Jump to content

Talk:Titus (dinosaur): Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Merge proposal: Oppose merge
Line 111: Line 111:


'''Comment: Unless you are going to contribute to making the supposedly deserved article a nice article, please don't vote spam. I do not want to spent 10 hours of my day working to make a nice article for content that ''you'' think deserved a nice article. This will be my only announcement''' '''[[User:IJReid|IJReid]]'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{[[User talk:IJReid#top|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/IJReid|C]] - [[WP:DINO|D]] - [[WP:TREEREQ|R]]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 00:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
'''Comment: Unless you are going to contribute to making the supposedly deserved article a nice article, please don't vote spam. I do not want to spent 10 hours of my day working to make a nice article for content that ''you'' think deserved a nice article. This will be my only announcement''' '''[[User:IJReid|IJReid]]'''&nbsp;<sup><small>{<nowiki />{[[User talk:IJReid#top|T]] - [[Special:Contributions/IJReid|C]] - [[WP:DINO|D]] - [[WP:TREEREQ|R]]}<nowiki />}</small></sup> 00:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

* '''Oppose''' Thanks for the AN/I notification, IJReid, so I could come and oppose this merge. There is news and media coverage spanning the year plus since Titus was made into an exhibit, with local, national, and international media covering the specimen. The [https://wollatonhall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TITUS-T.rex-Scientific-Report-Dec-2021.pdf scientific report] that Wollaton Hall put out on the details, history, and other paleontological aspects of Titus provides more than enough to fill out the article in addition to the more general coverage about exhibitions and other additions made since 2021. I see no reason why this article doesn't have plenty of info and coverage to merit its own stand-alone article. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: silver;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 00:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 00:44, 31 August 2022

Paleontological study on Titus

Please note that per WikiProject Dinosaurs, the following source published by the Nottingham Natural History Museum needs to be used with extreme care, as it's technically self-published and not sufficiently independent of the subject (even if the authors are from other institutions): https://wollatonhall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TITUS-T.rex-Scientific-Report-Dec-2021.pdf (It's like a brochure that is used at auctions.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

7%266%3Dthirteen, this is exactly why I removed the material. I concur with Cielquiparle's comments. This is not an appropriately independent source. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 09:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I posted that to reflect @Lythronaxargestes's comment, before realising that @7&6=thirteen had reverted Lythronaxargestes's edits in parallel. I did think it was important to put on the Talk page; otherwise well-meaning editors down the line will keep putting the source back in, in the future. That said, I think the key is the "use with extreme care" part, because there probably are some facts (like the origins of Titus's nickname, per my second post below) where it's OK to cite the report. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think that's reasonable. I would consider this "report" as being equivalent to news articles; in other WP:DINO articles, they are cited regarding non-scientific aspects of species and specimens (such as the discovery) but not for scientific claims where the literature is preferred. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 11:14, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I defer with your mutual judgment. We will keep the source. That being said, there are factual statements and professional judgments that seem to be attributed to reliable sources. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:40, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(@7&6=thirteen: might wanna check what happened to ur sig there, its generating Category:Pages which use a template in place of a magic word due to {{=}} (I fixed it). Aidan9382 (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC))[reply]
I saw it. I changed nothing, and don't know anything more. If you fixed it, thanks. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Namesake of Titus Andronicus

I wanted to make sure that we state somewhere in the article (either in the lede or in the "Description" section) about Titus being named after the protagonist in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. The main source for this fact is in the above paleontological study, so I think we do need to cite it at least once. The reason it's essential – and the reason we possibly even have a duty of care to state it – is because there is a famous paleontologist named Dr. Alan L. Titus, and it's too easy for people to either 1) jump to the conclusion that this dinosaur fossil is named after him; and/or 2) mix up coverage about other dinosaur specimens which Dr. Titus has worked with or has commented on, with OUR Titus. (Not sure, but I think there already was some confusion as a result of that, which has been resolved.) Of course, it's also a colourful detail which makes the article interesting, but that's not the only reason. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

After the AfD closed which recommended a merge discussion, I am still unconvinced that it is best that this is treated as a standalone article. All of the coverage relates to a brief window of a few months when the specimen was exhibited (see WP:SUSTAINED and WP:ONEEVENT), and many of the claims are promotional and have been contradicted (such as the recent Hone case). I think it would be best if the useful material was part of the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus article and the article redirected. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. My begrudging acceptance of this article's existence after the AfD has evaporated on account of the Hone quote fiasco. This "report" is not a neutral or reliable source. It's time for Titus to go. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:42, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article was always a commercial promotional scheme, and I vehemently dislike how wikipedia was used to orchestrate a marketing scheme for a private specimen. If it was up to me this article would have been gone instantly, and at least I can throw up hat and hard earned time behind pairing it down to something thats still too "markety" for me but now can be merged rather painlessly. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:50, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The AFD closed as no consensus. Not merge. WP:ONEEVENT is not applicable, it is a guideline about people. The consensus for a merge was already sought and not reached less than two months ago. CT55555 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:ONEEVENT is stated about people, but I consider it a good guideline for individual things, too. And in case case, the skeleton is only "notable" for one thing: the museum exhibit, around which all the sources are more or less media hype. Independent of the hype, Titus is not a notable fossil, with no significant coverage of an academic and wholly scientific nature.
As for merging, there has been only the AfD nomination so far, not a formal merge proposal. This proposal is licit and valid. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has stricter rules for the notability of people. I do not think that there is a notability guideline for dinosaurs or skeletons or casts of skeletons etc, so the general notability guideline is the relevant one WP:GNG. Nothing more is needed. CT55555 (talk) 04:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have to realize that the situation now is not the situation two months ago. New information has come to light that calls into question the reliability of the sources in the article. A major point at AfD is that the sources originate from major news agencies, yet it is now known that they were supplied with patently false information (including a misattributed quote), transparently for the purpose of promoting the specimen. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:20, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I saw the allegations that the Guardian misquoted someone. I don't think that is a major factor in the notability. The Guardian chose to cover it. So did National Geographic. So did BBC. A BBC article mentioned it last month https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-62157260. An IP and Twitter allegation of a misquote doesn't have much bearing on the overall notability of the subject. As for merging it into Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, the factors that should influence this, other than notability, are article length. Specimens of Tyrannosaurus is already over 100kb and therefore in the maximum range of "Almost certainly should be divided" as per WP:SIZERULE. Adding more to an article that already exceeds the guidance is contrary to the guidance that we should follow here. Going against guidance is sometimes justifiable, but I see no reason to do so being presented here. CT55555 (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With four individual edits, I removed 17000 bytes from the "Specimens of" page. Merging this article over in its entirety will add 3000 back. The page is also already split. Sue (dinosaur), Stan (dinosaur), and Trix (dinosaur) already exist, are much better sourced, objectively are more important taxa, and could even have their sections on the "Specimens of" page pruned down by say ... 20000 bytes total. I'm sure you don't want to spend the time doing the work sorting through what should be removed. And frankly neither do I, but if that's what it takes to end the silly argument that the absolute number of individual ascii characters decides what should or should not be merged, I will do it. The page has 152 references for crying out loud, with each one an average of 200 bytes that is 30000 bytes of *just references*. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@YorkshireExpat: Sure go right ahead, there's a strong consensus to do so. Hemiauchenia (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit. I think most of this article is fluff so I'm happy actually. @Hemiauchenia, or anyone else, please feel free to take a look, and then this can be redirected. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why an editor topic-banned from deletion discussions, broadly construed, should receive a voice in a deletion discussion, broadly construed. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lythronaxargestes: The editor was not TBANNED for bad ivotes or bad AfD rationales. Bruxton (talk) 20:04, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that this is a basis for inclusion. I will leave it to the closer to decide. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, Bruxton is topic-banned? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 20:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We are talking about 7&6=thirteen. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, thanks for the ping. The proposed article for merging is over 100,000 bytes in size. Merging further content will make it more clunky, and we have to remember that many of our readers are now on mobile devices with small screens. I fail to see how Wikipedia is improved by merging this article. If one doesn't like material in this article, remove it, but that isn't grounds for a merge. NemesisAT (talk) 18:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that the notable content from this article actually decreased the target article size (due to unformatted references) after the merge. This article contains very little notable content per WP:DINO project quality standards. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The quality standard is the WP:GNG, wikiprojects don't get to set stricter standards. Regardless of whether you could make formatting more efficient, it still isn't sustainable to have a page for all specimens as more will be added and the article will become too bulky again. Then we will be repeating the work here to split it up again. NemesisAT (talk) 19:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not talking about the notability of the subject. I am talking about prose quality. If you're implying that individual projects can't have higher prose quality standards than the norm, I think it is not difficult to find counterexamples thereof. I am simply pointing out that the line of reasoning based on article size is untenable because there is not much high-quality prose that can be written about Titus. If you have an issue with Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, please go discuss on its talk page. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even the trimmed down version is still sufficiently long enough to be an independent article. Meanwhile the target article is still clunky and too long. We shouldn't be merging more content into it. NemesisAT (talk) 21:56, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Magnatyrannus: Thanks for the notice. Please read WP:BADNAC - an editor cannot close their own discussion, it is a conflict of interest. Also the discussion is ongoing and the redirect was premature. Bruxton (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I might not have closed the discussion but if you literally looked into the discussion then maybe you'd understand what WP:CONSENSUS is. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it was YorkshireExpat who could be said to have closed off the discussion, not Hemiauchenia. And after two weeks, the redirect was not premature, nor the discussion fast or forced at roughly two weeks. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:27, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, but I don't believe any rules would have been broken had @Hemiauchenia closed the request, per WP:MERGECLOSE. YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article was not "reduced to a stub" for no reason. It was trimmed down to remove prose that was a) based on misleading sources and b) not up to project quality standards. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge I have restored the redirect as per consensus. The discussion lasted for roughly two weeks, was advertised in the appropriate places (namely, Article Alerts in the relevant Wikiproject), and resulted in a clear, policy-based consensus. You do not get to overturn discussions just because you disagree with the consensus. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge. Not notable enough to warrant a separate article, we have a specimen list that is already pretty much doing the same job, allegations of this article serving as advertisement are pretty solid in my opinion (an individual specimen having a Wikipedia page is a pretty good selling point, because rich people love owning stuff rare and famous), and I fail to understand why so many people care about this quite un-notable specimen, whose only contribution to history was nothing more than an anecdote on a journal margin. Once, there was a dinosaur fair with an Iguanodon at my local mall, it was talked about in local journals, I'm not doing an article for it anyway. Larrayal (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
While I acknowledge that a number of editors did work to improve this article during AfD, the content they added is not up to project quality standards. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:17, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per penalty call on the end run (10 yards from the end of the play). The result at the AfD would seem to overrule a talk-page back-and-forth which has plenty of oppose comments. Merging should be an overwhelming opinion, this isn't. Titus, a friend not merge-food. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    p.s. and removing the page seems U.S. centric, please read the page concerning the uniqueness of Titus to the U.K. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:24, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Titus is a scientific specimen. Its cultural significance is secondary. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To yourself perhaps, tell that to the children of England. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pray tell, why is the article title Titus (dinosaur) and not Titus (British museum exhibit)? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the same reason we name it Harambe not Killing of Harambe. Animals can have a (very) long history beyond the initial thing that made them notable. And not every animal needs to be scientifically notable (though this one has some). There's more to it than science. Honestly I think if you included more cultural aspects in your science articles they would be improved. There's nothing wrong with science, we need it for sure, but there is also nothing wrong with culture, in which science exists. -- GreenC 23:26, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We give cultural aspects what we understand to be due weight, based on our exposure to scholarship and popular culture alike. See Velociraptor, Dilophosaurus, Gallimimus, and woolly mammoth. Unfortunately, this necessarily places our approach at odds with editors who are only exposed to the popular culture dimension. Discussions over content on this very page are emblematic of this discrepancy. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 23:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn tell that to the children of England: have you seen my user name? YorkshireExpat (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For reasons already given in the AFD. The article has sufficient valid information to justify it existing on its own. You can not merge all of the valid content into the other article, so most would be deleted. Dream Focus 19:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Magnatyrannus, it's good to see you back. In principle I agree with you, however out of consideration for 3RR I would personally let the oppose voters have the page for now. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:33, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, how did I start the edit war? You reverted someone who undid the redirect, I then reverted you, and it went back and forth between different people. Anyway, the first four people to comment in this merge discussion all posted within an hour of one another. Was this merger discussion listed anywhere you all go to? I click on the "what links here" and don't see any Wikiproject linking to this discussion. How did you all find your way here together so quickly? Dream Focus 19:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Bruxton started the edit war. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The merge proposal was listed in Article Alerts for the relevant WikiProjects, and on the talk page of WP:DINOs, as per policy. SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:41, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. I was surprised to see that an editor who lobbied for the merge, started and closed a discussion and then redirected the article without notifying the participants of a July 15, 2022 AfD. Also surprised to see the article reduced to a stub which then leads more people to say merge. Bruxton (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I explained why above, but did not actually say "oppose". CT55555 (talk) 19:28, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge Per the rationales provided. The actual information about the specimen is minimal, and not distinctly more notable than any other known specimen. Sources added during AFD also suffer from major WP:primary flaws and have since been called fallacious by the source that was hypothetically quoted. --Kevmin § 22:12, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The opposing people are mostly people from the ARS, which are quite unlikely to work on this article in any productive matter, and are sometimes quite illiterate on the question (some of them even overestimating the importance of this skeletal in the history of the UK, and completely disregarding the advertisement allegations). In the other hand, merging partisans mostly come from the Paleontology Wikiproject, and have most probably more expertise on what is relevant and what is not regarding individual fossils notability. I also have concerns over this being a violation of WP:VOTESTACKING. Larrayal (talk) 19:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The article was worked on during the AFD, and quite a bit of work done on it. Dream Focus 19:45, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    It's common to see experts (or "pro-ams") in a field poo-poo things of interest to popular culture. Sometimes it's how they signal how serious they are to their peer, or they just find it all ridiculous. Whatever the case, it's a blind spot. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia for everyone, including an 8 year old kid who visited a museum and saw a big dinosaur named Titus. "Relevant" and "notability" are thus defined not by what experts think, but what sources indicate. -- GreenC 22:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it's best if we stop edit-warring, otherwise we might get into trouble. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 19:40, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree @Magnatyrannus:. apologies to all concerned. It felt like a badnac and a rushed redirect. Things will work out the way they should. I think we should be looking at the article that passed AfD (not the stub) and so I restored that version. Bruxton (talk) 19:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have restored the article to its pre-merge state as the post-AfD version contained some highly problematic material (for instance, a false quote that the alleged quotee asked be taken down). Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:44, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The current version of the article before the merge should be kept. This was the status-quo version that WP:DINO editors trimmed to meet project quality standards. Since you are the one who reverted the merge, the burden of proof to show that the post-AfD version should be reinstated is yours. However, editors should also be free to compare the different versions of the article.
Post-AfD: [1]
Pre-merge: [2]
Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:46, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Respectfully there is a desire to merge so the trim, supports the position. I am sure we can get to the correct decision here @Lythronaxargestes:. We are all good editors who want the best for the encyclopedia. Bruxton (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that editors participating in this discussion are more than capable of clicking on two webpage links to compare them side-by-side, should these links be placed prominently at the top of the discussion. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It matters what is presented in main space. i.e. A stub or an article. It is not just participants here that have access to the article. Thanks for discussing rationally. Bruxton (talk) 20:00, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to reinstate a hybrid version that incorporates section headers. I am not willing to reinstate the post-AfD version that contains blatantly misleading information. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:03, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure why you get to choose. The AfD concluded with the version we are discussing. Many editors worked on it. Bruxton (talk) 20:06, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Can you post on the talk page exactly what information you believe is misleading and why? Dream Focus 20:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See the top of this merge discussion. A leading domain expert quoted by one of the primary references, which is clearly promotional in nature, alleges that their quote - which is reproduced verbatim in the post-AfD version of the article - was fabricated. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:19, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Editors also worked to improve the article to the version that you are now dismissing as a stub. I don't think that is a fair comment. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 20:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The version after the AfD is not the one that will stand. Its problems will not magically disappear even if this discussion closes in a non-consensus. It has issues and the article was changed for good reason, ones, as pointed out, actively discussed right above us as well as in the article history (i.e. promotional sources and direct misattribution of Hone). The implication sprinkled around this discussion it was cut down to be easier to merge has no basis when the actual reasons have been made clear. To keep that outdated version up misrepresents what exactly it is we are arguing to keep or merge. I frankly fail to see how reviving it is anything but transparent attempt to bias the discussion towards the "oppose" side by making the article look more significant than it is. The actual most recent version of the article, the one that would again stand afterwards, is surely a more neutral subject to focus opinions around. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:49, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose For same reasons outlined at AfD for Keep(ing) as a standalone article. Given how controversial this has been the perspective of time will help greatly, like 2-5 years. There is no rush to eliminate the article. If there is no real sustained coverage a merge will have more weight. -- GreenC 22:25, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unless you are going to contribute to making the supposedly deserved article a nice article, please don't vote spam. I do not want to spent 10 hours of my day working to make a nice article for content that you think deserved a nice article. This will be my only announcement IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:10, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose Thanks for the AN/I notification, IJReid, so I could come and oppose this merge. There is news and media coverage spanning the year plus since Titus was made into an exhibit, with local, national, and international media covering the specimen. The scientific report that Wollaton Hall put out on the details, history, and other paleontological aspects of Titus provides more than enough to fill out the article in addition to the more general coverage about exhibitions and other additions made since 2021. I see no reason why this article doesn't have plenty of info and coverage to merit its own stand-alone article. SilverserenC 00:44, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titus_(dinosaur)&oldid=1107626947"