Talk:Stegosaurus

Pop culture section and spin off article
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * , fine by me. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Ok, didn't know that was even a requirement. FunkMonk (talk) 17:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * It is full of WP:trivia, which is exactly what we don't need more of. FunkMonk (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * It'd make sense for that to just be a subsection in the parent article. Indodude19 (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2023 (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 Ecological locality in the essence of Genera found alongside it.
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)


 * The article already lists the dinosaurs of the Morrison in the Paleoecology section. The question is, which should be mentioned in the lead paragraphs. The lead is not an endless list of dinosaurs in the Morrison. Paleoecology currently states "Stegosaurus is commonly found at the same sites as Allosaurus, Apatosaurus, Camarasaurus, and Diplodocus." That's all we need. LittleJerry (talk) 13:35, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Understandable, but "commonly found" applies to everywhere stego is found, therefore that isn't true because it did not take me long to find that locality.
 * Also, I DID cite that article in my original message, to answer your edited message. Derpystegos (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Unreviewed featured articles/2020/2004–2009
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)
 * 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)
 * 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)