Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Deinonychus update at FAC

Circeus has left some fixes needed at Talk:Deinonychus/Comments. I'm wading through them but my time may be preoccupied later today with off-keyboard events. I will try to get to them later but all input much appreciated in the meantime. They are all good points as Circeus has applied his wiki-microscope to help us massage the text through. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Some of the trickiest points highlighted (don't discuss here) are the use of the term "hands", how much we go into the whole dromaeosaurs as birds bit here (more or none at all), and significance of gastralia. My time is in dribs and drabs and I've concentrated on easy fixes so far as I don't have large chunks of time available to muse on things. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
My guess on gastralia (which need an article) is that this suggests no ossified tendons in the tail for stiffening, but I don't know how that compares to Velociraptor, or how important this would be since it's already got long chevrons and postzygapophyses to stiffen it. J. Spencer 01:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Gah. As it stands Deinonychus has consensus support but for opinion on the Jurassic Park image at the bottom of the article. Spanwn man opposes its use, saying it's unnecessary, while Circeus says its very important and influential and should be kept in. Can people please give their opinion on this? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, as it stands, it seems unlikely this article will reach FA status. Which is unfortunate, as a lot of work went into this article. See, back in the day (like, a year ago) there was a clear consensus to promote these articles because they were, for the most part, written (or rewritten) by professionals. You could honestly say, "there's no way this article is amateurish; it was vetted by a pro." Because so few Featured Articles were written by professionals, it was easy to support.
But with Deinonychus, none of the professionals have weighed in. Only the dino-fan types have weighed in. Even though the article seems as comprehensive as the other articles based on a comparison, you can't say for certain that Deinonychus is as comprehensive, as there may be some thing you missed. I based my judgement on the size of the article, the length of the sections, the quality of the references, and what I felt was the clarity of the prose. But being an amateur, I can't know if there's something I missed. The pros don't want to or are unable to lend their support for this article. We can no longer send articles to FAC knowing that the people who gave such a huge boost to the project in the first place (by lending their professional opinions and ideas) are unable to weigh in on the overall quality of the articles they helped write.
It is my recommendation, then, that this be the last dinosaur FAC for a while, whether it is successful or not. An amateur writer can possibly get an article up to GA status, but there is no way for him to know if he has missed some important fact that is required by the "comprehensive" criterion of FAC. One of the reasons this project was so wildly successful for a year and a half was because the material was vetted by professionals. But let's face it, Cas: you and I and others aren't pros. We have a certain sense for the material, but our opinions only carry so much weight, and we can't continue sending articles to FAC knowing the professional contingent can't support them. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:05, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Mmh, I see desillusion here... I do not see any fundamental differences in the contribution to the Deinonychus article and past FAC article such as Stegosaurus. All the dinosaur articles were primarily written by dino enthusiasts but all, including Deinonychus contain a substantial amount of work from people in the paleontology field (people like JSpencer, Dinoguy2,...). True, they may not be considered as "established" professionals as most of them are still MS or PhD students, but this is true for any wikipedia article as professionals usually do not have or take the time to edit there. How many instances do we have of students contributing actively on wikipedia and then disappear after graduating as they become busy with their professional life? It is therefore not true that professionals have not weighted in or that there is a difference in how they weighted in in the past and today. If you are referring to the people voting on FAC, well, I don't see any paleontologist who voted for Stegosaurus or Diplodocus and I doubt they were many on the others as well. The problem we are facing now I think, is that we are dealing with lesser known dinosaur so you will be getting less votes, but the likes of Thescelosaurus was still featured. Don't give up, Firs, we need your enthusiasm to move the project forward and have another 100 articles move to FA or GA status before the end of the year. Cheers ArthurWeasley 20:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Interesting. I had been musing on this myself as I can tell alot more readily in an area which I work in (schizophrenia), versus some where I've had an amateur interest for a time as an adult Banksia integrifolia, which is why a group effort is great on the other things I've worked on like fungi, birds and dinosaurs, though I agree I feel out of my depth at times with dinosaurs. Having books and a scientific groundwork certainly helps. Even minor help from folks working in the dino field is precious and I for one am very grateful. Heck, Ken Carpenter has even donated an image on Hesperosaurus. Current frustrations aside, the synergies on some of these articles while gunning for FA with 3-4 folks banging away at the keyboard on most of the collaborations have been great to see and better than anything I've come across elsewhere (though working on some of the rorquals (maybe its a size thing?) and banksias has come close ). I have not contributed majorly for some time either but was feeling renewed mesozoic vigour for a bit....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see that this one is having a particularly hard time, compared to Triceratops or Iguanodon, for example. I do see a lack of reviews from others outside of the project, which was also present with Daspletosaurus and Styracosaurus (although I would think people would be more interested in Deinonychus). Perhaps silence is a good thing, in that people may dislike just going right out and supporting a given article because it makes them appear as if they weren't being a careful enough or critical enough editor. Or, perhaps people are just doing other things in July.
As for the picture, I would have supported keeping it in until I reread Velociraptor and the introduction of Raptor Red. I don't know if I've ever seen a source who worked on the movie come right out and say "it's Deinonychus"; in fact, the Raptor Red intro says the opposite, in that the animators were displeased to be animating an oversized "raptor" that didn't exist, and that Utahraptor was coincidentally the right size. The information might be better placed in Dromaeosauridae. J. Spencer 00:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
(de-indent) I am not disillusioned, Arthur, and I'm certainly not giving up. :) But there certainly were paleontologist-types who were voting on the Stegosaurus and Diplodocus FACs; Mark T Young, for example, who voted on both. These last few FACs have not drawn very many comments even among WP:DINO members, and our peer reviews have sat empty. The community at large is not voting on them, and not even all the active WP:DINO team is voting on them. I'd love to add that 50th star to the WP:DINO flag, but there has to be consensus to promote these, and we've been scraping near the bottom lately. One strategy would be to try to work on more well-known dinosaurs (Apatosaurus, Brachiosaurus, Allosaurus). Another thought is to send out automated messages to project members and all those who previously commented on a dinosaur GAC or FAC. But as J says, it's July, and people may just be busy with vacations or something (but we didn't have this problem last July. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the lack of input is part of bigger issues at FAC and not just restricted to dinos. It does seem quiet in alot of things on my watchlist though...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Glad to hear that, Firs :). It might just be an impression, but Stego and Dippy got respectively 14 and 16 total votes with 5 and 6 from WP:DINO active members. Deinonychus has so far 8 votes with 5 from the WP:DINO active members. So what we are missing are votes from outside the project. Styraco for instance passed with only 5 votes, with 3 from the WP:DINO. May be people just get tired voting at FAC? ArthurWeasley 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
I certainly get tired of voting at FAC. Besides that however, Deinonychus is now a FA! Well done team - you are really speeding along with this FA thing. Hmmm, where does the shadow of WikiProject Dino fall next eh? Spawn Man 01:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Topic?

How's this then - get Tarbosaurus, Alioramus and Gorgosaurus - and Tyrannosauridae and Tyrannosaurus in Popular Culture to GA for a Featured Topic.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've spruced up gorgy quite a bit (thanks to alot of groundowrk done by sheepy), and intend to work on Tarby (my favourite dino), which leaves teh pop cult and family pages...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)


....or a Dromaeosaur Featured Topic, with Utahraptor, Dromaeosauridae and others to GA....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Next FAC

(Wow this is so exciting), now while Deinonychus was being flame-grilled at FAC, Herrerasaurus, Lambeosaurus and Parasaurolophus have all had a spit an' a lick of boot polish and I'd say not much separates them for a tilt at FAC. Given Justin's done a ton of work and is most familiar with them, I guess his input on which one we launch next at FAC would be good, as well as other folks.cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

PS: I figure H. is closest but the recent illustrations added to the latter two are fantastic...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

As per my comment above, great work everybody! However, I must disagree Cas - I think out of the three you mentioned Herrera is the furthest from completion. It still has numerous stubby paragraphs, especially in the Description section. This can be easily fixed, but if we had to go with one right now, I'd say it would be a pretty close tie between Para & Lambi. I think we should go with one of those two whilst we work on Herrera & when it gets featured, we can nomiante both of the remaining ones. Of course, since J has worked on the article frequently, I'd like to hear what he thinks since no one cares what I think lol! Cheers, Spawn Man 05:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I personally think Parasaurolophus is the most comprehensive and most interesting of the bunch. I have a short to-do list on the talk page, but the wild card is Dropzink's skull drawings, because I'd really like a diagram of the different species' skulls. Spinosaurus is also deserving of consideration, I think. I'd order them P>L>S>H at this point. J. Spencer 14:30, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with that too... Spawn Man 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds good to me; parasaurolophus it is then cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
The pop culture section makes my eyes bleed but otherwise, right on. Sheep81 04:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
If you think it's bad now, check it before I started revising it. :) I'm certainly not wedded to the darn thing, but if pop culture is to be included, well... I honestly have no clue what to do with that section; Para is one of those obvious, interesting-looking dinosaurs that shows up as stage dressing to make a scene look appropriately dinosaur-y, but rarely does it do much of anything. J. Spencer 05:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I would except my eyes are already bleeding. Heh. :) Sheep81 05:07, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Since you are the major caretaker of the article I'm not going to barge in and delete a whole section, but if you want my opinion, a dinosaur that is just "stage dressing" probably doesn't need a pop culture section at all. Just throwing that out there. I'm not bothered if you leave it, I'll just scroll down to the references really fast to avoid inflicting eye trauma. Sheep81 05:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
IMHO, delete it. There are times when dinosaurs absolutely need a pop culture section (such as T rex) & there are times when all a section such as this serves is to degrade the article. This is one of those times. The para is very hard to read compared to the rest of the article. Frankly, I wouldn't support any Para FAC if the article still included the section - it's just not needed. Anyway, Spawn Man 07:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Cut it out, stuck it on the talk page. J. Spencer 21:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Put it up. J. Spencer 03:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hay id liek to join

Don't worry, I can type Nitron Ninja Apple 23:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hahaha - welcome :) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD discussion with wider implications

Dear all, there is a debate going on at AfA about Lions in popular culture, which admittedly is a messy article but couldhave wider implications as there are several dino pages with similar subpages - thus this could set some form of precedent so may be worth debating once and for all there (has it been debated before?). cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that Cas - I commented on the AfD, but I definitely think I could do some real work on the article after the AfD's over. It's right up my alley. Spawn Man 02:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
The more I think about it the more I'm inclined to rename all the Pop cult subarticles Cultural depiction of...(x) - as it is less 'trivial' sounding, though this is more important for critters like Ravens, Lions, Eagles, White sox (whatever they are..)cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it'll work for dinosaurs - lets face it, all it really is is trivia facts, unlike lions where they have been used in numerous depictions in culture. I think we should leave the article names for now... IMHO... Spawn Man 05:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, T. rex for instance has only been known for 100 years. Sheep81 18:25, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Scipionyx: Quibble (?) wants additional input

Question on Talk:Scipionyx about the appropriate affiliation of Marco Signore, for anyone interested in such matters. -- Writtenonsand 17:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Answered. Sheep81 18:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Herrerasaurus

Well, what do we want to do with it? I've been picking at it for a while, but I can't tell that it's any better. A couple of things I've noticed are that the classification aspect should be more centralized (right now it's in a couple of sections and so runs the risk of being confusing, contradictory, and redundant), and the prose flow is a bit choppy. J. Spencer 01:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I had sent it to peer review, but this was almost a month ago, and I doubt it will receive any comments this late in the process. Arthur did an amazing job expanding the article, but I agree it still needs work. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:24, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not trying to imply that it's bad or anything, just "making it better" in terms of a collaboration. I'm going to shut up before I put a Breviparopus-sized foot in my mouth. :) J. Spencer 15:03, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The article has also something like 11 red links that need to be addressed. ArthurWeasley 15:25, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I'm back on the talk page. I just wanted to mention it here to get everyone thinking about it again. J. Spencer 02:42, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

Just to let you know that a lot of stuff has gone into Archive #13 and Archive #14. Try to guess what - I think you'll be pleasantly surprised! :) J. Spencer 01:57, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Parasaurolophus now nominated at FAC

'nuff said. Have a look. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Additional Tyrannosaurus specimen articles

I found a few more articles on specimens of Tyrannosaurus that had slipped through the cracks: AMNH 5027, BHI 3033, and CM 9380. These join Jane (dinosaur) and Sue (dinosaur). Perhaps a Specimens of Tyrannosaurus article combining these (and a few others, unmade) is in order? J. Spencer 16:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. If you'd like to merge these articles together, let me know and a history merge can be done (to combine all the histories under the GDFL). Firsfron of Ronchester 18:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea. It would allow us to go into more detail with some of the specimen histories (esp. Sue). Sheep81 18:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
In fact I just remembered I had written up a bunch about some of the specimens which I was originally going to include in the Tyrannosaurus article but never got around to. It's here if anyone thinks the information would be useful. Sheep81 18:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
There's a section heading in your sandbox named Discoveries, which at the end contains a list of specimens. Is this where the Jane, Sue, and other information would go? Your sandbox is already at 35K; my only concern is the possibility of too much detail (if that's possible). Firsfron of Ronchester 20:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Terrific! - another article for a potential FT...:) cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Yep, I was specifically talking about the "Discoveries" section. I think a lot of that 35K is other stuff which I was going to edit for the main T. rex article like a year ago but doesn't specifically concern the potential "Specimens of..." page. Also we don't have to use that text word for word, just as a source of information. The list of specimens at the end were the other ones I was going to write about. Sheep81 21:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
As I suspected, removing everything but the Discoveries section and the reflist reduced the size of the page to a bite-sized 9.6K. Sheep81 21:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds like several of us are in favor of a combined article. How does a history merge of several articles work? J. Spencer 22:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
celeste is a t-rex make an article on her! -brady robbins
There are directions at WP:HM. It allows everyone's old contributions show up in the history of the new article, so everyone gets credit for his/her own work. Sheep put in a ton of work on that Discovery section, and others have put in a lot of work in those other articles. If possible, and I know you agree, we should give credit where credit is due. It's, like, a five minute process. Firsfron of Ronchester 21:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I certainly agree. Should we mention the suggested merge in the articles, or do they have low enough traffic to make this noncontroversial? Sue's been the most active, with 14 revisions in the last 3 months, but the other four have a dozen together since the end of April. J. Spencer 22:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Some merge tags at the tops of the affected articles should be enough; IMO, this isn't controversial. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:46, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
happy with merge - its uncontroversial - no data is lost so lets do it. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Tags added, just in case. J. Spencer 01:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
So what will the "Specimens of..." article look like? Will it just have all of that stuff in it? Sheep81 02:56, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I was thinking of a historical outline, with the specimens in chronological order. We can take the currently-existing articles in large part and have them as their own sections, I suppose. The three smallest articles were the work of one author, so format matching will be easy for them at least. J. Spencer 03:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(undent)Sorry I removed the tag, I woke up in the middle of the night I was half asleep, I barely remember doing it. The only potential snag I see is that an article like this has the potential to become unending, as long as the length is watched and as information is added summary style is used to split off sections that become too long it shouldn't be a problem. Jane for instance has been the topic of a lot of news stories, leaving a lot of potential sources. IvoShandor 10:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
As an additional note, though I am not opposed to this merger it does seem overly complex. It looks like the easy way around to raise something to FA or GA. I wonder why this merger is really the smart thing to do. Consider this scenario: Already the merger involves merging the histories (which can be complex), so if any of these sections are moved out per WP:SUMMARY, say I expand Jane and it takes up ¾ of the article, it will have to be split off, requiring some kind of insane history remerger and the deletion of the redirect. Given that many of these short articles could actually be largely expanded and raised to GA or FA themselves, wouldn't it be easier to leave them as is? Like I said not necessarily opposed but wondering if this is really the best way to go given the nature of Wikipedia articles. IvoShandor 11:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Not all of these articles are short. I am officially changing my position to Oppose. This is no longer an uncontroversial merger. IvoShandor 11:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
My first reaction to seeing this merger was, ok, makes sense. The more and more I look at it, it doesn't make sense. Jane is prolly one of the most important discoveries in recent T-rex history, and as a project you simply want to merge her into an article that doesn't even exist. You are the project for dinosaurs on the Wikipedia, why not just take a week and expand it to GA? There is literally TONS of info on the web on the dinosaur. So I am going to say not to merge her article with another in with a page that doesn't exist.
Looking more at your discussion, you even want to merge Sue! Wow, that is pretty bold right there. That article was branched off from Field Museum of Natural History, and you want to merge that too. Nope, sorry, I am going to have to put a Strong No Merge now. What it seems to me is that you are trying to create one good article from a series of other articles that you do not want to expand. I am also going to let the Chicago project know about Sue.--Kranar drogin 11:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
He's right. Sue and Jane definitely deserve their own pages. I suspect others that being proposed to be merged here do to. The more I read the more this looks like the easy way to GA or FA. This project has done plenty of those why not just work on expansion. I don't see this move as helpful at all. IvoShandor 11:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
We don't even have articles on individual species (with the exception of monotypic genera), so why should we have articles on individual specimens? No information would be lost and all the material would be nicely organised in one place. I support the merge. Mgiganteus1 11:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
What we have otherwise and don't have is entirely irrelevant to this discussion, the fact is that these specimens have their own pages and clearly meet the notability requirements for inclusion all merging does is make the splitting off of content more complex later, Sue is already long enough to have its own page. This merger cannot just be a blanket merger of all of these articles. It doesn't make any sense to merge an already well-developed article like Sue which can easily stand on its own into another article, in my opinion. What I really think is that this discussion needs more input from people who aren't members of the Dinosaur WikiProject, where it is apparently GA or FA at all costs and damn everything else. IvoShandor 11:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Ivo you can have, say, Sue or Jane as Sections of a Specimens of T rex article and links from other articles can link directly to the appropriate section such as Zigong_Dinosaur_Museum - is that not a possibility? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Agree. It's not as common, but it occurs that a section is used for a "main" link. Circeus 12:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the merge is a good idea. For something similar,you might want to look at Iron Mike (though the entries there are slightly shorter.) Circeus 12:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh I understand that Circeus, summary style is most excellent, I use it myself. But some of these articles can be incorporated into the new page without actually merging them and then using {{main article}} to refer to them. No way should longer entries be merged though when they can stand on their own. IvoShandor 12:06, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
The reason I am opposed: these articles were proposed for merger. Not for summarization, which wouldn't require a proposal or a template. IvoShandor 12:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a complete list of which articles are proposed to be merged? Because I suspect many of those could probably utilize WP:SUMMARY instead of merging completely, which is a heck of a lot easier, by the way. IvoShandor 12:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Support the merge for a couple of reasons. One, the only real reason these articles exist as seperate is because T. rex gets a lot of nicknamed specimens. This opened the door for articles whose titles are museum catelogue numbers, which is cumbersome to say the least, not to mention opening the door to articles on specimens that have not even been published on yet! (Such as Hartman's Morrison troodont). If the main article weren't already so long and an FA, I'd prefer merging the individual specimen articles into Tyrannosaurus, even. Having a page for specimens of rex, though, does have a parallel in [[Species of Psittacosaurus]], which is my second reason for the merge. Third, and most important from a logistic standpoint I think, is the arbitrary nature of which specimens have articles and which don't obviosuly, a lot of specimens simply do not have enough information for anything more than a stub. Having one article to discuss all T. rex specimens will provide ample platform for major finds like Sue, as well as a place to discuss other finds that haven't been so sensationalized in the media (why is Sue more important than the AMNH specimens, other than their degree of completeness and the whole lawsuit thing?). Dinoguy2 12:46, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, Sue's notability and importance is established in the article's first sentence: Sue, specimen ID FMNH PR2081, is the largest, most extensive and best preserved Tyrannosaurus rex skeleton ever found (did you even look at it?) Merging short articles makes perfect sense to me, but merging a well-developed article, is, well, for lack of a better term, dumb. And of course, not to mention the fact that those that can be expanded will eventually be and split off anyway, which is what the MOS recommends when articles or sections become unwieldy. A merger may help the arbitrary nature of some stand-alone articles but there are clearly specimens which have their own article and should have them. IvoShandor 12:53, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
This might not be very relevant to the discussion, but Sue is no longer the largest known T. rex.[1] Mgiganteus1 13:16, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record: I did not propose this to make an FA or GA. Typically, when I work, someone else comes behind and submits for GA or FA. I proposed Specimens of Tyrannosaurus as a home for several small articles, and expanded it to Sue and Jane. I wanted to remove the impulse to create articles for individual specimens and to keep better track of this information. I don't know if this would necessarily work, but it would establish precedent (one of the drawbacks of this project is that it's really hard to find articles if you don't know they exist and the creator did not include some link to the outside; even after they're linked, hopefully to germane categories and articles, you still need to carefully patrol categories and "what links here"). Now, if Sue and Jane can hold their own, that's fine, and I submit removing them from the merge consideration; in this hypothetical article, they could have summary paragraphs and those "main article" links. I don't think AMNH 5027, BHI 3033, CM 9380, and the next specimen with a cute name warrant their own articles, but they could certainly have an interesting combined article. If this was Dinopedia or Tyrannopedia, I'd think differently. (for the record, I don't have a huge problem with the Morrison troodont, because after it's named, we've got the basics of an article already) J. Spencer 14:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Make Specimens of Tyrranosaur a Category. Many of these specimens have long and convolted non-scientific histories, and it would be inappropriate to combine them. Dinosaurs always have N=(some ridculously small number), just like human fossils. Would you propose merging Lucy into Specimens of Australopithecus? Speciate 15:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I would support a limited merger as suggested by J. Spencer at my talk page. But a blanket merger of all T-Rex specimen articles I cannot support. IvoShandor 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) (to Speciate:) No, but if there was a Specimens of Australopithecus article, I'd put in a summary paragraph. It's a bit of an unfair question: among dinosaurs, only Sue has the kind of exposure Lucy has had, and I admit an error of judgment with Sue; also, I would submit that there is inherently more notability for human fossils than dinosaur fossils in a human-created encyclopedia. I can see Sue and Jane holding their own, but where do we draw the line for specimens? Here is a reasonably comprehensive list of T. rex specimens - which get their own article? I submit the following, modified proposal:
New proposal:AMNH 5027, BHI 3033, and CM 9380 merged into Specimens of Tyrannosaurus or whatever it's called. This article would also include information on some other important specimens, like AMNH 3982 (type of Manospondylus), B-rex (the soft-tissue rex), BMNH R7994 (type of Dynamosaurus), and so on. Jane (dinosaur) and Sue (dinosaur) get summary paragraphs each, but remain on their own. J. Spencer 15:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Wow! I definitely did not expect this amount of feedback. This is the most lively discussion on WP:DINO in a while! Even though T. rex is popular, this number of responses is startling. As Dinoguy said, we haven't even done articles down to species level, so individual specimen articles seems like overkill to me. As J pointed out, it's hard to keep track of individual specimen articles (and we DO NOT want to set a precedent for the creation of specimen articles, since a lot of specimens are just teeth or one partial bone!). I don't see a need for seperate articles for Sue or Jane, but J's proposal immediately above could be workable. Firsfron of Ronchester 16:55, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Modified proposal: AMNH, BHI, BMRP, and CM specimens merge into new article. Jane's article is not as robust as Sue's and lacks sources. Sue gets the summary paragraph due to the legal dispute and its far ranging consequences in and outside of dinosaur paleontology (These should be included in her article)._Dragon Helm 00:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Now J. Spencer has the right idea. I can see individual speciments that have no particular name or notability other than that they exist. The main thing what you have to look at with Sue first, is that she is the most complete T-rex in the world. Not Illinois, or just the US, the world. Her article is already a large article, so merging it in to make one article large is a little rediculous. Jane is the third most complete T-rex in the world, and the ONLY juvenile T-rex in the world. So that there meets notability to have its own article. Both of these two dinos have been instrumental in the T-rex research in the world. So, if you want to create that page, they should have a paragraph summary with the main page linke under the paragraph title. Looking at AMNH 5027, BHI 3033, and CM 9380, these really don't fit the notability to have their own article, so I would 100% agree in merging them to the article you have suggested.--Kranar drogin 21:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Jane is nowhere nar the only juvi rex specimen in the world, especially if you count Nanotyrannus. I'm having a hard time figuring out why exactly Jne is notable, aside from all the press kit stuff distrbuted by its museum around the time of discovery. In other words, Sue has a fairly legit reason for a seperate article (legal wrangling and history)--Jane is mostly hype. Dinoguy2 00:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
One other thing I would like to say, if you are having trouble finding NEW dinosaur created articles, you should get in contact with User:AlexNewArtBot and see if they can create a bot search for you similar to ours User:AlexNewArtBot/IllinoisSearchResult. I know that this has helped me out A LOT when it comes to organizing and keeping track of new articles. Far as old, maybe you can get in contact with another bot or user bot that could do a search for everything with the term "Dinosaur" or whatever in it. Having to manage almost 12,500 articles, I know what you are going through, but that shouldn't cause you to have to merge articles that are notable enough to have their own articles to make things easier to find.--Kranar drogin 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, my wording was wrong. A simple Google Search will show you this [2], this [3], this [4], and this [5], which will MORE than make up for the notability to give it its own article. A phrase like "Jane is a Tyrannosaurus rex that died at age 11--an exceedingly rare specimen and the most complete skeleton of its kind ever found." give A LOT of credit for its own article. Not only that, but the Discovery Channel did a 2 hour special on her and followed the large scientist gathering from all over the world in Rockford about what type of species she was. I think this would more than survive a WP:AFD.--Kranar drogin 01:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Almost any dinosaur fossil is "exceedingly rare" and "the most complete of its kind", especially considering the vast majority of dinosaur genera are known from only one specimen! Has Jane been the subject of any studies on tyrannosaur growth, differences between adults and young in terms of paleobiology, etc etc.? If not, I don't think it merits it's own article based on importance to science yet. I think this is the situation where it may prove be a very important find, after maybe another decade of study and inclusion in overall studies of tyrannosaurs. I never understood all the hooplah about what species it was--I thought that was more a debate about whether Nanotyrannus was Tyrannosaurus or not, and interpreted the authors conclusion that Jane was rex to be lack of support for the existance of Nanotyrannus? Does anybody have any actual papers or cites about Jane at all that are not web links? At this point, I'd quetion whether a lot of the Jane article is even correct, or relevent (some reads like an ad for the museum). Dinoguy2 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Follow-up--Apparently, Jane has yet to be published. As I suspected, it is clear that Jane and "Nanotyrannus" are the same species. The purpose of the conference was to decide whether Jane/Nanotyrannus are T. rex, or a different already known species, or a valid, new species (Nanotyrannus). From the Theropod Database: " In 2001, an additional juvenile specimen (BMRP 2002.4.1 or "Jane") conspecific with CMN 7541 was discovered in the Hell Creek Formation of Montana. It was discussed extensively at a conference held in 2005 at the museum, The Origin, Systematics and Paleobiology of Tyrannosauridae, and will be described in the future by Bakker, Larson and Currie." In light of this, wouldn't the best bet right now be to merge Jane with Nanotyrannus? Dinoguy2 07:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you even seen that show put on by the Discovery Channel? Came out last December. They decided at that conference that she was a juvenile T-rex, not a Nano. She is present as a T-rex. What you are doing is jumping to conclusions too quickly with everything. The point of the matter is that she more than quilifies for her own page. She is notable enough with enough sources to back an article and for expansion, and you are too quick to say "merge with this" "merge with that". As you are part of the WP:Dinosaurs, you should fix the article and expand it so it doesn't look "like an advertisement", which I don't see at all. You are basing a lot of your assumptions on the 2001 report, which is very old. There are so many pages out there on the web about her, here are more [6], [7], and heck, she is even in the Encyclopedia Britannica.--Kranar drogin 10:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand the situation--read the article on Nanotyrannus. Jane and the original Nano specimen are almost exactly the same. Either both are Nanotyrannus or both are juvi rexes. Most paleontologists at the conference decided they were juvi rexes, and that Nanotyrannus therefore does not exist as a distinct species. One (Pete Larson) disagreed. Three scientists with differing views (Larson, Phil Currie, and Bob Bakker) are studying Jane and Nano and will publish the 'final word' some time in the future. So far, absolutely nothing about Jane has even been published in scientific literature. The Nano and Jane are tied so closely together, it doesn't make much sense to keep them seperate. In all likelyhood, once Jane is formally descibed, both it and Nano will be found to be juvenile rexes. But nothing is official yet. The conference presentations do not count as official until their findings are published. I'm saying that it is not possible for anyone to 'fix and expand the article, because nothing about Jane has ever been published in scientific literature. The only available sources are media press releases and museum web sites, not the greatest stuff to base an entire encyclopedia article on. At least, not yet--in a few years, when the results of the conference are fleshed out by scientists and published, Jane may turn out to be as important as Sue. But we're jumping the gun here. Dinoguy2 12:46, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
There is little doubt in my mind that Sue (dinosaur) should get her own article. I am not quite sure on other articles. I would tend to want to keep them and ccreate a unifying navigational template if I were to have my druthers. --TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:33, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Concerning Jane, the controversy surrounding the identification of the specimen is enough to consider it for its own article, there is no need to wait years to expand this article, that's a bit ridiculous btw. The discussion of its identity and the issues surrouding it can be discussed using these media stories, the scientific side of things will come with time. IvoShandor 13:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that Jane will be much less interesting in five to ten years, but I've got nothing against it having an article at the present. J. Spencer 15:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you guys don't want to expand it, don't worry, we at the the WP:Illinois will take care of it and take her article easily to GA. The thing of it is, you all are confusing notability with some notion of how interesting something will be in the future. Also, you don't have to expand articles simply by what has been scientifically published. You can use what the museum has concluded, and you can use what scientists have concluded as of this far, and make corrections with the scientific info later. The museum would make the same corrections as the article would. I really don't have anything more to say on the subject, we just keep going around and around. --Kranar drogin 22:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Translation: "You can use rumors produced by marketing and PR types and then insert actual facts in later." Is that pretty accurate? Sheep81 02:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
However this ends up - thought it would be good to work towards Tyrannosaurus or Tyrannosauridae as a Featured Topic :)

Support for merge - Except for Sue, there aren't any really notable T. rex specimens. Jane is a flash in the pan. I can sum up the entire "controversy" over Jane in one sentence: "Some people think it's a baby rex, others that it's a separate species, most people leaning towards baby rex at this point but nobody really knows for sure because NOTHING HAS BEEN PUBLISHED YET!!!" That's it. That's literally the whole thing. Dress that sentence up a bit, throw in another one about how Jane is the most complete juvie rex (probably), although she isn't the youngest (LACM 28471 anybody?), maybe a couple more about the discovery, press coverage, etc. And you have yourself ONE nice paragraph telling you everything there is to know about Jane. Perfect for the "Specimens of..." article. Sheep81 02:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wrong, there is one other specimen which is notable. Of course that is MOR 1125 ("B-rex"), from which Mary Schweitzer has described red blood cells, medullary tissue (ironically the only rex that has been proven female is the one named after Bob Harmon), and of course the collagen discovery recently. B-rex is so much more notable than Jane it really isn't even close. Sheep81 03:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Everyone also seems to have forgotten about Tinker, the juvi rex more notable than Jane for several reasons, including the soon-to-heat-up legal battles parallel to Sue, and the fact that the company hired to prepare it went belly-up and the whole specimen is sitting in storage somewhere in Philly, unavailable to science... Dinoguy2 03:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange when Tinker's link goes right to the T-rex, sad. It should have its own article also IMO. The point of the matter is that if you want to create this page, you should create stub sections for each specimen. If their article is notable enough, you then simply add a Main Article link at the top of the paragraph so the person can get a more detail information of the T-rex. Make sure though that you have stub paragraphs on each of Sue, Stan, Jane, Samson, Tinker, Monty, Duffy, Bucky, Scotty, Fox, and Steven (as the Southern England newletter names them). Also, this isn't a who is more notable than whom or what. You take each T-rex, and decide, is this T-rex notable enough to have its own article. If its just a number T-rex with no real information on it, then the answer is no. When you can do a Google search and find tons of information on them, they are more than likely a well known dinosaur. If you create a page with all their info on it and not branched off into their own pages, you are going to have a page that is WAY too long, and will fail FA and prolly even GA for length. If you want to see what I am talking about what you should do, check out Ivo and my current project the Black Hawk War, and you will see what I am talking about. And as I have said, if you guys really don't want to spend your time expanding Jane or Sue, we will take care of it.--Kranar drogin 03:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"you have stub paragraphs on each of Sue, Stan, Jane, Samson, Tinker, Monty, Duffy, Bucky, Scotty, Fox, and Steven... If its just a number T-rex" Here's a prime example of T. rex bias and why seperate articles are a bad idea. There is no difference between a "number T. rex" and one with a cutsie nickname. In fact, many rex specimens that were found before this whole (innane, imo) nickname thing got started are far, far more important than "Bucky" or "Fox" or whatever. I'd support a seperate article for Sue because it is so well-known to the general public and has a lot of info, and a very interesting history, and is currently the most complete specimen. I will not support any seperate specimen articles beyond that, except maybe an article on B-rex in the context of soft tissue research (such an article should probably be titled "Tyrannosaur soft tissue" or something, and not "B-rex", however). I agree that the full specimens article should be the starting point. If any particular section grows too long, it can be branched off, just as is done with any other article. You wouldn't start off with articles on "Bird anatomy", "Bird Evolution", "Bird reproduction", etc., and only later create the article for "Bird"! Dinoguy2 04:17, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Right, AMNH 5027 is the holotype and all, but hey, it's just a number. Sheep81 05:59, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
We're just seeing a deeper clash of ideas here, that's all. I think part of the problem here is "notable (general public)", which Jane fits much better because of the publicity, versus "notable (science)", which the specimen hasn't had yet. I know that as the type of article writer I am, I would have a hard time writing about Jane because it's largely press releases; people have said a lot of things, but until they've published peer-reviewed material, it's hard for me to get behind what they say, and I would feel uncomfortable presenting this. By the time anyone gets around to publishing anything, it may turn out that what they said in a documentary or to the press had been completely wrong, taken out of context, or delivered under a conflict of interest. Anyway... J. Spencer 13:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Verifiablity not truth. IvoShandor 17:50, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
As a note, Wikipedia:Notability (science) is a proposal. IvoShandor 17:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
What does the link to Verifiability have to do with this discussion? Providing a link to a policy without explanation as to why it's being provided isn't really helpful. Firsfron of Ronchester 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
There's some sort of real "Notability (science)"? I hadn't heard of it until now, I was just saying that WP:DINO members have been looking at things in terms of the scientific literature. J. Spencer 18:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Roger that, and thanks for that Firsfron, the point is the criteria for inclusion is verifiability not truth (the words I wrote btw). J. Spencer's comment implied that there was some sort of clash of ideals based upon the fact that folks wouldn't feel comfortable presenting information in an article because they are not sure it will be true in a few years even though its verifiable. Read the damn discussion. IvoShandor 18:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, and I'm not going to fight consensus. If it's decided that Jane stays, I'm fine with that. I, personally, would not do anything on it unless it's published, but I have no problems with anyone else editing it so long as they're not vandalizing, putting in original research, other bad things, etc. J. Spencer 19:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I've read the "damn discussion", and WP:V states "Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged [...] must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Several people here have some reservations about the claims made about Jane. That indicates there is some doubt about the reliability of such claims, and since the policy you linked to seems to contradict your argument, I just wanted some clarification. Firsfron of Ronchester 19:24, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I am done with this discussion. No one seems to care anyway. Sure your science side of things aren't there but this thing is obviously notable, regardless of what you think about the biases of the news media and their tendency to report press release stuff. It seems to me that media coverage is generally considered reliable. The controversey surrounding Jane or the public interest in something is in of itself notable and worthy of discussion, the wealth of secondary sources show that. But whatever. Take your dinorsaurs and shove em. IvoShandor 20:14, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
"Thank you, come again!" Mgiganteus1 20:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, what did you want? As far as I'm concerned, Sue and Jane are off the table, even though I have doubts concerning the future notability of Jane. If someone doesn't feel comfortable editing an article, they can't be forced to edit it. J. Spencer 21:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I never said Jane wasn't worth mentioning, just that it's not worth having its own article. If I can sum up all the known information about the specimen in one paragraph ::without losing any actual detail::, then that specimen doesn't deserve its own article. All of that stuff will fit quite well as a subsection of the Specimens article. Sheep81 02:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

" It seems to me that media coverage is generally considered reliable. " As someone who regularly follows media coverage of paleontology... this is one of the funniest things I've ever read. I think like 10% of new posts on the DML are paleontologists saying "haha, look what those dumb reporters misquoted me on this time!" Anyway, I beefed up the Jane article, added all possible sources, and expanded the discussion of the Nanotyrannus debates. It now totals two full paragraphs. This is everything that can possibly be said about Jane at the moment. If you feel this is enough for it's own article, that's fine. But two paragraphs doesn't seem like much to me. Dinoguy2 02:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC) Since there was no further discussion, I've gone and merged the three articles which had consensus for merging. The new article, however, needs some clean-up to remove redundancy and standardize headings/writing styles. Firsfron of Ronchester 08:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. The refs are fixed. J. Spencer 13:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)