Talk:Stegosaurus

message: Am I the only one who thinks the pop section of the Stegosaurus article and the spin off pop article are a bit iffy? They don't even seem to cover the same ground, and the spin off article is awful. Much of the section in the parent article isn't even about pop culture, but about museum displays. Needs an overhaul and merge? I'm thinking it's better to have a well-written, condensed culture section in the parent article than the badly sourced WP:content-fork spin off. FunkMonk (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but its hard to fine sources on dinosaur genera in pop culture (as opposed to dinosaurs in general). LittleJerry (talk) 01:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll try to have a look at it. Would it be ok if I tagged the pop article for merging? FunkMonk (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , fine by me. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  remember to tag both articles when proposing a merge, and to indicate a merge direction in the template (when it is reasonable to do so). I've done this now. Klbrain (talk) 08:54, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, didn't know that was even a requirement. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree on merging the two. A rework might be in order and could coincide with the requested FA re-review. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 13:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree with a merge, the popular culture page is a full article and would lose much of its material in a much shorter merge. Nothing broken here either, as this is a long-term page created in 2006 and appreciated by readers and editors since. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is full of WP:trivia, which is exactly what we don't need more of. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The spin-off as it currently stands is just a list of "here's a piece of media that has/had Stegosaurus in it. It would be much more useful to showcase the development of the animal through time by using a few selected examples instead, something which can easily be done in the main article. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:14, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd make sense for that to just be a subsection in the parent article. Indodude19 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pop culture section and spin off article  

message: I read the history section of the article today as part of the above drive. It contains sources from 1914, 1918 etc. These are just too old and need replacing. In addition the section contains too few references. I have no doubt if I were to check the few sources here, I'd see large amounts of information not supported at all. I can see no original research, but our readers need to be able to wp:verify what they read if they want to. Desertarun (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While it could certainly need more recent sources as supplement, the use of old sources is itself not a problem, and they should by no means simply be replaced. FunkMonk (talk) 20:53, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The removal of old sources from the history section solely on the basis that they’re old is counterproductive. It is general practice to show the history of research and understanding on an animal in the history section, for which old sources are essential. Granted, the rest of the article could probably use some more recent sources and I can provide notes on that if needed, as that is generally the part that explains the current understanding. TimTheDragonRider (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009]]