Talk:Eocarcharia

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

A fact from Eocarcharia appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 July 2025 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the carnivorous dinosaur Eocarcharia may be a chimaera, its bones coming from two different families?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2025/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Eocarcharia.

Wikipedia

Eocarcharia is currently a Biology and medicine good article nominee. Nominated by AFH (talk) at 03:17, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Any editor who has not nominated or contributed significantly to this article may review it according to the good article criteria to decide whether or not to list it as a good article. To start the review process, click start review and save the page. (See here for the good article instructions.)

Short description: Extinct genus of theropod dinosaurs

Someone please edit, I can't

There is plenty of literature available- more information needed Robot 0123456789 (talk) 01:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't you edit it? FunkMonk (talk) 01:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Rjjiii talk 06:02, 29 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that despite its name being in reference to the dinosaur family Carcharodontosauridae, Eocarcharia may actually be a member of the family Spinosauridae?

Source: https://www.italianjournalofgeosciences.it/297/article-1220/beyond-the-stromer-s-riddle-the-impact-of-lumping-and-splitting-hypotheses-on-the-systematics-of-the-giant-predatory-dinosaurs-from-northern-africa.html

Reviewed:

5x expanded by Augustios Paleo (talk) and SlvrHwk (talk). Number of QPQs required: 0. Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations.

AFH (talk) 18:32, 13 June 2025 (UTC).[reply]

Starting review--Kev min § 16:49, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article well sourced, neutral in presentation, hook cited and confirmed to the source, citations are needed, per DYK rules, at the end of each fact bearing sentence used in the hook @Augustios Paleo and SlvrHwk:.--Kev min § 15:38, 18 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augustios Paleo, SlvrHwk, and Kevmin: The proposed hook does not strike me as interesting to a broad audience. I am certain that something more interesting can be produced from such a long article, and perhaps even this fact can be presented better. I think a chimeric origin hook would be excellent. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 23 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Augustios Paleo and SlvrHwk: its been over a week since I pointed out the reference problem with the article and nook, and now there is concern regarding the hook interestingness (which i think may be justified on being written to techinically), however there has been no participation here or indication of fixing the issues. I will fail this nomination at the end of the week if there is no changes.--Kev min § 19:13, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: I am unfamiliar with this process and somewhat surprised the article is being nominated for DYK in the first place, so my apologies that the issues haven't been taken care of earlier. I agree that the proposed hook is not particularly impactful (for a general audience), at least in the way it is currently presented. The following might be more suitable, based on the same source included above:

... that the carnivorous Eocarcharia may be a chimaeric dinosaur, known from bones of at least two unrelated species mistakenly combined?

I created an image for the page (reviewed and approved here, per WP:PALEO mandates) that helps to illustrate this point and could potentially be included in the DYK, formatted below:

Reconstructed skulls of the Eocarcharia chimaera

'Alt1... that the carnivorous Eocarcharia may be a chimaeric dinosaur, known from bones of two unrelated species (pictured) mistakenly combined?

I have also updated the article to include a citation for this hook in the lead. Thank you for your comments, your input is appreciated. -SlvrHwk (talk) 01:44, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@SlvrHwk and Augustios Paleo:, the added citation does clean up that part, and the suggested alt hooks are more accessible already. What if we pipe Chimera (paleontology) to chimera so it flows a bit easier, and the second half could be reworded a bit to "..., its bones coming from two different dinosaur families?" or similar--Kev min § 04:52, 25 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Kevmin: That works as well, I too think that the chimeric nature of the dinosaur should be the focus. Saying "..., its bones coming from two different dinosaur families?" works as that is basically the definition of a chimera in paleontology.

@SlvrHwk, Augustios Paleo, and Surtsicna: does anyone object to Alt2"...that the carnivorous Eocarcharia (fossils illustrated) may be a "chimaera", its bones coming from two different dinosaur families?"--Kev min § 02:40, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No objections from me. It sounds very good! Surtsicna (talk) 06:34, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

With the referencing and hook issues dealt with, I see no more problems with the nomination. Article expansion new enough and long enough. Article well sourced, neutral in presentation, hook cited and confirmed. Image main page complaint. Good to go.--Kev min § 17:13, 27 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]