Jump to content

Talk:Stegosaurus in popular culture

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dammit!

[edit]

Come on people. I'm sure there's plenty of arguing to be done over that single paragraph (and look! We have a pristine talk page to mar!), but this WP:LAME-candidate wheel-warring HAS to stop before it actually gets added. Circeus 13:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that wheel-warring had to involve doing something that ordinary users couldn't do. As to the actual dispute, it's all been said in the edit summaries. The paragraph about the Thagomizer is the perfect example of what these articles should contain, and the paragraph listing a few stegosaurus characters is a perfect example of the trivial crap they tend to accumulate. --Eyrian 13:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
(sigh) - we both have our fixed world-views it looks like. I did actually find some dino pop culture books tonight which I added some to the main dino pop cult article. Eyrian give it two weeks. If I can find some sources for the paragraph you can delete it OK? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a question of whether it's true; it's a question of relevance. I can easily verify the indicated characters appear in those works. The question is whether those depictions have had an impact on cultural perceptions of the Stegosaurus. I'm considerably more dubious about that. --Eyrian 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
What I meant was finding some critique or synthesis of said information, such as a published book or article - that may take some time to find.14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why insist that trivia remains in place in the meantime? --Eyrian 14:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Because we can take a hard line and remove everything uncited off wikipedia until its cited though it'd make for a lot more work and prevent others building on it. Think about it and where you want to draw the line - as is this is a grey area and I actually agree with many of the obscure deletions, but Lion and T rex (and a lesser extent Steggy) are pretty iconic and to push this to this degree is pretty extreme. Now we can either negotiate or have a revert war - your choice. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But it's because of that prominence that trivia needs to be removed more aggressively. These creatures have appeared all over the place. Listing random occurrences is pointless and uninformative. Why cling to these factoids when there is scholarly analysis waiting to be written? This isn't about removing uncited material from Wikipedia; it's about removing irrelevant material. --Eyrian 14:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
So you're an expert in the area are you? You've got a clear cut line what is "relevant" and what isn't and we should all be enlightened as you obviously know more than the rest of us. Where's the urgency? In the scheme of things there is a ton more misinformation on huge numbers of articles rather than chasing a few comics if you want to look at things which may benefit humanity. I said two weeks not forever remember. I don't know what you do or whether you've actually done research but a hell of alot of material is not accessible online - part of WP's benefit is bringing inaccessible material to the internet masses. Do you want me to go and delete Fritware until you get a peer-reviewed ref rather than some personal website? You can always re-add it later.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: fritware, That's a curriculum page from a university program in ceramics. But, by all means, feel free to nominate it for deletion.
As to this article, I have no problem with however long it takes you to dig up whatever sources you want. My question is: Why keep trivial mentions stuck in there while you do that?
My motivations derive from the fact that these articles have become a blight upon Wikipedia. Is there other work that needs to be done? Absolutely. But that doesn't mean that this task doesn't need to be. Trifles make perfection. While removing irrelevant cultural references may be a trifle, it brings Wikipedia closer to perfection, and it could not be perfect if someone didn't do the job.--Eyrian 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Eyrian - as I said, we could argue about this till the cows come home. Trivia is a subjective definition -many would call Contredanse (band) trivial too and many more would find Stegosaurus in kids books more meaningful. Furthermore just because references aren't easily at hand doesn't mean they don't exist. I feel you're making a subjective judgement and convincing yourself it is "fact". Ultimately however, you will not 'convert' me nor I you and thus we'll revisit this in 2 weeks time. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And you could keep attacking articles I've created until they were squared in the barn. Nevertheless, every single one of them has independent references that indicate their importance. If you don't think so, nominate them for deletion. The fact is, the relevance of the material here simply has not been verified. I disbelieve that relevance. Therefore, it is within my rights to remove it. If and when you find a reference, add verified material to the article. This isn't subjective, it's a matter of verifiability. I don't happen to think that the relevance of a few random appearances can be verified. --Eyrian 15:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I can spot an admin revert summary just fine, y'know. I would have protected the article, but I doubt that would have helped. Circeus 14:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I chose my language carefully. Reverting an unprotected page, however easily, can be done by a regular user as well as an admin. I wouldn't really call it an admin action. --Eyrian 14:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced/original research material

[edit]

I removed some material. IMHO, if it is not sourced, it should not be included. Anyways, carry on with your edit war, cheers! --Tom 14:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's official

[edit]

This edit war was lame. Circeus 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ROFL - best chuckle I've had in a while.. XD cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Holy lord, reading this and the edit comments made my lungs sore and eyes watery from laughter: off with it, still uncited - rv; I'm afraid you don't dictate policy - neither do you (dictate policy) - I said 2 weeks. No offense, but this was freakin' hilarious! Cheers, --Protagon 03:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom

[edit]

Hey.. y'all.. Phantom had a pet Stegy too, possibly the first in history to own a pet stegy (and Hzz and Devil and Solomon, Nefertiti, Devil...) Kit Walker would go riding on it as a kid. Why is it not mentioned here? Please add it or I will tag the article for POV. Sarvagnya 17:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I remember that now (wow). If you have some book on the phantom and it could be referenced from a book or commentary about the ghost who walks that would be really fantastic. You can add it anyway but there are roving folk who may remove it. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

[edit]

A while back, my edit describing Stegosaurus being an active, warm-blooded animal, was replaced with active, warm-blooded beast, as if animal was incorrect. Let's get something straight, dinosaurs aren't the horrible, unnatural monsters that many old caveman movies depict. They are animals like any other. I realize that the fact dinosaurs have been extinct for tens of millions of years makes them strange and unfamiliar to us, but scientifically speaking that is an invalid argument to place them in a separate order from most animals. They certainly looked different, but their behaviour and genetic makeup was more-or-less the same. To sum it up, they are indeed animals. If someone would revert that sentence in the page to its original state, that would be nice. I know there is nothing incorrect about calling them beasts either, but I still think it is unnecessary as a replacement for a perfectly correct description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.36.130.109 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Stegosaurus in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really need this article?

[edit]

This article currently consists of WP:trivia which would be removed as unwanted if it was ever added to the main Stegosaurus page. That article now has a sizeable pop culture section, with much more profound info, so this article here now seems like a redundant WP:content fork. Shouldn't we just merge this article to Stegosaurus and save whatever here that isn't just fluff? FunkMonk (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See this section for further details:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stegosaurus in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:35, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Stegosaurus in popular culture. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stegosaurus_in_popular_culture&oldid=1210551193"