This   level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Dinosaurs Mid‑importance 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Palaeontology Low‑importance 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 articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following section was just added. I am concerned that this is the same as the stuff that was declared not to be eggs shortly afterward:

On Sep 12, 2009, a group of scientists in India found a huge clulster of eggs that they believed to be of Carnosaur. That dinosaurs once roamed the area was known from the fossils found there on earlier expeditions. But this is the first time that hundreds of nests embedded with hundreds of clusters of dinosaur eggs have been unearthed in the Ariyalur district in Tamil Nadu. [1]

J. Spencer ( talk) 23:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Support: Allosauroidea and Carnosauria have been given equivalent definitions in the literature, which is noted in the articles. The only possible difference between the two taxa would be the inclusion of megalosauroids within Carnosauria if Rauhut and Pol's hypothesis is correct, which is far from certain. Allosauroidea is used more regularly in recent literature, but various publications are inconsistent about which name to use (if they are synonyms, which is not universally agreed upon). Google scholar gives 1330 results for "Carnosauria" and 884 results for "Allosauroidea". It's unclear which taxon has nomenclatural priority (Allosauroidea was named first but not formally defined until after Carnosauria), and since 2019 researchers have begun to use Carnosauria with increasing frequency.

Until this debate is resolved, I think the conservative approach is to consolidate these two articles. If and when the debate is fully settled, and Carnosauria can either be elaborated on independently of Allosauroidea or else abandoned altogether, but until then, the most comprehensive coverage of this ongoing scientific discussion should be in one place. There's also a fair amount of redundant content between the two articles, which is another point in support of merging. A Cynical Idealist ( talk) 02:53, 20 June 2024 (UTC) reply

A draft of the merged article is available here. A Cynical Idealist ( talk) 22:05, 23 June 2024 (UTC) reply