Talk:Spinosaurus

The snout

Please consider referencing: Romain Vullo, Ronan Allain, and Lionel Cavin. Convergent evolution of jaws between spinosaurid dinosaurs and pike conger eels. Acta Palaeontologica Polonica 61 (4), 2016: 825-828 doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.4202/app.00284.2016

Split off the "Discovery and naming" section to "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

To work, via a draft, on splitting some taxonomy/specimen material from Spinosaurus. To not merge Spinosaurus mirabilis into Spinosaurus, although this could be revisited following any split. Klbrain (talk) 12:27, 25 July 2026 (UTC)

---

In light of the newly named species and considering the current length of the article (more than 13,000 words), I propose to split off the "Discovery and naming" section of the Spinosaurus article to the new article "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus". As previously discussed in WT:PALEO for the Taxonomy of Allosaurus last year, articles with over 8,000-9,000 words can be divided according to Wikipedia:Article size, and the "Discovery and naming" section and its subsections contain more than 6,000 words in total (close to half of the entire article), so I believe it does warrant a split off.

If anyone agrees with this proposal, are there any opinions for how the new article will be structured and how the current section should be trimmed? I especially want to ask Augustios Paleo who recently worked most on this section, as I'm not entirely knowledgeable on the "Discovery and naming" section's content. In case there is a disagreement, are there any alternatives that could be suggested? Thank you. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, if the new article "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" were to be created, it can expand probably more on Spinosaurus maroccanus and other indeterminate materials in proper paragraphs rather than bullet points. Some sections of the Sigilmassasaurus article can be incorporated to that new article as well; I'm not entirely sure if the "consensus" is that both Sigilmassasaurus and Spinosaurus are synonymous, so I'm not suggesting a merge. I also think Spinosaurus mirabilis does not need to be merged, since that article will most likely be expanded further in the future, but I'd also like to see if there are any alternative ideas for that. Junsik1223 (talk) 21:36, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I generally agree with this but I don't think it's good to say "it will be expanded in the future so it should stay in its own page" since that's something that can be said about any fossil species. I feel like the new species could be merged until that new information is actually published rather than relying on hypothetical papers. SeismicShrimp (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I see, maybe I can take your stance as well until new information comes of this species. Also I think it would be fair to tag @SlvrHwk who created the article for Spinosaurus mirabilis. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Sounds like a good idea, better than having two separate species articles and a genus article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. We can merge the species articles into the Spinosaurus page and create a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus page. This would also tackle the existing problem of the bloated specimens section, which is too detailed for the average reader but could benefit from being in a Taxonomy article. AFH (talk) 22:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

• Comment(s): I certainly see the value in a "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" page, but it should not be used as the primary home for content on S. mirabilis. (I also don't think a dedicated S. aegyptiacus page is necessary.) As it stands, and understandably so, the Spinosaurus (genus) page primarily covers the type species. I don't currently see a way to adequately discuss S. mirabilis in sufficient depth at the genus page without making it seem disjointed and overcrowded. A separate page to discuss the various aspects (discovery/geological/anatomical context) of the new species seems appropriate. There's definitely enough to say just about S. mirabilis to fill a reasonably-sized page, just based on the single new paper (incorporating paleoecology, environment, anatomy, etc...). And to be clear, I think Spinosaurus is a special exception, given its popularity and the sheer volume of published work on it. Most other "second species" (or third, fourth, etc.) of non-avian dinosaur genera can be sufficiently addressed on their genus page without special accommodations. -SlvrHwk (talk) 06:07, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It seems very arbitrary to have an article for one species when the genus has two. Also, there is so little info about this new species that it could easily be covered in a trimmed genus article and a taxonomy article. A species article would just duplicate info found there for no useful reason. FunkMonk (talk) 13:03, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I think an S. aegyptiacus article is essentially impossible due to how many disagreements there are about what even represents that species. The species level and genus level info are impossible to pull apart from one another. In regards to only giving one species a separate article, I don't think it's necessarily a bad format. I've proposed something similar in the past for Tyrannosaurus mcraeensis (though we'll see how necessary that seems after a Taxonomy article happens). When these famous genera get a second species, I think it's just hard to incorporate. There's so much written about the main species that any coequal focus on the new species feels like undue weight, and the minor species is just lost in all the info (V. osmolskae suffers from this too). So you can split off the new species to just avoid the problem entirely. The reason you don't then also split the famous species is that it would split the information people are looking for (that about the type species) between two articles. People typing in "Tyrannosaurus" really mean "T. rex" but we're putting them on a page that's giving a less detailed overview about both species. So I think no species articles is negotiable, and one for the less notable species is negotiable, but not splitting info on the "main topic" (S. aegyptiacus) between two articles in a way that would confuse lay readers. For what it's worth in this case I am negotiable to seeing someone show me that S. mirabilis would fit in a trimmed down article if we dump a lot of existing Spinosaurus info into a Taxonomy article... but until that work happens I think it needs to stay separate. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:11, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Why is it a problem that the more published on species has more weight in the genus article? Seems pretty normal. In any case, splitting the new species doesn't solve anything, as essentially all the same info would still need to be present in the genus article in summarised form. And when so little is published on the new species, it will be basically the same info in the genus article as in the species article. So again, little to gain, just more articles to update and keep track of. FunkMonk (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

It's not a problem for the genus article itself per se, but if someone comes to it looking for information on S. mirabilis they're going to have a harder time than if it just has its own article they can navigate to. It's so lost in all the info on S. aegyptiacus that the reader is inconvenienced. If it were me I'd jsut ctrl+f it, but a less internet literate reader or app user may go away unable to effectively learn about S. mirabilis. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:41, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

But again, most of the S. mirabilis info has to be at the genus article as well in any case. Splitting off an article doesn't mean all the info is removed from the parent article, only that it should be summarised shorter there. But with a species known from so little and with so little published on it, there is very little to cut down, and you will essentially just end up with two articles with the same info. And I don't buy that info is "lost" in an article, that's what tables of content are for, and that a sub-taxon with little published on it simply has less to say about it isn't unusual. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

While I don't have a strong opinion whether we should merge S. mirabilis to "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" (given that the article is later created), in case the majority opinion favors the merge approach, I think one solution I can suggest is adapting the structure of the current Quetzalcoatlus article for the main article and the Taxonomy article (regarding multiple species coverage, to be specific). That article has relevant coverage of both species in various sections since early 2025, despite the second species Q. lawsoni having been named in December 2021.

While I do think more opinions are needed, at the very least all the current participants seem to agree that splitting part of the article regarding its taxonomy/species is warranted (with most agreeing that the Taxonomy article split has its value), though how that will be done seems to be where the disagreement occurs. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:42, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

This makes the most sense to me. The Quetzalcoatlus article meaningfully covers two species with vastly different morphs while maintaining a single article for the genus. A separate article regarding the taxonomy of Spinosaurus, to expound upon issues with potential synonymy with Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus or whether or not the material actually belongs to S. aegyptiacus in the first place, could have merit, but I don't think it should serve as the replacement for a dedicated S. mirabilis article. Apc12345 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

It will probably come as no surprise to anyone here that I am strongly in favor of keeping S. mirabilis as a separate article. As it currently stands, Spinosaurus has over 9,000 words of prose, making it long enough that it is recommended to trim or split the article per WP:SIZERULE, so it's clearly inappropriate to merge anything into the article in its current state. I would also be in favor of creating a separate article for S. aegyptiacus. LittleLazyLass does have a fair point that it might be difficult to disentangle S. aegyptiacus from the genus as a whole due to the dispute over what material properly belongs in the species, so I'm less committed to the idea of a S. aegyptiacus article being necessary, although as FunkMonk pointed out, it would be inconsistent to have a separate article for one species but not the other and I think having a separate article would allow some of the nitty-gritty details specific to S. aegyptiacus to be trimmed from the genus article to get it down to a more manageable length. I am opposed to creating a "Taxonomy of Spinosaurus" article; I think having separate articles for S. mirabilis and S. aegyptiacus is vastly preferable as a way to split the article. All of the objections to creating separate species articles also apply to splitting the taxonomy section off into its own article, and surely the taxonomy of Spinosaurus is less WP:NOTABLE as a topic in its own right than the valid, distinct species S. aegyptiacus and S. mirabilis. Ornithopsis (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Truth be told, I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option). I see your point in that we can't merge anything more significant into this article, but regardless of whether the majority consensus favors the merging S. mirabilis approach or not, I believe this this issue might be much easier to solve than what we might think; splitting off this section and incorporating many of the background information from the Classification section would reduce the word count significantly, since the first two paragraphs (especially the second) on the Classification section are mostly about the outer systematics (i.e. family Spinosauridae) rather than Spinosaurus itself and the phylogeny section can be reduced in addition to this (which would mean that the Classification section also needs an overhaul, which can be done if the Taxonomy article is appropriately written in my opinion). Junsik1223 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Retooling the classification section to be more about Spinosaurus proper should not be an issue, especially with the volume of content published post-2014. I think the broader family-level content should be reduced heavily, and have made a start by removing the 'Evolution' section in its entirety, this was a 1:1 copy of said section on Spinosauridae. The Morrison Man (talk) 23:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

As the person who wrote the Specimens section on the article, I believe that a Taxonomy section is beneficial as it will be able to properly cover both schools of thought on Spinosaurus (that being there are 2/2+ species of North African spinosaurid or that there is just S. aegyptiacus). AFH (talk) 16:50, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I only see a Spinosaurus genus article and a Taxonomy article as being useful. There's no need for S. mirabilis to have its own article in my opinion, it can be reasonably covered in the genus article and have taxonomy info in the taxonomy. Additionally, a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus article could also incorporate bloated information present on the Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus pages. AFH (talk) 14:39, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

I agree with incorporating information present on Oxalaia and Sigilmassasaurus pages. Now as you and LittleLazyLass pointed out, there seems to be a significant controversy in terms of what specific North African specimens truly represent Spinosaurus. I can see multiple subsections that highlight this aspect. So if the Taxonomy article does get created, do you think we could assemble some subsections of the Discovery and naming section into more coherent sections of that new article? Taxonomy of Allosaurus article seems to be a good basis to reference in terms of structure, so I'd suggest following it would be appropriate. Junsik1223 (talk) 22:54, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

The section "Specimens" in this article could probably do with being entirely removed and pasted into a Taxonomy of Spinosaurus page instead. There would be more than enough content there to be able to form a coherent narrative what remains we have and the discussions surrounding the referrals, plus a discussion of species/genera referred to Spinosaurus (aegyptiacus) semi-regularly, with the most prominent there probably being S. maroccanus, Sigilmassasaurus and Oxalaia. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that sorting the specimens into sections, similar to what I did on the current page, would be beneficial for the taxonomy article. I have them sorted by how they were classified in recent literature on them, for example MSNM rostrum is Spinosaurinae indet based on Smyth et al (2020). However, as mentioned elsewhere on this page, there are many different ideas on how many spinosaurids are present in North Africa. I think that the current Discovery and naming section should include the current history section + S. mirabilis, while the specimens and synonyms sections should be put in the Taxonomy article. AFH (talk) 16:44, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

In my opinion, this page should be kept separate from the main Spinosaurus article, as the main page is so long and it is quite difficult to find specific information. Furthermore, this new discovery deserves its own page due to its anatomical and geological context. -Historianengineer (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2026 (UTC)-

Reiterating what I said above: "I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option)." Junsik1223 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

I am also inclined to favor keeping the species' page separate. The main article is, as has been noted, already very long and crowded, the page for S. mirabilis seems perfectly substantial in its own right, and people looking for information on mirabilis would likely struggle to find what they're looking for in either the currently existing genus article or in a broad-sweep taxonomy page, given how complex the topic is in this case. A general taxonomy article might be also useful, but I favor keeping the other species in its own page. -Theriocephalus (talk) 06:30, 20 March 2026 (UTC)-

Reiterating what I said above: "I'm more concerned with how to deal with the excessive information regarding many of the North African spinosaurid specimens that have significant controversy in terms of which truly represents Spinosaurus. That is more of the reason why I suggested creating a Taxonomy article, rather than just to make a primary home for the Spinosaurus mirabilis content, and probably the reason why other participants who oppose the merge approach seems to be fine with creating the Taxonomy article given that it's written fairly (as you can see I don't strongly agree or disagree with whether merging the S. mirabilis article approach is the best option)." It's good to know that at least you think a general taxonomy article can be useful. Junsik1223 (talk) 13:18, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

If the most significant concern is that there is excessive information on specimens of Spinosaurus, it seems to me that a more appropriate page to spin off would be "Specimens of Spinosaurus", as has been done for Tyrannosaurus and Archaeopteryx. I don't think the taxonomy of Spinosaurus is convoluted enough to warrant a page in its own right, and in fact it's probably a less taxonomically complicated genus than either Tyrannosaurus or Archaeopteryx, neither of which have a separate taxonomy page. Ornithopsis (talk) 15:13, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

I have thought of that option, but A Cynical Idealist did brought up their opinion in last year's WT:PALEO discussion about creating a "Specimens of" article which makes me feel conflicted about it (reiterating what A Cynical Idealist stated there): ""Specimens of" articles are better off avoided except in extremely specific cases where individual specimens have cultural or scientific relevance independently of their anatomical descriptions. Also the specimen list articles which do exist are focused primarily on the specimens themselves, rather than detailed discussions of the taxonomic controversies they imply." Junsik1223 (talk) 00:22, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

i agree AFH (talk) 22:26, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

The specimens themselves of Spinosaurus often have lots of info depending on which one. For example, Spinosaurus B has lots of detailed info, controversy, etc on it that I believe would be better covered in a "Specimens of" article. Its anatomy especially wouldn't be properly covered in the main article. AFH (talk) 23:04, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I think that the format should be based on the Allosaurus articles because it has more species than Spinosaurus and it still has only 1 page. Also, there's either too much detail in the Spinosaurus mirablis article or the Allosaurus article needs to be split. Paleorganizer (talk) 13:54, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree AFH (talk) 23:02, 28 April 2026 (UTC)

I personally think that it should be merged because through Convergent evolution we can think that the Northern crested Newt evolve a crest on the head so Mirabilis could just be an abnormal specimen of Aegypticus and the fossils of Mirabilis are also very much Fragmentary so it could be plausible but we have to merge it, in such a way that it would look neutral and don't merge the entire article, leave some space between them and also start with "Spinosaurus Mirabilis is a dubious member of the genus Spinosaurus and its debatable whether its another species or just or just another different individual"(also sorry for the commas and more because I don't really use them). Mendakapur (talk) 10:13, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

I would recommend reading the description paper and WP:OR. -SlvrHwk (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2026 (UTC)

Wanted to reformulate my position slightly. I'm still in favor of keeping the S. mirabilis page; I think that there is valid reason to keep distinct pages for notable dinosaur species, like how the Edmontosaurus and Camarasaurus species are currently split. If it is to be re-merged, then as a second-best option I would strongly favor using the model currently on Quetzalcoatlus, where Q. lawsoni has a distinct subsection within the larger page. Unrelatedly to the mirabilis issue, a "specimens/taxonomy of" article as a primary location for potential synonymy issues and specimens of debated/unclear species or genus also seems like it might be useful, but my opinions there aren't as strong. -Theriocephalus (talk) 03:39, 29 Apr 2026 (UTC)-

I do see two problems with the current setup:

• First, we have an article for Spinosaurus mirabilis but not for Spinosaurus aegyptiacus, which I think is not consistent. I can't think of any other genus where one species has an article but the type species is not supposed to have one. However, having articles for both species, which both follow the same sectioning with many redundancies, might not the ideal solution.
• Second, the Spinosaurus article only mentions S. mirabilis in the lead and the cladogram. Of course, it still has to discuss S. mirabilis in proportion to the rest of the article (per WP:SPINOFF). Consequently, a separate S. mirabilis article actually does not give us that much additional space.

Regarding a possible Taxonomy of Spinosaurus, that article would obviously on taxonomy only, and there are actually not many species to discuss. I think it helps a bit to shorten the main article (it could cover the species with their autapomorphies, and the neotype discussion). But at the moment, we are a bit above 8,000 words of prose, which would increase a little when S. mirabilis is merged back. There is certainly still potential to save quite some space by formulating more concisely. I therefore think that, at the moment, we might be ok with just one article, but that a "Taxonomy of" spinoff might be warranted when the article grows further.

I see the above argument that a separate S. aegyptiacus article might allow us to shorten the main article by moving out some details specific for this species. However, the species article would mostly have to cover the very same ground as the genus article (per WP:DUE), the details that the species article has but the genus article has not will be hard to find, given that both articles would be mostly redundant. I just don't think that's helpful to a reader. The advantage of the Taxonomy spinoff would be that it does not have to cover things like paleobiology. It would still come with some redundancy, but the info is presented in a different format and with a different focus and therefore would, I think, be a more useful addition than a species article (S. aegyptiacus) that's mostly a copy paste from the main article. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 08:16, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

There's actually tons to cover when it comes to species, as there is S. aegyptiacus and S. mirabilis already on top of Sigilmassasaurus, Oxalaia, S. moroccanus, "Spinosaurus B", and many indeterminate forms that are relevant (ex: MSNM rostrum, NHMUK rostrum and mandibles, different quadrate forms). In my opinion, the "Taxonomy of" article is the best choice. We can include the specimens of uncertain status in the article. Additionally, Kellerman and colleagues are currently writing a new paper that will cover the taxonomy of the genus. This means that the taxonomy of the genus is about to be in flux, so rather than have a rapidly shifting and bloated main page, we can concisely cover new info on a Taxonomy page. AFH (talk) 17:17, 30 April 2026 (UTC)

Maybe it's a good idea to create a draft for Taxonomy of Spinosaurus, to show the intended sectioning and notes (bullet-point format) stating what information should appear in each section? That would give us something much more palpable to discuss. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:37, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good idea. Maybe the discussion can be continued after that then. Junsik1223 (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

Yes, I would be open to working on the article. Furthermore, I already wrote a bunch of information that could be used in the "Specimens" section that is now absent from the page. AFH (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should appearances in documentaries also be included?

I was wondering if there should be a paragraph in the 'Depictions in popular culture' section related to appearances of Spinosaurus in palaeo-documenatries such as Planet Dinosaur (2011) etc.? Rangoon creeper (talk) 12:36, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

It should probably have less, not more, random appearances, per WP:trivia. FunkMonk (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2026 (UTC)