vectaerovenator
Since Vectaerovenator redirects here, would it not make sense to make a description for the dinosaur in this article? The current situation is that the redirect has no information on the subject it's redirecting towards, which is not very helpful. --Mjmannella (talk) 11:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I added it about an hour and a half ago, but another editor kept completely removing it. Hopefully their concerns have been quelled by some of my explanations. I imagine the paper naming and describing Vectaerovenator will be published very soon and we can return it to its own article. But until then, it hasn't been formally named and thus surely belongs here? I may be mistaken though and would appreciate any clarification otherwise.
 * It would have been wiser to not act in haste in creating the article in the first place, as waiting until it was formally published would've saved us this confusion, but oh well.Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 11:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , first, as an "informally named dinosaur", once it is formally named, it won't belong here. Second, as a potential candidate for inclusion here in the mean time, the only source is primary and affiliated, so fails Wikipedia's inclusion criteria for lists. This article has along history of people adding joke names that got used once, so we're a bit firmer on sourcing here than we used to be. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There is no longer only a single source. Is there another issue with it?Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 11:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, as you know. It is not an informal name. It is a proposed formal name. It does not belong here. Guy (help! - typo?) 13:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It'll probably be published in a mattr of days (if not hours), so it's maybe pointless to nominate it for deletion, it could well be published before the discussion is even over. FunkMonk (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * . If it is a name, but it has not been formally published, then it is not a formal name. If it is not a formal name, then it is an informal name. That is not controversial. A number of once informal names have since become formal. The article specifically cites that names used in press but not formally published are welcome on this list. Yes, it is unusual that the press is reporting on a study that has not been published yet, but appears due to be published soon. However, the University of Southampton itself identifies that the taxon has been named in an as-of-yet unpublished manuscript (‘A highly pneumatic ‘mid Cretaceous’ theropod from the British Lower Greensand’), making it currently a nomen manuscriptum (the second bullet point criteria in the lede). It also meets the third bullet point criteria as listed in the article, and your only argument against that rests on a subjective sense that this not-formal name does not meet the criteria for 'nickname' or 'descriptive name'. However, since neither term has a particularly specific definition that we can point to, your opposition is not robust there. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 14:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , this list is for nicknames and other informal names. It is not for formal names that have yet to be published. Remove it. Now. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It needs to stay, for reasons given above and at the redirect deletion discussion. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * "Vectaerovenator" is not a formal name yet to be published. It is a currently informal name that is yet to be published and made formal. There is now support for keeping Vectaerovenator in this list from an experienced contributor to WikiProject Dinosaurs. Your increasingly hostile tone is unfortunate as it not conductive to discussion. Let's try to keep things civilised. This paper will probably be published very soon and then this discussion will be largely irrelevant anyway. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , you are POV-pushing, capitalising on first-mover advantage for 3RR. The rule is WP:BRD, instead, you kept reverting until the limit was hit. This is not an "Informal name". It's a proposed formal; name and you are just desperate to include it in Wikipedia before the sourcing is ready. That is just wrong. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:19, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , as you must have clearly seen upon putting the redirect up for discussion, every one of the people who voted, all of whom are active and experienced contributors to palaeoarticles on Wikipedia, disagrees with you. Why is your opinion to be shown preference over the consensus? I was not exploiting anything, I was acting in good faith and I take great pride in helping to improve articles. Quite simply, it is very obvious that a name is not formal until it is published. It therefore uncontroversially belongs in the informal names list. Your reversions were destructive. Now please stop using aggressive language with me. It is uncomfortable to see this attitude from an admin. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think an article was created WP:TOOSOON, and people mad keen to include this Great New Thing despite WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NOTNEWS are desperate to crowbar it in anywhere they can using any shitty argument that seems halfway plausible in a bad light if you squint. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:51, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * You are suggesting we are using "shitty arguments", are "mad keen to include this", and "desperate to crowbar"? Sorry, but end of discussion from my side now. Also consider WP:Snowball. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

I support the redirect. I don't support but also won't oppose the text in the article, because all of it will almost certainly need to be thrown out for the actual article based on the paper. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , see WP:TOOSOON. And this is: too soon. You can't end-ruin around the fact that something has not been published by adding WP:CRYSTAL material to an article that's designed for an entirely different purpose. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , why is it too soon? The discovery was reported on by a vast number of news organisations including BBC News, a reliable source. Also, nothing in the entry for Vectaerovenator is speculation on my part; it is all from the cited sources. What specific parts do you believe are speculation? You again imply that you oppose including information about this animal because the paper describing it has not been published, but you seem not to understand that so many other entries in the list have never been published in the scientific literature either. That's true of all nomina manuscripta. Zigongosaurus1138 (talk) 00:30, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Did I support the inclusion of the text in the article? I did not. I am also not going to remove it because it will be gone in no more than a week from now. Please read what I say before blowing up at me. I don't totally agree that it falls under the nomen manuscriptum category either but you're making it very hard to agree with you. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 04:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * , yes, it will be gone, because4 it never belonged in the first place. Because it's not an informal name (e.g. a nickname), it's a proposed formal name where the paper hasn't yet been published. This is not hard. Guy (help! - typo?) 23:53, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * as explained multiple times, something like a "proposed formal name" simply does not exist. If such a concept would exist, then most of the entries in this article might fall into this category. This is not hard either. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 06:55, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

"Eiggosaurus"
Just fyi that the result of this find has been formally published and is open access for the time being, I have added it to the table of the Valtos Sandstone Formation article, where it belongs. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like the right move. No good reason to put a press-invented name in this article... Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Also fellow editor is lead author of the paper, I think congratulations are in order. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I did not know that she is an editor here. Congrats. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 00:00, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * It's still an informal name, though? We have stuff like gadolosaurus here too, which is just a mistransliteration of "hadrosaur" from an image caption, so it would seem this one fits too? FunkMonk (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The name was coined by the Daily Mail, per WP:DAILYMAIL1 RfC in 2017 the Daily Mail is considered a deprecated source that "its use as a reference is to be generally prohibited" and can't be used for establishing notability.  can probably elaborate better than I can on this. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, if it's only one source, then it's of course iffy, so we'd just have to wait and see if the usage spreads. Again, the same could be said about Gadolosaurus originally, but it somehow seems to have spread to various lists. FunkMonk (talk) 00:20, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If other sources start using the term, than I think inclusion is warranted, otherwise the single use in an article headline as a pun isn't substantial enough. There is an ongoing discussion at the village pump about the use of headlines, see Village_pump_(policy). Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
 * yeah, I've cleared out some DM made-up terms from articles previously. No better as a science source than it is as a medical source. Not usable as a source for terms it made up, unless and until RSes use them, then the RSes can be used, basically - David Gerard (talk) 00:43, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

What is "Yuenmeuraptor"?
By chance I came across this image that appears to show Chinese metriacanthosaurs, and it has something called "Yuenmeuraptor". The name is also brought up here, where a skeleton mount is also shown, and the alternate spelling "Yuanmouraptor" is listed. There is also this life restoration: A blog post with more photos: It would appear to fit the criteria for inclusion here, though I can't find good sources for it, but maybe someone else can? FunkMonk (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * From my search it seems that Yuenmeuraptor is equivalent to the very similarly-spelled Yuanmouraptor, also an informal name for a carnosaur . IJReid { {T - C - D - R} } 16:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Nice, I was wondering whether Mickey Mortimer would have an entry for it. But unsure if it is sufficient as a source here. FunkMonk (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looks like a redirect has already been created, but with no section to link to. I've now added it and Skaladromeus. FunkMonk (talk) 18:57, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Pakisaurus
Pakisaurus as the article says, was validly published. So why is it still here?--Bubblesorg (talk) 03:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all of Malkani's papers have been ignored by other paleontologists, which is a good sign that they aren't considered valid descriptions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 03:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Nomen ex dissertationae separate?
Names that are Nomen ex dissertationae were recently made a separate subsection of the list. But why should they be? Doesn't it make much more sense (and easier to navigate) to just keep the entire list alphabetical? Otherwise, other kinds of informal names would need separate subsections too, which I don't think is very helpful either. FunkMonk (talk) 12:05, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure the IP that did it is the guy who signs comments with their name "Vahe Demirjian", given their interest in aircraft (Their original account was indefinitely blocked on Wikipedia for copyvio, per User_talk:68.4.252.105, and they have subsequently engaged in block evasion as an IP). I agree that there are not enough Nomen ex dissertationae to really justify a separate section at the moment, and they should be merged into the original list. Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Their original identity was . Hemiauchenia (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, they do good work generally, but unfortunate with the copyvios... I'll merge the list after today if no one disagrees. FunkMonk (talk) 12:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Alan the Dinosaur
Alan the Dinosaur definitely falls under the criteria of this list and should be merged. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Very much agree. FunkMonk (talk) 23:00, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Howdy. Article creator here, so admittedly biased. I don't disagree that it should be included in this list, but not at the scale of a full merge. I recon that there is sufficient information about it as an object, with it's own biography, to warrant the retention of the page - the info on public display is especially of museological value. Zakhx150 (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This list was made to keep all articles about unnamed dinosaurs in one place to keep track of them, and spin them off to new articles if they ever get published. So they are merged here by principle, even longer articles have been merged. FunkMonk (talk) 12:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I've merged Alan the Dinosaur Titanovenator and Moroccoraptor.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Lopasaurus.png

New paper from M. Sadiq Malkani
Pakistani paleontologist M. Sadiq Malkani, who for years has informally used several names for Pakistani fossil reptiles, has just published a new paper on them: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353701905_Formal_description_of_poripuchian_titanosaurs_theropods_mesoeucrocodiles_pterosaur_snake_and_bird_from_the_latest_Maastrichtian_Vitakri_Formation_of_Pakistan Can the dinosaurs Brohisaurus, Gspsaurus, Saraikimasoom, Pakisaurus, Sulaimanisaurus, Khetranisaurus, Vitakrisaurus and Vitakridrinda, the crocodiles Pabwehshi, Induszalim, Sulaimanisuchus and Mithasaraikistan, the pterosaur Saraikisaurus, the snake Wadanaang, and the bird Wasaibpanchi be considered formally published names now? Pinging, whose (now-deleted) DeviantArt post alerted the paleontology community to their informal status. Atlantis536 (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dinosaurs. Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP), the publisher of Open Journal of Geology is a predatory publisher that does not excercise adequate peer review, making the articles effectively self published. Cabells' Predatory Reports describes SCIRP as a "well-known predatory publisher" .There's no reason to think these names will be any less ignored by mainstream paleontologists than they are now. I note that many of the previous papers by Malkani have also been published in this journal. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:39, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Carnoferox believes the taxa are valid, so do you think we remove Malkani's taxa from this page? Atlantis536 (talk) 07:43, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, this Pakisaurus skit might actually make sense again: Was kind of sad to see that page merge for that reason alone haha... FunkMonk (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

When was titanovenator formally published and what name can i find it under?
please tell me because the titanovenator keeps getting deleted from this page. 82.41.151.124 (talk) 19:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think the name "Titanovenator" is something that any paleontologist actually came up with. From researching, the name appears to have originated on the internet forum "Scified.com", per and . The name appears to have orignated in 2013, the same year the abstract was published. I don't think this list should include entries whos names were invented on the internet, that feels very much like WP:FANCRUFT. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The specific abstract the taxon was mentioned in is "Sertich, J., O’Connor, P., Seiffert, E. & Manthi, F. 2013. A giant abelisaurid theropod from the latest Cretaceous of Northern Turkana, Kenya. Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, SVP Program and Abstracts Book, 2013" Which can be found here on page 212. The abstract makes no mention of the name "Titanovenator". The unit is the Lapurr Sandstone. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Theropod Database mentions a presentation by Melissa Boyd, published in 2020, that uses "Titanovenator kenyaensis": https://geologymuseum.rutgers.edu/images/geology_museum/events/Ask_A_Geologist_Events/2020_Events/Presentation_Slides/04-30-Melissa-Boyd-Kenya-Geology-Anthro.pdf


 * But given how most of the taxon illustrations, including the skeleton of "Titanovenator", appear to be grabbed from the first page of Google Images (notice some are credited to dubious sources such as Wikiwand), it's highly likely that Boyd grabbed the name from the Internet as well. Miracusaurs (talk) 05:12, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Sourcing requirements
What are the sourcing requirements for this list? If we are going to exclude names coined in Dinosaurs Facts & Figures, then we should definitely exclude names coined in "Jurassic Park: Unauthorized Jewish Fractals in Philopatry, A Fractal Scaling in Dinosaurology" which can barely be even considered published per Mortimer's post discussing them. I think I can come up with a number of categories of names that can currently be agreed upon:

Names that should be included: Names that should be excluded: Names where their inclusion is uncertain: Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:25, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Names coined in thesis (nomen ex dissterationae)
 * Names that have been used in the text of academic papers in reputable journals, regardless of origin (e.g. Lopasaurus)
 * Names used in books that have been reputable publishers, as to whether these books must be by academics I am unsure about (e.g. Ronaldoraptor, Gadolosaurus)
 * Names that have been published in conference abstracts (e.g. Jindipelta)
 * Names coined in self-published venues by academics like blogs (e.g. The Archbishop, Angloposeidon)
 * Names that were coined in predatory journals by academics (this is almost entirely to cover Malkani)
 * Names coined in preprint or named in press releases prior to intended publication (eg Stegouros, Vectaerovenator).
 * Names coined on internet forums or social media by non-academics (e.g. Titanovenator above)
 * Informal names for taxa that now have scientifically valid names, e.g. Airakoraptor, Ichabodcraniosaurus, "Lori", Zunityrannus
 * Names coined in Self-published sources by non-academics that have received no use in scholarly sources e.g. "Jurassic Park: Unauthorized Jewish Fractals in Philopatry, A Fractal Scaling in Dinosaurology" I don't think the Theropod database counts here for coverage, as they cover the fringiest of the fringe dinosaur names.
 * Names coined in self-published books by academics, e.g. Kayentavenator, which was referred to with quotes as “Kayentavenator elysae” in Ezcurra, 2017, the only paper to have mentioned the taxon.
 * I think for your last category, we can include them if they have been used by secondary sources (such as Mortimer and Ford, whose websites should be reliable per WP:SPS, as they both have peer-reviewed papers to their names). That's how I treated the "Jewish Fractals" names in Duriavenator and Dilophosaurus.FunkMonk (talk) 00:38, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Who is Ford? Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:54, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Tracy Ford, who runs paleofile.com, which is also one of the few palaeontologist authored sources that cover informal names. FunkMonk (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * So does Kristianasaura fall into any of those categories because it was deleted from the page? 82.41.151.124 (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because it apparently hasn't received any coverage in any of the seven categories I have listed in the Names that should be included section, I think it should be exluded for now. As for whether it can included at all, we would need to find the supposed (Anonymous, 2001) source to assess its merit. Hemiauchenia (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Because I'm concerned that this list has picked up a lot of cruft over the years, I'm bringing this topic back up. I think it's a good idea to generally require a secondary source for something to be included on this list, i.e. that a name should have been mentioned in at least one reliable source that is not authored by the person who coined the name in the first place. I am a bit iffy about using sites like Paleofile or the Theropod Database as secondary sources, because they're self-published (and thus we should "exercise caution" in using them, even when they're by a respected expert, per WP:SPS), and moreover their comprehensive scopes mean that their mention of a name does not necessarily imply much in the way of the notability of that name. Ornithopsis (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

White Rock spinosaurid
Seems this would be the right place to add the White Rock spinosaurid, which it is both called in the paper and in a blog post by one of the authors? FunkMonk (talk) 20:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * It's conceivable. A passing note about the "Vectispinus" name might also be warranted. Lythronaxargestes (talk &#124; contribs) 23:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Added a short section, feel free to expand. FunkMonk (talk) 01:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Proposal of split into standalone articles
I think we should get rid of this list and simply write standalone articles for sufficiently notable dinosaurs without formal names. This list, as it currently stands, strikes me as unencyclopedic. Large parts of this list are just a repository for random non-notable specimen nicknames (e.g. "Biconcavoposeidon", "Moshisaurus", "Orahasisaurus"), and some of the inclusions on this list strike me as slightly ethically dubious to include (e.g. "Cryptotyrannus", which only appeared in the literature by accident, and "Ferropictus", which is from a recent dissertation, and as such is likely something the author is hoping to get published). In contrast, other inclusions on the list are arguably notable enough to support a standalone article (e.g. the EK troodontid and "Rutellum") and in some cases, it's debatable whether they're nomina nuda at all (e.g. Pakisaurus and Kunmingosaurus). As brought up by Hemiauchenia previously, what are the inclusion criteria of the list? We've got names from blogs, names from children's books, accidental names, and names that aren't even names at all. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:14, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't find the discussion now (will link when I do), but there was a strong consensus that standalone articles for unnamed taxa was an incredibly bad idea, both ethically and source wise, so this list was the best compromise if we weren't just to delete all the standalone articles. The criteria for sources is a completely different matter, and yes, questionable sources are currently used here. FunkMonk (talk) 08:50, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that this list has only served to facilitate what it was supposed to prevent. We don't need to mention every random nickname that's shown up in a blog post or one of those Facts and Figures books. Several of these taxa without formal names can sustain adequately-sourced standalone articles, and I'm not convinced that the ones that can't deserve to be on Wikipedia. At the very least, Kunmingosaurus should have its own page, as it probably is an available name (see ). Ornithopsis (talk) 12:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, all we can do is wait and see if others agree or not, but considering the history of this page, there seems to be overwhelming support for it. This list also serves an important practical purpose in that we can keep track of these names in one place and split them once a taxon is formally named. FunkMonk (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If that "overwhelming support" materializes, I suppose I won't be able to argue. As far as "keeping track of these names", putting standalone articles in an appropriate category would do that job just as well, and when a taxon is formally named, moving the article to the new name would be at least as easy as splitting it out of the list, and preserve page history more clearly. Ornithopsis (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This list is important. There is no way that this article should be deleted for those reasons, as this list seems notable enough to have its own page. Magnatyrannus (talk &#124; contribs) 00:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTCRITERIA is quite clear that lists with excessively vague criteria or overly inclusive scopes should be avoided. I would consider this list to be both. Ornithopsis (talk) 01:48, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

"Bissekty Giant"?
Hello folks, I was looking at this page recently and was wondering if the Bissekty Giant, a possible giant Dromaeosaurid from the Bissekty Formation of Uzbekistan, should be included. The issue is that I do not believe the name has been used in official documentation of any kind, so I'm not sure if it would fall under the scope of this article. Cheers! Gifferguy (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Where is this name from? FunkMonk (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * It appears to be another social media created name. Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE, names coined on social media are not eligible. Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Discussion of this article at RSN
See Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2024 (UTC)