![]() | Stegosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 27, 2006. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The following discussion 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.
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)
My next concern would be that Stegosaurus in popular culture is supremely lacking in sources. So much so that when all unsourced text is removed you're left with around a quarter of the article, if not less. Would it be worthwhile to merge this? Or would a redirect suffice, given Stegosaurus already has a pop-culture section? The Morrison Man ( talk) 13:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Stegosaurus is a relatively common occurrence cited by many articles, this article in which i cited to use to correct the ecological pressense of other genera in which you can see in the edit list, This is a peer reviewed study and should have just as much value as the other that is cited, So tell me why when i added the Ecological information, someone disagreed with me and i get blocked from editing for simply adding information, if the edit i made including Saurophaganax was not allowed, in what way can I not add correct and cited information from the Oklahoma locality? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNJpteze0V4aP2MlCPHttUMZ1nUOdhXH/view (Source Derpystegos ( talk) 03:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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)
![]() | Stegosaurus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 27, 2006. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
The following discussion 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.
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)
My next concern would be that Stegosaurus in popular culture is supremely lacking in sources. So much so that when all unsourced text is removed you're left with around a quarter of the article, if not less. Would it be worthwhile to merge this? Or would a redirect suffice, given Stegosaurus already has a pop-culture section? The Morrison Man ( talk) 13:52, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Stegosaurus is a relatively common occurrence cited by many articles, this article in which i cited to use to correct the ecological pressense of other genera in which you can see in the edit list, This is a peer reviewed study and should have just as much value as the other that is cited, So tell me why when i added the Ecological information, someone disagreed with me and i get blocked from editing for simply adding information, if the edit i made including Saurophaganax was not allowed, in what way can I not add correct and cited information from the Oklahoma locality? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNJpteze0V4aP2MlCPHttUMZ1nUOdhXH/view (Source Derpystegos ( talk) 03:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
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)