Talk:Stegosaurus in popular culture
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article, image or category is supported by WikiProject Dinosaurs, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page for more information. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular Culture, a WikiProject which aims to improve all articles related to popular culture. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| High | This article is on a subject of high-importance within popular culture articles. | |
|
This article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. |
||
 |
An entry from Stegosaurus in popular culture appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 26, 2006. |
 |
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2007-08-01. The result of the discussion was keep. |
Contents |
[edit] Dammit!
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- (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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Then why insist that trivia remains in place in the meantime? --Eyrian 14:07, 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)
-
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
[edit] Unsourced/original research material
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)
[edit] It's official
This edit war was lame. Circeus 16:27, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- 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)
-
[edit] Phantom
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)
-
- 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)
