Talk:List of lost dinosaur specimens

Useful code (please don't archive this section)

Here is a blank table whose code can be conveniently copy-pasted in the main article when needed. I've used internal notes to label the columns each cell in the row belong to. Please don't archive this section heading as it should be available to editors perpetually to ease adding to the list. Abyssal (talk) 01:29, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nickname	Catalogue Number	Institution	Taxon	Age	Unit	Country	Notes	Images
								The "Trachodon mummy".

Adding to the list

• I'm not sure how to add stuff to this list, seems a bit complicated. I want to add the third Dilophosaurus specimen which was for some reason not collected, but not sure how. And of course, where is all the German stuff destroyed in WW2? FunkMonk (talk) 22:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Specimen numbers

Could also be good with a column for specimen numbers. There is also massive inconsistency between what labels are present in each column, which I don't know how to fix. FunkMonk (talk) 04:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

There was one. Someone went through and removed it, bizarrely. I just readded it. Abyssal (talk) 14:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Oh, weird, but thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 14:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• I wonder if the nickname field is needed. Do any of these fossils even have nicknames? FunkMonk (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

• • Most of the specimens in the "lost" list seem to have an informal label that serves the purpose of a nickname pretty well. I suspect many of the destroyed specimens had similar informal labels, especially since many are types. Abyssal (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm, but does "type specimen of X" count as a nickname? That info is better placed in the notes column. As for the Corythosauru specimens, those field numbers are their de facto specimen numbers, not really nicknames in any sense. FunkMonk (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Rename to simpler title

The current title seems very unwieldy. Doesn't "lost" already cover destroyed, for example? FunkMonk (talk) 17:49, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I meant lost in the sense of "misplaced" where there is the possibility of recovery, but I suppose that may be hair-splitty. What title were you thinking? Abyssal (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

I think "list of lost dinosaur specimens" would say it all, but others might of course not agree. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Alright, I don't mind. Abyssal (talk) 11:53, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Widen scope to "lost fossils"

The list now has a pretty narrow scope, and is therefore quite short. Wouldn't it be more useful if we widened the scope to all kinds of fossils? Plenty of interesting ones to add. FunkMonk (talk) 18:38, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I think this would be pretty untenable... there have been major institutions that have lost a significant number of their specimens, likely thousands for each, and there are various other specimens that have been destroyed, damaged, or misplaced; restricting it to dinosaurs would make things more manageable. --Slate Weasel [Talk - Contribs] 18:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

But a criterion for inclusion is that there are reliable sources for it. I suspect it would be hard to find sources for most of any old lost ammonite or trilobite and so on, but mainly for the few, more charismatic specimens. FunkMonk (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)