Jump to content

Talk:Titus (dinosaur)

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

Paleontological study on Titus

[edit]

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

[edit]

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

[edit]
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.
It is quite clear at this point that neither side is inclined to change their stance, and with the votes split quite literally down the middle No consensus is the proper call here. This article can be relisted in future (~years) to better evaluate policies like WP:Sustained, but that's a future discussion. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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]
I don't see the problem with an article about an individual animal regardless of where the sources weight lead, towards science or culture, so long as the information is not fiction or misleading. It may be the majority of sources for this animal are not science papers but newspapers for a general audience. Sources inform what the weight should be. Compare Harambe with Western lowland gorilla - one is science topic the other is culture, with some mixtures. -- GreenC 19:47, 31 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]
Nice user name. As for my comment and why the page is notable (and within the context of why it should be kept aside from the AfD comments), the children who saw Titus during the exhibit will have lifetime memories of the experience. This is not just a random TRex specimen but one which has a major exhibition history. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A presence in an exhibition... almost like every other T. rex skeleton on record? Plenty of them have been exhibited in numerous locations. Some in Europe. There's nothing special about this that makes it stand above them. I'm sure the children will survive the heartbreak of their apparently quite spiritual connection with this T. rex not having a Wikipedia page. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:14, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Per the lead: "According to the museum, this is the first time that a "real" fossilised Tyrannosaurus rex has been shown in England for more than 100 years." That greatly adds to its notability. I don't know why this discussion has gotten so argumentative, it would seem that a consensus to merge will not be obtained and, like the AfD, since the question has no consensus the page should stay. Can we drop this and not use editor's time, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Re: impact on popular culture - Whether or not a fossil specimen is "real" makes no difference to the general public because real specimens and cast specimens are superficially indistinguishable. There has been a perfectly serviceable cast of Tyrannosaurus rex in the Oxford University Museum of Natural History for ages. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This specimen is not the first "real" specimen on display in over a century. As the Wollaton Hall report directly states on the first page of content, there is currently a specimen in the NHMUK that is on display, and has been since 1915. The press release stating it is, is blatantly wrong. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You should start a talk page discussion, link to the Wollaton Hall report, remove the claim from the article, link to the talk discussion in the edit summary, and see what happens. See WP:BRD. People are reasonable if there is due process. -- GreenC 19:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BRD is optional, and as I and others have said elsewhere, it is making this situation a bigger mess. This discussion already exists. I listed in the edit summary exactly where it was referencing, and I did remove the claim. The due process here was *almost* already followed exactly as is meant to, the only thing missing was the original notification of parties involved, which while recommended, is still only optional. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:46, 1 September 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]
  • Oppose The Specimens of Tyrannosaurus page is aimed at short summaries of individual examples rather than the more detailed information here. I am sure that the page will mature over time. Gusfriend (talk) 07:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC) 13:19, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    How will the page mature over time with a specimen that is now in an anonymous private collection, and whose entire access to fame was an anecdotal event in the long history of pointless anecdotes ? Larrayal (talk) 12:06, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Gusfriend I think this vote is in direct violation of WP:FUTURE, would you like to reconsider? IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 12:57, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that saying that the specimens page is aimed at short summaries is still correct which is my reason for opposing the merge. I would also say that stating that Wikipedia pages mature over time is part of believing that other editors are here to build an encyclopedia. I would expect the same to happen here as happens on other pages. I will however strike my optimistic comment to make sure it is not seen as part of my reasoning.
    I also claim that it would only be a violation of WP:FUTURE if my reasoning is something like "oppose because there will be more research soon" or "oppose because it will be generating more news when the next exhibition opens" Gusfriend (talk) 13:18, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is fair. However, this article is going to be reduced to a short summary whether it is merged or not, see all the comments on the issues. And there won't be more research or another exhibit as the specimen is a private collectors piece, so there is not additional information to add that isn't already included here. We are at the maximum length possible without making it even worse. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:43, 1 September 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]

Oh, and in response to my addition of the cleanup tags, let me present my case, using the revision where I cleaned up the article prior to the merge discussion, which everyone who votes keep seems to want to undo, as evidence.

The original fossil bones in the mounted skeleton belong to a private collector but separate 3D-printed replicas of the bones have been accessioned into the public Nottingham Natural History Museum under the number NCMG 2021–7

This is not relevant to the infobox, which I revised to make it clear that casts of individual bones are accessioned, not the real bones, or the mount

According to the National Geographic, Trix the T. rex fossil went on display briefly in Glasgow, Scotland, in the summer of 2019. In England, the first T. rex fossil discovered in Wyoming, US, in 1900, was acquired by the Natural History Museum in London in the 1960s, and parts of it have been on display in various museums and galleries since then. According to the scientific report published by the Nottingham Natural History Museum, the 1900 specimen from Wyoming may be an Ankylosaurus.

The above is directly contradicted by the least controversial citation in the article, the Wollaton Hall Report. Hereafter the WHR.

Pfister originally found a broken tibia, and said he knew instantly that it belonged to a Tyrannosaurus rex, but was sidetracked by the discovery of a nearby Triceratops.

This is unsourced, the citation does not add this detail.

The bones of Titus were shipped to conservationist Nigel Larkin in the UK, who assessed and conserved the bones. Larkin merged Titus's bones with a polyurethane cast of Stan, one of the most complete Tyrannosaurus rex skeletons ever found. Before Titus was mounted, the bones and bone fragments of the specimen were scanned using photogrammetry by Steven Dey of ThinkSee3D, who shared the 3D digital models with paleontologists in the US, and 3D printed the bones for use in the exhibition, alongside the display of the real fossil skeleton.

This is bad, it is adding WP:UNDUE weight to the commercial collector and business that were involved in what are at most accessory details to the content. We do not need company names in articles of this topic. The important detail of Nigel Larkin being involved in the casting and using Stan was kept.

Titus is reportedly the first genuine Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton exhibited in England in over a century; other T. rex exhibits on display in the UK are casts of actual bones, or partial fragments.

The above is directly contradicted by the WHR.
The overemphasis on commercial individuals and companies is where the Advert tag comes from. The use of puffery like "instantly" and "incredibly" deserves the Buzzwords tag. The entire justification of WP:Sustained is why the PR tag is required, and the Subjective tag comes from the blatantly incorrect discussion of its novelty and importance in the article itself. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You intentionally added those tags to piss off the ARS. Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 14:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please assume good faith. There are legitimate reasons to tag the post-AfD version of the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about all of the tags, but I hope that IJ's rationale can convince you that at least some of them are necessary (since you're insisting on the post-AfD version being kept live). This kind of language is all too common in palaeontology-related press releases, and it does not make for good, neutral articles. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a routine deletion process for WP:PALEO. You're the ones making it weird, we have those kinds of irrelevant fossils and unsourced species articles to deal with on a daily basis. Usually with far less outcry and "Think of the tiny children" discourse. Larrayal (talk) 01:09, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have just performed a cleanup of poor content at Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, reducing it to around 80k bytes, and with the enormous section of Scotty still in need of either summarizing or, I think, splitting into its own article. Once that's dealt with it will surely be closer to 70k bytes. Any concerns it's absolutely too bursting at the seems to accommodate Titus should be mostly calmed. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 01:13, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I notice that Larkin's article in Geological Curator from back in March on the entire curation process of Titus isn't used in the article. You can see the abstract for it over here. SilverserenC 01:16, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Good catch. I would have that reference and content replace everything currently associated with citation 6. Which will amount to about two or three sentences. And still not near enough relevance to have a separate article after all other necessary fixes are made. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:22, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean you have access to the entire article and not just the abstract I linked? How would you know about the amount of usable content in it otherwise? SilverserenC 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The full article is available here. Which makes it appear to be a less reputable source, but also the only significant content to this article is summarized nicely by the abstract. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is the same source as the abstract - see the venue underneath the author. This looks like a poster for a preprint symposium presentation. However, I also doubt that the actual paper contains substantially more notable content. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:49, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is mostly an artisan talking about its art. Nothing relevant with the specimen, very short, written by Larkin so there's an obvious conflict of interest there, and there's down my street a tailor that makes pretty good shirts, that does not mean that those shirts each warrant their own articles. Even if they were exposed in the Nottingham Museum, or in any UK museum, honestly. Larrayal (talk) 01:23, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So you have access to the article too? How long is the full article? Also, I don't think your tailor is published in specialized magazine publications for a field. SilverserenC 01:25, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    My tailor probably don't self-publish articles about himself, and this isn't even the result of a published, peer-reviewed article. This is the written version of a symposium, a conference if you want, written by Larkin, about Larkin, not peer-reviewed, never published officially. This is barely a source. Larrayal (talk) 01:29, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the journal website claims that all articles are peer-reviewed. It does not go into further detail, however, so it is impossible to assess how rigorously it has been reviewed (especially since Larkin is a member of the publishing group). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:35, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I...don't think you understand how specialized field magazines work or their reliability as sources. If it was Larkin writing about himself, then yes, that would likely be an issue. But writing about a topic one was involved in as an expert is precisely what specialized field magazines are for. They are absolutely reliable sources (and have editors) and while they aren't the same top tier level as secondary academic publications on a topic are, they are still far higher of a source than news and media coverage. SilverserenC 01:36, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: All.
    I've posted the article in an earlier comment, in full.
    However, this article still sorely required secondary sources, like with other science topics, instead of primary sources, which are all it currently has. And yes, even the Wollaton Hall report is a primary source. It does not describe the fossil for what it is on a physical level beyond cursory notes of pathologies, but for what it is on a cultural and personal level.
    The sources should be used to improve the contents regardless of whether it remains a freestanding article or not. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 01:45, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be two separate issues that are really being discussed here: (1) Is the post-AfD version of the article a quality article? (No.) (2) Should the article, even after improvement, be merged? (I think so, but that is what we are here to discuss). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:53, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is substantially improved, then would it still have to be merged? Magnatyrannus (talk | contribs) 01:55, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the *content* can be substantially improved, but that a separate article is still not something I would support. Without the context of other Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, this article has absolutely no substance of importance. The specimens novelty, presentation, and preservation are all relative to other specimens. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 02:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. Every article is a standalone piece. It doesn't require to be more or less "relevant" than any other article. Wikipedia uses the concept of notability to determine which is based on external sources, not other wikipedia articles. -- GreenC 19:56, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, and why is this specimen notable? It is not the first of anything, nor even substantially complete, nor unique in any way. It is about as generically sized, complete, and relevant as average specimen. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article meets the general notability guidelines. It is therefore notable by Wikipedia standards. Dream Focus 13:46, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly this. Meeting WP:GNG is all that is needed. What ever extra criteria you might wish for, we run the encyclopaedia based on the general notability criteria. CT55555 (talk) 13:53, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This article doesn't even pass GNG anyways. There are no independent reliable sources, all the sources are primary sources derived from the press release and promotion of the exhibit. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 17:42, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does that even mean? Do you think BBC and Guardian just pump out news based on press releases? That they have no journalistic process? Please back up your statements if you want us to take them seriously. CT55555 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the BBC article? It adds only one sentence of content, which happens to be a quote from the Wollaton Council. I've also removed the Wollaton Hall news release, since its content is already covered by the less biased references in the article. Where in any of the references is the "analytical discussion" required for secondary sources? The onus of proof is not on me, but on those trying to *keep* content. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:24, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will not comment on the content of this source, but I will note that it is a specialist publication with access limited to members of the Geological Curators Group [3]. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that anyone on Wikipedia, whether WP:DINO or ARS, will be able to access anything beyond the abstract until it becomes open access in two years. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In answer to Randy Kryn's removed question, it is possible that the journal article may have new, notable information. However, there is a preprint poster of the paper, presented at an academic conference either shortly before or during the likely review cycle of the journal article, that is also linked above. Such posters are usually reflective of the content in the final published version. In this case, the poster offers very little information that is not already present in the article, within the bounds of summary style. All of that is relevant to content and not notability. As for notability, Geological Curator is a legitimate venue in that its published work appears to be peer-reviewed, and some reliable domain experts do publish in it. However, the neutrality of the published version under WP:PROMO is unclear without access to the article, since Larkin is a member of the publishing organization. It may be written neutrally, or it may be written in a promotional manner; IJ argues above that the poster version is written in a promotional manner. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Assessing Titus by this criteria, I don't think the subject necessarily needs context that's not able to be made clear with a standalone article, so it passes point one. However, "Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page" and the following text of point two seems, to me, to support the idea that if we already have an article like Specimens of Tyrannosaurus and only make separate articles in exceptional cases of importance, there's no reason Titus should be a separate article. There's no compelling reason the subject cannot be covered there entirely adequately, and to suggest a random T. rex specimen like Titus would be a large shift of precedent set by that article of the vast majority not getting this treatment. Finally, point three is clear cut - the amount of usable, not promotional content for Titus does not allow for article exceeding the current version, which only barely constitutes more than a stub. Given tht the mount was only on temporary displa, that there's no evidence Titus is especially scientifically important, and that Titus is privately owned, there is no compelling reason to think this lack of information to provide is going to change in any meaningful fasshion. This relevant guideline, to me, clearly backs the points that have been made in favor of merging the article. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with this assessment. For criterion 2, also of note is the fact that Titus is mostly a cast of Stan (remember, it is 20% complete), ergo indeed including Stan and Titus on the same page means that "the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page". Papers about individual T. rex specimens are also relatively scarce compared to ones that discuss specimens belonging to the species or genus as a whole. At risk of entering WP:CRYSTAL territory, should Titus receive further attention in the literature, this would be the likely context. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:42, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
20% is pretty good for a TRex skeleton, and I second the motion of a poster at the other ANI discussion that all TRex's should have their own page if possible (something which wouldn't be done with any other dinosaur but is applicable to TRex). There is no requirement that only dinosaur specimens with major scientific importance get their own page, Titus has other considerations which are recognized by many posters in this merge request, which seems to have, at a minimum, a no consensus decision already which makes further merge discussion kind of a waste of time unless it discourages editors from trying to delete even more of the article (had to revert someone trying to remove section headings). Randy Kryn (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This may have to be where we disagree, but I would reject the notion of inherent exceptionalism for T. rex beyond its status as charismatic megafauna in popular culture. Although some academics may hold inherent biases, it is simply yet another dinosaur (albeit a relatively specialized one) from the vantage point of the literature. The editor at ANI suggests that a name is what makes a specimen worthy of a standalone article. From a popular culture perspective, sure. From a scientific perspective, absolutely not, as far as promotional considerations are concerned. Does one outweigh the other? I don't know. My take is that we do the subject a disservice by emphasizing the popular culture perspective per the temporary nature of its public impact (per above). Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The specimens article lists no less than fourteen other specimens that are more complete than 20%... does count as "pretty good"? Of all specimens notable enough to be mentioned on that page, the only three less complete than Titus are the three name bearing specimens, the ones guaranteed notability by default due to historicity. Not to mention regardless of "pretty good" or "pretty bad" that it, it doesn't address the point that statistic was pointed out to make, that being on the list page that has a section on Stan complies with WP:PAGEDECIDE and so offers an argument towards merging, one far less nebulous than how "good" the completeness subjectively feels. In regards to the headers, they only serve to obscure what this article is - barely more than a stub without sufficient information to justify existing separate from its relevant list. Hence they were removed along with the bad content before the insistance on reverting to a past version of the article on poor grounds. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 22:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Paleontology in Montana is appropriate at the merge target. See also Tyrannosaurus and various other dinosaur pages tagged with Paleontology in Montana despite not being exclusively found in Montana.
Titus is not crucial to an understanding of developments in paleontology that occurred in 2018. Plus, note that the years in paleontology categorization is primarily reserved for the "years in paleontology" summary pages, as well as taxa (not specimens) described in specific years. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:12, 6 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having one large article in many articles makes the relevant content harder to find, since the user navigating the category sees a less relevant title, and has to hunt for the content they're looking for within the larger article.
Your second paragraph doesn't really make much sense - most of Wikipedia isn't "crucial" for anything but that's irrelevant to whether it is of benefit to the reader. NemesisAT (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This discussion has stalled and is not going anywhere, so I am continuing to improve the article as it stands here following all relevant guidelines. Per MOS:LEADSTUB and MOS:OVERSECTION the article does not have to have subsections. At its current length it should not, it is a glorified stub. Per WP:GNG the article requires good secondary coverage. No one has yet to demonstrate secondary sources exist for this article, since at most three press-release news coverage references is not sufficient. Information has been removed per WP:UNDUE and WP:PROMO, not only on this article but also on the target redirect, bringing both well below any level of concern of WP:SIZESPLIT. A very good preview of the end state of this article is already visible on Specimens of Tyrannosaurus#"Titus", so you can see how the article will end up. There is no more content to migrate over, there are no more WP:SUSTAINED references or relevance, WP:PAGEDECIDE is in support of this article being merged, and there are no policies or guidelines that require it to be a standalone article, contra the !keep votes.
  • I also wish to point out that Bruxton voted twice, once on behalf of a topic-banned editor who cannot vote here for themselves. I would request that any parties who count votes take this into consideration and omit the latter !vote entirely; editors cannot and should not vote on the behalf of others, regardless of situation. In the meantime, I will continue to improve this article per all the guidelines and policies I have cited above, so that even if the votestacking renders this another lack of consensus the article can die slowly and slightly more respectably as its topic fades into complete and utter obscurity and irrelevance. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 20:38, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Your last sentence reads to me that you have no plans to respect consensus and will merge the article regardless. So why should anyone waste time debating this? NemesisAT (talk) 20:55, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@IJReid: On Wikipedia we do not hope articles die slowly. We also do not stomp our feet when we do not get our way. We should not start an ANI to attack editors or projects. I also want to refer you to WP:5P4. We do not compare good faith participation in a merge discussion to votestacking. Also accusing me of voting twice is not accurate. We ultimately respect consensus here and there is not a consensus to support your ideas and conclusions about the article. Bruxton (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You quite literally presented a bolded voting opinion twice, once as "there is no reason to think he would be ok with a merger now" (emphasis my own). Look at the pageviewer stats for this article. It is being kept alive by these discussions and internal site views, not by having external readers drawn in. This is because there is no relevance and very poor notability, which is something those who have voted based on size or GNG standards have not understood. As others who have voted either way have said, in 2-5 years this article will be reevaluated if it survives, and a new judgment unclouded by the recency of it will come around. Bruxton, your "good faith participation" began with a very un-good-faith reversal of all edits done over a month, for no reason supported by guideline or policy. Nemesis, I have ad I will continue to respect a consensus, and I will not merge this article if one in favour of keeping appears. But I have brought up counterarguments for all reasons for keeping, and it is worth seeing of those counterarguments persuade anyone otherwise. I an cynical of the outcomes here, but I am not going to violate consensus, I will simply ignore this article and let time show what happens to it. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:31, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
CT55555, NemesisAT, Ficaia you voted based on article size, from my bolded comment above, do you still support that?
Dream Focus, GreenC, Gusfriend, Silverseren you voted baseed on notability, from my bolded comment above, do you still support that?
Randy Kryn, Bruxton you voted without providing a rationale, do you still support that?
I want to figure out if and why the keep votes persist, I do apologize for the pings IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:38, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't support the merge due to the article meeting WP:GNG, benefiting the encyclopaedia, being a perfectly good standalone article, as per the arguments I made at AfD. I'm trying not to repeat myself, but you are obliging me to do so. CT55555 (talk) 13:49, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because you have been ignoring this point thus far: why are you using GNG to decide when PAGEDECIDE is the appropriate criterion? Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:00, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lythronaxargestes and CT55555: WP:MERGE we can use notability as our rationale. There are so many competing guidelines that editors are not wrong to choose one. Bruxton (talk) 14:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) @IJReid: My edit was to return the article to the state it was in when the community both worked on it and kept it during an AfD recently. I did not consider the month long reductions and stubbing of the article to be positive edits. Also how long will the template be hung on the article? I do not see evidence that "This article relies too much on references to primary sources." But removing templates causes a rolling edit war. There are 6 sources in the article: National Geographic, The Guardian, BBC News, Natural-History-Conservation, A Paleontology Study, and Nottingham Live. Why the tag? My own merge rationale is that this subject meets our notability guidelines. Bruxton (talk) 14:07, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, wikipedia is not run on a set of fixed rules WP:5P5. Suggesting that there is only one way to look at an issue is incorrect. That said, WP:PAGEDECIDE and WP:GNG both point to different sections on the same page (WP:N), so we're not a world apart here. Thirdly, using WP:GNG to decide should if we keep/merge something is overwhelmingly the norm that I've seen in hundreds of similar debates at AfD. And lastly, please stop asking me to justify further my !vote. I've said I want to keep this multiple times and repeating it puts off others. WP:COAL is just an essay, but a helpful in this context. CT55555 (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And that is the issue, using GNG and not PAGEDECIDE when they appear on the same page is cherrypicking because they are not mutually exclusive but instead parts of a whole. GNG says nothing about warranting a standalone page, just coverage in an article. Whichever poor editor shoulders the responsibility of closing this discussion should take note of this distinction. GNG naturally applies at AfD where the alternative is no coverage in an article (i.e., delete), but this is a merge discussion. Having made my point about the nature of the arguments raised in this discussion, I rest my case. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:58, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG is entirely about whether something warrants a separate article, as noted at the start of that section (A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). GNG does not apply to content within articles, per the line at the end of the section (If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article). NemesisAT (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, but my first sentence remains valid. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is enough detail in the sources already in the article (about the story of the discovery, the exhibition in the UK, etc.) to flesh out this article further. A summary at Specimens of Tyrannosaurus and a hatnote pointing to this article is the best way to present this imo. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 15:09, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying, IJReid. I personally still think this should be a separate article on the basis of article sizes as the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus page is likely to continue to grow (especially if further articles like this are merged back into it) and that it is easier to find relevant content (especially on a mobile device) in short articles with relevant titles rather than in a section on a longer article. NemesisAT (talk) 15:24, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this still dragging onward? Can someone close this already? Dream Focus 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked an uninvolved editor to close this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closure_requests#Talk:Titus_(dinosaur)#Merge_proposal_(dinosaur)

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.

Consensus to remove all sections?

[edit]

I reverted @IJReid's deletion of all section titles. Then that was reverted. That's unfortunate, as it's not the usual bold, revert, discuss cycle, but I'm not going to edit war.

Is there consensus that this article should have sections?

Here's my revert that itself was reverted:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titus_(dinosaur)&curid=70201229&diff=1109604199&oldid=1109601196&diffmode=source CT55555 (talk) 21:06, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I don't really care about whether this article has sections, but I think WP:OVERSECTION is too vague to argue either way here. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 22:25, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove sections. This article is 400-500 words, which is the bare minimum threshold given by MOS:LEADSTUB for considering adding subsections. The current sections as they stand are a circular feedback loop regardless, almost all the content of the "lead" is present in the two paragraphs of context, and should be removed. Sections give this article a false sense of being more significant than a stub, while it is only start class at best, and ranking is subjective. There is no improvement made the section titles, and "Description" is misleading anyways per project guidelines as it is not discussing any description of the animal as alive. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:23, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Every lead in every article is a summary of the rest of the content. That is what leads are. CT55555 (talk) 13:47, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep sections. The two sections divide the article between a) a description of the physical attributes of the fossil and b) the story of its discovery and reconstruction. I think this is helpful to the reader. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 13:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The naming rationale and description of the steel armature (which is borderline WP:PROMO since it has nothing to do with the specimen itself) are not "Description" features per WP:DINO. The pathological details are, but normally they would be under a "Paleopathology" subsection, and on their own a separate section for the single sentence is not beneficial. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 13:28, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Even excluding the naming rationale, the description section is 3 sentences not 1 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
IJ was talking about the text about pathologies. It's two sentences that really can be rewritten as a single one. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:14, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First display in England in 100 years?

[edit]

Multiple sources say that this was the first display of a T Rex in England in over 100 years, but User:Lythronaxargestes reverted my edit about this. I think the essay WP:TRUTH is relevant here, but I seek consensus on how to proceed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Titus_(dinosaur)&diff=next&oldid=1110114786&diffmode=source

Note: ‘Real’ T rex goes on show in England for first time in over a century seems clear. CT55555 (talk) 17:30, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't say that, they say it is the first "real" skeleton on display. That is a nonsensical statement because it is only 20% complete. The Guardian source acknowledges this, but also does not clarify what "real" means. The "report" suggests that "real" means that authentic fossils are incorporated into the armature, but this does not make a material difference to the display of the specimen (this is not uncommon for museum-mounted specimens) and therefore constitutes undue weight. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:45, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clear that real means bones and not casts of bones. CT55555 (talk) 17:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am not disputing that, but real bones constitute 20% of the skeleton and the other 80% is still made up of casts. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 17:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So? I think our job here is to capture what reliable sources say, not to add our own perceptions of what they should say. CT55555 (talk) 17:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The word "real" is puffery. The articles have it in quotes for a reason. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 18:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No. WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth. You may call it 'puffery' but I disagree. It is a fact. Your perjorative opinion is yours alone. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:39, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is neither perjorative nor an opinion, but it's clear from both the AfD and the merge discussion that you will never be convinced of this fact. None of this changes the fact that the wording originally added by CT was incorrect, even based on the content of the news reports. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 19:54, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are other Tyrannosaurus fossils permanently in UK museums, including historically notable ones (see Dynamosaurus), so the statement is a bit of a stretch either way. FunkMonk (talk) 20:08, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indisputably, it was said and these are verified sources. WP:RS! You may disagree, but that does not make them disappear. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 20:34, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are other verifiable sources that state the exact opposite of what you are interpreting the NG article as saying. 2+2 cannot equal both 4 and 5, one statement is simply *wrong* and should not be included. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:34, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The best source for this is the National Geographic article. Trix the T-Rex was more complete and visited Scotland (but not England) in 2019. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NG is a reliable source. What happened in Scotland is irrelevant, and is why we are talking about England and not the UK. CT55555 (talk) 21:59, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Even the Wollaton Hall report states "Titus" is not the only on display. Page 8 bottom paragraph says that

The only other Tyrannosaurus rex in the UK is the holotype of Dynamosaurus imperious which was later found to be a T. rex (AMNH 5856 => BMNH R7994). It was found in Wyoming by Barnum Brown, but was mixed with the armor plates of an armored dinosaur, possibly Ankylosaurus, and was first conceived and reconstructed as an “armored T. rex”. The specimen, which comprises less than 13% of the skeleton, was eventually sold to the British Museum where there is only a lower jaw (dentary) on exhibit.

I don't see how this is still a discussion. IJReid {{T - C - D - R}} 00:32, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And just a reminder that the original wording was about T. rex skeletons, period. Reliable sources (since we care about them so much) demonstrate that the Oxford University Museum of Natural History has had a cast since 2000. [4] [5] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 01:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@CT55555 Even the National Geographic article mentions the ongoing display of the T.rex bones found in 1900 by Barnum Brown at the Natural History Museum, so I have to think the pivotal word is "exhibited" as opposed to "displayed". Cielquiparle (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Using two as a baseline, can wording say something like "one of two partial TRex skeletons exhibited in England in the last hundred years" (is 100 years accurate or is it all-time?). Randy Kryn (talk) 04:22, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If we have to start splitting hairs between words to discern exactly what Titus' claim to fame is, perhaps the logical solution is to attribute the quote to the museum without comment - or, better yet, not have it at all. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The efn and the now restored material clarifies all of this. "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Continution of this discussion is a waste of valuable editor effort. Move along. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:20, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Titus_(dinosaur)&oldid=1220589235"