Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Titus (dinosaur)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Opinion is split between keep and merge to specimens of Tyrannosaurus. What's clear is that there's no interest in deletion, so any follow-up discussion should be a merger proposal on the article talk page. Sandstein 08:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Titus (dinosaur)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Titus (dinosaur) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

16th most complete T rex fossil found. Not notable. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It doesn't matter if it's the 16th or 16 thousandth, if it meets
    WP:GNG
    , it's notable and based on the citations in the article, it's notable. E.g:
  1. https://wollatonhall.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/TITUS-T.rex-Scientific-Report-Dec-2021.pdf
  2. https://www.nationalgeographic.co.uk/science-and-technology/2021/05/titus-the-t-rex-is-coming-to-the-uk-this-summer-heres-why-its-a-big-deal CT55555 (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Addition: The article is very poorly written, and when I went over it had far too many irrelevant asides. The sourcing is largely local news items, with a few cringe-worthy sources such as blogs and a Google search. It also reads as promotional in nature. IMHO, if/when merged (or even if kept), it will require significant rewriting to be neutral and encyclopedic in tone. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

— Note: An editor has expressed a concern that editors have been canvassed to this discussion. An editor who !voted "keep" has posted it to ARS. MrsSnoozyTurtle 22:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC) CT55555, I withdraw this comment and am sorry if any hurt was caused. Regards, MrsSnoozyTurtle 07:56, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised to see this. I have been transparent about posting it to ARS, and I hope you saw that above. If you have any concern, I welcome discussion. CT55555 (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't blame you for feeling bad about this unfair accusation of canvassing. You have done nothing wrong. There is no policy, rule, guideline concerning participation in an AfD and posting at ARS. Your post at ARS is not canvassing for a Keep vote, in fact it says what the article's weak points are. MrsSnoozy does not understand what canvassing is. -- GreenC 02:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Those who say merge, do you mean delete the article and replace it with a redirect? Is there any information at all that would actually be merged over there? Specimens_of_Tyrannosaurus#"Titus". I notice that page list other dinosaurs that have links to their own full size articles like this one. Dream Focus 17:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a reasonable summation of the contributions to this point. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Many above have argued to merge with
WP:SIZERULE
which tells us when an article has reach a size that is too big and should be split. I quote the table in the guideline

Some useful rules of thumb for splitting articles, and combining small pages:

Readable prose size What to do
> 100 kB Almost certainly should be divided
> 60 kB Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)
> 50 kB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)
< 40 kB Length alone does not justify division
< 1 kB If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, the article could be expanded; see Wikipedia:Stub.

I note that Specimens of Tyrannosaurus is already 118k, 18% longer than upper limit. Twice the size at which is should probably be divided.

So the content should be split between articles. And the question that should follow is: which topics sufficiently meet

WP:ATD-R Best, CT55555 (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

The size rule is rarely enforced, and the article isn't excessively over the limit to the point where it needs to be split. There are far more deserving specimens to get separate articles to cover more detail than this specimen. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't me opening a discussion about splitting that article. This is me saying: don't exacerbate the problem. This is me pointing out that cramming more into that article goes against the guidelines. Guidelines, are what should inform outcomes at AfD. The lack of enforcement of the guidelines to date, seems correct, but still our role in this forum is to suggests answers in line with guidelines. If people are tending to make a suggestion that is counter to a guideline, such paths forward should be avoided if guideline and policy compliant paths forward are possible. You get me? tl;dr We're here to propose solutions aligned with guidelines. CT55555 (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IAR YorkshireExpat (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Wikipedia:Ignore all rules reads: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. How are you improving Wikipedia by getting rid of an article that clearly passes the general notability guidelines, and is valid encyclopedic content? Dream Focus 05:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it warrants an article on its own. My
WP:IAR :)). YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:14, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Ignore all rules is about applying common sense, about not following a rule if it causes harm. It's is not about doing what ever you feel like with no justification. If it was, it could be used to argue any stance in this argument. CT55555 (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think common sense is merging this article into Specimens of Tyrannosaurus and don't really see how that article can be usefully split. I'm not militantly for deleting this article. I think that is the best proposed solution. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sue (dinosaur) was featured on the main page of Wikipedia multiple times (see talk page at the top). Trix (dinosaur) is another t-rex with its own article just like this one. Other dinosaur fossils have articles such as Big John (dinosaur) who survived AFD last November. Dippy has a nice size article and a side article at Dippy (London) for its plaster cast replica. There is nothing wrong with articles like this. Nothing gained by deleting them and just having a small token amount of information in an over ready large list article. Dream Focus 05:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue all those fossils are very well known, far better known than Titus, and that it's rightful place is in the list. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Yorkshire's comment. It goes without saying that Sue has received a massive amount of scholarship. Trix has been referenced in a few papers [1][2] and is the subject of multiple abstracts [3] [4]. As much as I opposed Big John's status as a standalone article, it is now also the subject of a peer-reviewed study [5]. Finally, Dippy is the holotype of Diplodocus and there is also ample scholarship on the cultural impact of the London cast. What does Titus have? Titus has never been described in the scientific literature; the only result on Google Scholar is a report-style pamphlet that is clearly promotional in nature. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A reminder that AfD concerns topic not content. The question is should we have an article about Titus. Can we have a three sentence stub with the 3 best sources? If so then
    WP:TNT, "blow up and start over" ("start over"). Many of the Merge voters are concerned about the content (promotional tone, poorly written, need to be rewritten). Fair enough but these are arguments for cleanup, not delete. The only solid argument I have seen for delete is poor sourcing ie. this topic does not have reliable sources. However DreamFocus has countered with multiple good quality sources: National Geographic, Guardian, BBC, Independent. They are among highest quality reliable sources used anywhere on Wikipedia. The question is why can't we have an article on this topic using these sources. -- GreenC 06:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Merge with Specimens of Tyrannosaurus After having explored this topic a bit, my feeling is that it's wise to go with the subject matter experts on this one. There simply isn't as much to this story as there is with Big John (dinosaur), even from a layperson's point of view. The "first 'real' T.rex fossil exhibited in England for 100 years" is also sort of misleading in that, as the National Geographic points out, the Natural History Museum in London actually purchased the T.rex fossil discovered in 1900 in Wyoming in the 1960s, and has been loaning parts of it out for display in various museums and galleries for years. Even more fascinating to me though was the fact that this Titus display actually incorporates a lot of Stan (dinosaur) replica parts (including his head) but no one calls this out except for the Love in the Time of Chasmosaurs blog, unfortunately. It did occur to me to ask whether we could keep this page as a standalone through 31 August 2022 (when the exhibit ends), and then merge it on 1 September, but based on the past traffic to this page, I'm not sure it's worth it. I appreciate all the out-of-the-box thinking, especially with regard to the huge page size of Specimens of Tyrannosaurus, which looks like it could use an overall tidy regardless, but sadly I think Titus the dinosaur may once again be meeting a tragic end. (Joking. There is nothing wrong with merging content and joining his mates on the Specimens page.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I've now included a detailed endnote explaining the context and arguments for the "first in a century in England" claim. I've also found a way to incorporate information about Stan the dinosaur, whose cast was merged with Titus's. Finally, I identified and removed one major mistake in the article, and added some additional information. So hopefully this is a bit less problematic from a "is this just superficial marketing and spin" point of view. Even if he is "just the 16th". Cielquiparle (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your efforts @Cielquiparle! YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't take all the credit. "It takes a terror." Many here have contributed to improving the page. I added more inbound links so if the page is kept, it will see more traffic. (16th out of maybe 100!) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Dream Focus and the new sources provided. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily meets
    WP:Preserve. Not the article it was nominated for deletion
    .
As to those niffnawing about content issues, WP:Verifiability not WP:Truth controls.7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Abstaining as I'm now too involved with the text. It's true, I am very guilty of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT but it was mainly in the sense that I don't like inaccurate or misleading content, and when relying a lot on newspapers it's always important to try to avoid getting swept away by the superficiality, sensationalism, now-ism, and inaccuracy that can creep in from time to time. Happily I think I've addressed my own concerns now! Page looks nice. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
I dispute the B-class assessment for
WP:DINO based on my experience with articles for the project. This is a start-class article at most. Note that this is not a comment on whether to delete the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 08:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Clear consensus to keep the content as notable, but further discussion on keep vs merge may be useful to reach consensus on a solution.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TigerShark (talk) 02:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "solution" is already clear - Keep per discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The specimens article is already quite long, so there isn't really space for more information there. Meets GNG, so let's just keep it separate.
    talk) 20:08, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep I feel funny about my shameless
    WP:PILEON but I had to stop by to say what a wonderful job all of you editors have done. The article is a winner now and this is an easy keep based on SIGCOV. @CT55555: spoke the truth right from the start. Bruxton (talk) 01:39, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    A side note for anyone who jumped to the top of this discussion like I did to read CT55555's original comment: This article now has more than enough independent, reliable sources and content to justify keeping the article as a standalone, etc., but one of the two sources CT55555 originally proposed turned out not to be independent, as it was a scientific report that was commissioned (probably by the museum itself). To find out more, please read the article Talk page. That brings me to another benefit of keeping the article as a standalone: Issues like this regarding facts and sourcing are more easily managed on a dedicated Talk page. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:55, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Firstly, if we can't cite a museum source about contents they exhibit, there is a wider problem on Wikipedia than this article. Museums tend to be carefully run organisations that tend to publish things accurately in my opinion.
    Secondly, if they we can't cite a source that a museum commissions to a panel of external experts, that's even more surprising. And yet I still see no evidence of this, just assumption, right?
    Thirdly, the source in question was written by three academics, their affiliations are on the front page. They are
    1. University of Kansas Biodiversity Institute and Natural History Museum
    2. Carnegie Museum of Natural History
    3. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Manchester
    The skeleton is being housed at
    Nottingham Natural History Museum
    , a different entity from any of the three authors. I have seen no evidence that NNHM commissioned this report (which doesn't mean they didn't, I see they host it) but I think a report by three prominent relevant scientists from different museums and universities seems independent. No?
    Fourthly, things just being exhibited in notable museums tends to suggest notability, and I feel like we've missed that in this conversation so far. CT55555 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As a source in general it's perfectly acceptable. I agree with you for AfD notability purposes it's also acceptable for reasons you outline. Still, many people take a hard line on independence during AfD so it's probably not worth lighting up this one source as the article has plenty of other independent sources that demonstrate notability. -- GreenC 02:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it's fine to cite with care, like any other source, as discussed on the Talk page. (The dinosaur experts may prefer not to use certain parts, perhaps because the information within the report isn't all independently verifiable. In this case the dinosaur parts were 3D-scanned and shared with the scientific community, but I imagine the issue is that many other aspects cannot be tested by the rest of the scientific community independently, since it's a privately owned specimen, etc.) On the notability side, I think the point was just that pretty much every dinosaur specimen comes with a glossy commissioned brochure like this with an assessment by scientists, which they use for auctions and other purposes, so its mere existence doesn't necessarily prove notability. (Then again, in real life everything is paid for in the end in some form or another, and there are always bias problems, no matter how "independent" or "reliable" the veneer; conversely, I accept that it's possible that some brochures may be more reliable and more independent and others.) Anyway my point wasn't this, but the fact that I think important discussions like this need to be preserved on a well managed Talk page, which is difficult with a super huge page like the Specimens one. And as GreenC said, we don't really need this source to establish notability anyway. (Also just wanted to make sure it's clear I thought CT55555 did a great job in trying to explore every angle of keep vs. merge. The real "dinosaur in the room" is the huge page size of the Specimens page, and I now have ideas about how to fix it, but that's outside the scope of this discussion.) Cielquiparle (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    As Cielquiparle stated, I think that the "report" is acceptable to cite and is fair game for discussions of notability. However, any uses of its content, including in discussions of notability, should only be restricted to non-scientific claims. I believe this is where non-project members are lacking important context. The "report" is not peer-reviewed and is not up to the standard of rigour in the field for academic articles. If you look at the disclaimer on the last page, it also contains standard language used for auctions or private collectors:

    This document has been prepared solely for the purpose of providing background information to the person to whom it has been delivered. [...] Nothing contained herein shall be relied upon as a promise, representation or warranty and those relying on this report should undertake independent advice as regards the statements, assumptions and conclusions made herein.

    By their own admission, this is not an independent source because it was commissioned as an informational pamphlet for a commercial transaction. There is no way to guarantee that this "report" is not just a pre-defined list of talking points arranged into a structured format. As you note, there is no evidence in the "report" that the Nottingham Natural History Museum actually commissioned it; it is more plausible that the vendor of the fossil has simply provided a copy of the "report" for the museum to reproduce on their website. Therefore, per
    WP:SCHOLARSHIP
    this cannot be considered a reliable source for scientific information. Non-scientific claims contained therein are likely to be non-controversial, however, and are acceptable for citation.
    I also dispute the comments about museums imparting inherent accuracy and notability to information sourced from them. Museums do not always provide accurate information. Their web publications are frequently not written by specialists but instead by outreach personnel, who may not grasp technical minutiae unless specialists are closely involved. Likewise, physical exhibits often remain outdated unless museums have sufficient funds to update them (which is the case only infrequently). Furthermore, if being exhibited in a notable museum imparts notability, I would question why the fish specimen CM 4776a Belonostomus cf. tenuirostris tucked in the corner of an exhibit at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History, and with zero peer-reviewed publications referencing its existence, does not already have its own article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm going to avoid getting into the weeds about the merits of this report, not because I find the comments about it convincing, but because I agree with
    WP:CREATIVE
    makes creative professionals (authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, and other creative professionals) notable if their work is in a notable museum, so in the absence of a specific notability criteria for dinosaurs, this my observation is informed by guidance.
    To answer why Wikipedia tends to have articles about some things and not others, would be to write a mini essay about how fast cars, sportsmen, dinosaurs, and space craft are invariably well written about and other things are not, it would probably talk about the demographics of who edits Wikipedia and note downsides of editors who focus only on one area
    WP:SPA. I'll avoid saying more about that, as it's outside the scope of an AfD, other than to say that there are probably millions of notable books, people, and events that meet notability criteria but are not on here because of the personal whims of editors. CT55555 (talk) 13:50, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    I don't have an issue with the other sources used to establish notability here, my main concern is addressing the contentious use of the "report" in the article. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:37, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as standalone, in light of significant article improvement (and sources found/incorporated) over the course of the discussion. In case it wasn't clear, I changed my mind from much earlier on in this discussion, and no longer wish to abstain, so we can finally bring this discussion to a close. I just also wanted to say that I am very happy with how this discussion went overall. We had dinosaur domain experts and non-expert dinosaur fans who had differing viewpoints at various junctures, but the tone of the discussion was constructive, respectful, and thoughtful throughout, and it was easy to follow different arguments. Best of all, a lot of people put in a lot of work into not only in finding sources and expanding the page, but also in further refining the content once it was expanded, and there was also a very constructive discussion on the Talk page, where we can continue this discussion for anyone who is interested. Well done and good collaboration. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
    talk) 14:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    Well they will keep finding 'em. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Specimens of Tyrannosaurus - obvious solution. FunkMonk (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have already !voted to merge, but I would like to point out that none of the sources for this article are anything other than routine museum publicity coverage or equally routine paleontological studies. These are not indicators of notability. IMO, it fails WP:GNG and is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS- it does not demonstrate notability extending beyond the publicized museum exhibit. --SilverTiger12 (talk) 19:51, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I have been thinking along these lines in another way: Why not simplify the Specimens of Tyrannosaurus page by restricting it to mostly scientific information about each specimen? If there are individual specimens that have a lot of additional (less strictly scientific) angles to their story AND they are individually notable, give them their own standalone articles where those details (appealing to non-expert dinosaur fans and children, etc.) can be explained. A lot of the "bigger" story specimens already have their own standalone pages, so it's only a few that would potentially need to be "spun out". At the moment it's confusing to read the Specimens page and find some of the more exhibition-oriented / marketing type detail mixed up with what is truly significant or debated about each fossil from a scientific point of view. Plus the length of the page at the moment is inadvertently obscuring good information about important specimens that are further down on the page, etc. Anyway I would be happy to help with this process if there was someone on the dinosaur expert team who could also help (and of course we could discuss best way forward in more detail first). Cielquiparle (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The marketing-like text simply has no place in Wikipedia and should be removed, which will eliminate the problem you mention. FunkMonk (talk) 02:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I think it's when you include a little too much information about specific exhibitions that it sounds like marketing (e.g., does the "Sue" section on the Specimens page really need that many words about Walt Disney World? Or at all since she has her own page as well?). The "largest ever" type claims and controversies also feel like "marketing" but seem important to note and clarify – that's where Wikipedia can provide an important service by helping to provide additional facts and context. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    R}} 22:10, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I also find it incredibly important to point out, "Titus" isn't really the nickname of this specimen. The Nottingham Museum mount, and the fossils, are two entirely independent things, and the name "Titus" here applies to the cast of the fossils. Much the same that a cast of "Stan" is not "Stan". Half of the information in this article is already present on the
R}} 22:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
@IJReid well I think it's turned out pretty well. If I'd have put a merge on the page (which I might have done had I known the other article existed) it wouldn't have got anywhere near the level of interest that it has as an AfD. The main thing is that the encylopedia is improved. As I said earlier, I now agree with the merge to 'Specimens'. YorkshireExpat (talk) 12:22, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it'd be too big for the page - without things split across sections and with a bit of reformatting and rewording you can probably fit all the information on the museum and the mount into three digestible paragraphs. It's just really split up into small tidbits at the moment. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Titus_(dinosaur)&oldid=1098124990"