986:) in the world". 1) "most famous" is subjective and should be avoided. "Most visited" is better, as that can be backed up by numbers. 2) the fact that source you added claims that doesn't make it true. I have worked on 100s of dinosaur articles and Weishampel et al. in their famous book make several claims (based on earlier reports obviously) about formations (my angle) that are demonstrably wrong if you consult
141:
120:
72:
935:"most of Dippy is one individual specimen, the fossil of a once living and sentient being", seriously? Do you consider a human post-cranial skeleton with a gorilla skull mounted on top of it also "mostly human"? The DYK is blatantly incorrect, no matter what the author of "Fantagraphics Books" (seriously-2??) claims and the article itself does explain that in detail. Picking 1 source
21:
866:? Despite this article starting "Dippy is a composite Diplodocus skeleton … It is considered the most famous single dinosaur skeleton … " there is almost nothing about the skeleton in this article, and then (for some reason) lots of detail about one cast, that was displayed for a century in London, and then (for some reason) a few sentences about a fibreglass sculpture.
89:
151:
1098:
649:, on show there for over 100 years and in the main entrance hall for nearly four decades, loved and appreciated by thousands and thousands small children, who grew up to bring their own children and even grandchildren. And now on a national tour. One day the sauropod was there, and the next it was not; and not even replaced by a diving
388:, centralizing of the main topic (the historical find and promotion of this world-famous fossil). The notability of the London cast, already covered by the title descriptor (London), comes from Carnegie's distributed casts of the original. This seems a very good page with an interesting table of images, thanks for creating it.
794:
make matters worse, the London cast is not even on display any more, having been displaced from the spotlight by a blue whale skeleton. Is anyone arguing it doesn't have historical significance? No, but this is deeply tied to its status as one of many casts of a specimen, which are best treated in one place.
977:
The DYK point is related to the article. If it will be merged with the London Dippy, the 5x expansion rule and new information added in the last days is lost. Let me make it clearer; I am convinced you speak the truth about that source you add (though find it unfortunate it is not linked in an online
793:
As already stated earlier, there is little justification for a separate article about something that is just a cast. It is practically a single subject, hence the single article. If this article had grown huge, I could understand the need for splitting, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. To
1028:
The statue is not a cast. It's a statue. The statue is notable and should have its own page back again (as well as its continued coverage in this article). And the London cast certainly has its own notability, long history, and lifelong fans. Maybe the main reason to put the pages back is that their
1013:
None of this explains why they should be separate articles (notability can be used to determine if the info is to be included on
Knowledge (XXG) in some form, not necessarily whether it has to be in a separate article, as assumed here). It is probably a matter of taste, but one article covering all
502:
The London cast and the statue cover stand-alone topics. If a consensus forms to merge then the merge should keep almost all of the pertinent text on the two pages intact, including images and references and all, within the body of the main article. (note that a list of copies appears in the statue
405:
some sort of move, "(Diplodocus carnegii)" is an extremely awkward disambiguating term that fails to actually disambiguate this specimen from the statue or the London cast. I'm not 100% convinced that the
Carnegie skeleton is the primary topic; searching "Dippy" on Google gives far more results for
962:
re your DYK point, please could bring that up at the DYK itself and comment also on the second source which says the same thing (Breithaupt). I have read a number of other sources confirming that “Dippy is the most famous dinosaur skeleton in the world”, so can go and “dig these back up” if you’ll
772:
The statue article is from 2007, a well established page. Why not just leave the information in place but also bring back the two pages and hatnote them here as well as link them in the lede. The topic does cover over a century of information, and the London cast and outside statue have there own
725:
You are probably right about returning the page of the London cast, as it has its own notability and, in retrospect, the page should have been alerted to the above RM. This page can still have a good summary of the London cast, but yes, that cast has its own history, fans, and many generations of
1062:
The important thing is, as you say, the standard procedures for merging were not followed. The merge decision should be reversed (although the primary would still stay with this page per the RM), the London and statue pages brought back, and if you or the nomination editor would then like to try
344:
When the disambiguation page was created a year ago, the edit summary that was left read "Dippy (London) is arguably the more famous Dippy, so for the recent
Pittsburgh one to be the non-disambiguated one is not correct. I shall create a disambig page for Dippy." This does appear to include a
751:
If the merge into a single Dippy article is maintained, we should add a paragraph into the lead on the London cast, and a sentence on the
Pittsburgh statue, given their particular notability. I am happy to draft these, but I’ll wait to see where consensus comes out
845:
was "incorrect in a number of place" (how many places? details, please) then (A) that probably reflects an error in the sources (or possibly in my reading of the sources); and (B) it was rash to copy most of the text from that article here without adding
990:
sources. So cherrypicking
Weishampel for a DYK would be wrong, especially if the article itself already contradicts what the DYK hook says. And again, the discussion about this very article, the name, the presence and notability of other
857:
But if we are talking about independent notability, to what extent does a fossilised skeleton of a dinosaur have independent notability from the beast itself? Does it make any sense to have an article on a fossilised skeleton of
755:
Either way, I agree that when the RM thread above began to discuss merging, notifications should have been added onto the other talk pages and relevant user pages. They were not, and so we should probably assess consensus
1047:
The standard procedures for merging were not followed, I agree. But I still see no reason why they should have been separated to begin with. Yes, the statue isn't a cast, but it is inherently tied to the specimen.
892:
The full page of articles relate solely to a recent tour that the London cast is on. The book you linked was published by the UK Natural
History Museum, the home of that cast. I do acknowledge the Disney movie of
521:
Certainly everything should be kept (that's implied in "merge"), the issue is just that there is no good reason why it should be in separate articles (and this article certainly has capacity for a lot more text).
686:, even though that redirects here, as the discovery, biology, etc, in fact almost anything of interest about that dinosaur species, apart from a few scant details of the fossil, are all dealt with much better at
706:
merged here, like a fragment of a completely unrelated beast, wired on at one end? What has that 20-year-old fibreglass model got to do with the skeleton? (That article, incidentally, was almost 12 years old.)
747:
was just over a year old, was entirely unsourced except for the small end section on the national tour, and was incorrect in a number of places in its description of the original skeleton from which it was
773:
notablility. Leaving the merge information in place here as well as keeping the stand-alone pages does no harm and allows further exploration for readers. The London cast looks nice as a larger picture.
64:
367:- a model created to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Dippy's excavation. Today I moved this to its current name from ]. Until today this topic had been poorly covered, with much confusion.
1081:
about reversing the merge decision (but not the name change) per this discussion. The pages to be merged weren't notified about the RM or how it would affect the two articles. Thanks.
593:
Confirming support as nom for the additional suggestion of merging the three articles. This can be done with all information being retained, making a better article all round.
896:
As to individual notability, most of Dippy is one individual specimen, the fossil of a once living and sentient being. Your critique appears to be akin to suggesting that
912:
I do acknowledge your strength of feeling, and the incorrect process mentioned above. I have no objections to another discussion being opened if you think it might help.
869:
The original content here appears to be the list of casts, and I can see some sense in an article on, say, "list of casts of
Diplodocus carnegii", or something similar.
269:
909:
It continues to be my view that these topics are best served together, because most of the scholarly sources / sources of a deeper nature address the topic together.
413:
Note that the London cast has been on a highly-publicized tour of the UK since 2017, whereas the others have remained in place with little "news" in recent years.
932:
looming. Theramin is right and the renaming is far too hasty. Apparently there are more, equally notable "Dippies", and in case of doubt, give the equal status.
211:
854:, a book about the London cast - "Dippy: The Tale of a Museum Icon". It seems to me that this "just a cast" has developed its own independent notability.
850:
If I do a Google search for "Dippy" I get a page full of articles about the UK cast, and almost nothing else. If I look in Google Books, I get things like
1167:
201:
1157:
824:
That makes over 17 months old now. You could call that "just over a year", but I'd call that "nearly a year and a half ago". And as I said, we have had
1033:, may not have been aware of when deciding. p.s. The very nice chart on this page is still incomplete, as the Chicago Field Museum cast is not included.
838:
have numerous sources; and every word that I wrote in that article based on the sources provided (and not, as you seem to imply, made up, or erroneous).
656:
So, I see the text of the article has been cut-and-pasted here, into a melange of information much of which was also cut-and-pasted from elsewhere,
60:
1172:
177:
1029:
editors, page watchers, and wikiprojects were not notified of the above RM which resulted in the unexpected removal, something the closer,
330:, no clear primary topic. You only created this article today and the London cast has a significant degree of notability in its own right.
246:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
1162:
263:. There appears to be a consensus to merge the subtopics into this article but separate notification and discussion is recommended per
536:
Good points, although I've seen some 'merges' which consisted entirely of a redirect (so a full merge sometimes has to be explained).
995:(not "skeletons") and the combination of 2 genera into one "dino" is all not settled, so that is why in my DYK review I said "hold".
164:
125:
834:
was not "entirely unsourced". It didn't have many footnotes, true (why should it, as the contents are not contentious), but it
634:
100:
646:
612:
237:
297:
442:
should be merged here to make a single comprehensive article about the specimen and its related popular culture.
176:
topics on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
624:
247:
106:
309:
968:
919:
763:
598:
569:
468:
418:
372:
317:
264:
620:
36:
650:
406:
the London cast. However, the
Carnegie skeleton is clearly the original. 18:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
1122:
1109:
1086:
1068:
1038:
1000:
944:
778:
731:
541:
508:
393:
286:
277:
88:
859:
695:
683:
305:
1053:
1019:
877:
799:
715:
555:
527:
489:
350:
173:
250:
after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
20:
964:
915:
810:
759:
698:, and the casts of the skeleton? Nice image gallery, but why is almost all of the text about
594:
565:
464:
414:
368:
313:
156:
550:
Yeah, unless it is badly sourced, a merge should not lead to removal of valid information.
1118:
1106:
1082:
1078:
1064:
1034:
1030:
996:
957:
940:
774:
740:
Hi
Theramin, you are right that the correct process does not appear to have been followed.
727:
537:
504:
389:
283:
274:
842:
831:
825:
818:
703:
668:
664:
642:
503:
article with items, such as the Field Museum cast, not yet listed in this pages chart)
439:
435:
364:
335:
1151:
1049:
1015:
873:
795:
711:
551:
523:
485:
457:
346:
872:
But fine, whatever, I wash my hands of this whole debacle. Do what you think best.
851:
41:
444:
140:
119:
939:
several scientific papers is cherrypicking and not suitable for a proper DYK.
863:
687:
679:
484:- this is essentially a single topic, all are derived from the same specimen.
146:
978:
version), my problem is with that source and the statement itself. They may
331:
31:
169:
897:
671:, or to add a tag to the articles, before merging? No, obviously not.
963:
let me know what type of verification would satisfy your uncertainty.
901:
682:, clearly, as we already have a featured article about that. Not
301:
52:
82:
15:
65:
Template:Did you know nominations/Dippy (Diplodocus carnegii)
619:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this
70:
1126:
1112:
1090:
1072:
1057:
1042:
1023:
1004:
972:
948:
923:
881:
803:
782:
767:
735:
719:
602:
573:
559:
545:
531:
512:
493:
472:
448:
422:
397:
376:
354:
339:
321:
289:
645:? An article on one of the most famous exhibits in the
822:
744:
660:
657:
461:
63:. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at
726:
children have grown up loving that particular Dippy.
611:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
168:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
862:, when almost all of the biological details are in
627:. No further edits should be made to this section.
345:misunderstanding about which came first, however.
56:is the most famous dinosaur skeleton in the world?
1117:Thank you kindly. And all of London thanks you.
743:However, I disagree with your assessment above.
702:of the casts (I think we know why), and why was
363:By "recent Pittsburgh one", they likely meant
663:. Did no one think to contact the author of
8:
312:are simply modern copies of this skeleton.
61:Knowledge (XXG):Recent additions/2019/March
236:The following is a closed discussion of a
114:
261:and merge the subtopics into this article
44:). The text of the entry was as follows:
690:already. So, is this article about the
904:. It seems to be an unusual suggestion.
116:
86:
71:
1158:Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles
186:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Dinosaurs
59:A record of the entry may be seen at
7:
982:"the most famous dinosaur skeleton (
889:Hi Theramin, a few quick reactions:
255:The result of the move request was:
162:This article is within the scope of
482:Support move and merge of subtopics
259:. Consensus is to move as proposed
105:It is of interest to the following
1168:High-importance dinosaurs articles
1014:the casts seems more appropriate.
14:
432:Support (move and subtopic merge)
1096:
710:Unimpressed, on several levels.
149:
139:
118:
87:
19:
635:One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing
229:Requested move 24 February 2019
206:This article has been rated as
1173:WikiProject Dinosaurs articles
647:Natural History Museum, London
189:Template:WikiProject Dinosaurs
30:appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1:
574:15:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
560:14:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
546:14:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
532:14:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
513:14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
494:08:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
473:07:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
449:05:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
423:19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
398:11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
377:00:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
355:23:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
340:22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
322:21:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
180:and see a list of open tasks.
308:; the other two articles at
1063:again we can comment anew.
678:article about anyway? Not
298:Dippy (Diplodocus carnegii)
1189:
1163:C-Class dinosaurs articles
1127:15:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
1113:13:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
1091:12:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
1073:16:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
1058:11:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
1043:08:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
1024:07:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
1005:14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
973:07:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
949:01:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
924:00:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
882:00:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
290:13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
280:05:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
212:project's importance scale
804:09:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
783:10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
768:06:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
736:02:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
720:02:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
603:15:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
282:(Edited merge comments. —
205:
134:
113:
40:column on 31 March 2019 (
745:The London Dippy article
617:Please do not modify it.
243:Please do not modify it.
817:I created the article
460:suggested the same at
310:Dippy (disambiguation)
95:This article is rated
76:
900:is the same topic as
165:WikiProject Dinosaurs
99:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
74:
828:for almost 12 years.
434:; I think that both
1077:Pinging the closer
860:Diplodocus carnegii
696:Diplodocus carnegii
684:Diplodocus carnegii
821:on 7 October 2017.
661:proper attribution
192:dinosaurs articles
101:content assessment
77:
809:Well, excuse me,
641:What happened to
353:
293:
273:
270:non-admin closure
226:
225:
222:
221:
218:
217:
81:
80:
1180:
1104:
1100:
1099:
961:
349:
281:
267:
245:
194:
193:
190:
187:
184:
174:dinosaur-related
159:
157:Dinosaurs portal
154:
153:
152:
143:
136:
135:
130:
122:
115:
98:
92:
91:
83:
73:
23:
16:
1188:
1187:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1148:
1147:
1097:
1095:
955:
639:
631:
241:
231:
208:High-importance
191:
188:
185:
182:
181:
155:
150:
148:
129:High‑importance
128:
96:
75:Knowledge (XXG)
12:
11:
5:
1186:
1184:
1176:
1175:
1170:
1165:
1160:
1150:
1149:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1138:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1130:
1129:
1115:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
933:
913:
910:
907:
906:
905:
894:
848:
847:
843:Dippy (London)
839:
832:Dippy (London)
829:
826:Dippy (statue)
819:Dippy (London)
807:
806:
790:
789:
788:
787:
786:
785:
757:
753:
749:
741:
704:Dippy (statue)
669:Dippy (statue)
665:Dippy (London)
643:Dippy (London)
638:
632:
630:
629:
613:requested move
607:
606:
605:
587:
586:
585:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
578:
577:
576:
516:
515:
497:
496:
478:
477:
476:
475:
452:
451:
440:Dippy (statue)
436:Dippy (London)
428:
427:
426:
425:
408:
407:
400:
382:
381:
380:
379:
365:Dippy (statue)
358:
357:
342:
295:
253:
252:
238:requested move
232:
230:
227:
224:
223:
220:
219:
216:
215:
204:
198:
197:
195:
178:the discussion
161:
160:
144:
132:
131:
123:
111:
110:
104:
93:
79:
78:
68:
58:
57:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1185:
1174:
1171:
1169:
1166:
1164:
1161:
1159:
1156:
1155:
1153:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1114:
1111:
1108:
1103:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1070:
1066:
1061:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1051:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1021:
1017:
1012:
1006:
1002:
998:
994:
989:
985:
981:
976:
975:
974:
970:
966:
959:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
946:
942:
938:
937:contradicting
934:
931:
928:I see a 2019
927:
926:
925:
921:
917:
914:
911:
908:
903:
899:
895:
891:
890:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
879:
875:
870:
867:
865:
861:
855:
853:
844:
840:
837:
833:
830:
827:
823:
820:
816:
815:
814:
812:
805:
801:
797:
792:
791:
784:
780:
776:
771:
770:
769:
765:
761:
758:
754:
750:
746:
742:
739:
738:
737:
733:
729:
724:
723:
722:
721:
717:
713:
708:
705:
701:
697:
693:
689:
685:
681:
677:
672:
670:
666:
662:
659:
654:
652:
648:
644:
636:
633:
628:
626:
622:
618:
614:
609:
608:
604:
600:
596:
592:
591:Support merge
589:
588:
575:
571:
567:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
547:
543:
539:
535:
534:
533:
529:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
510:
506:
501:
500:
499:
498:
495:
491:
487:
483:
480:
479:
474:
470:
466:
462:
459:
458:User:FunkMonk
456:
455:
454:
453:
450:
447:
446:
441:
437:
433:
430:
429:
424:
420:
416:
412:
411:
410:
409:
404:
401:
399:
395:
391:
387:
384:
383:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
361:
360:
359:
356:
352:
348:
343:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
324:
323:
319:
315:
311:
307:
303:
299:
294:
291:
288:
285:
279:
276:
271:
266:
262:
258:
251:
249:
244:
239:
234:
233:
228:
213:
209:
203:
200:
199:
196:
179:
175:
171:
167:
166:
158:
147:
145:
142:
138:
137:
133:
127:
124:
121:
117:
112:
108:
102:
94:
90:
85:
84:
69:
66:
62:
55:
54:
49:
46:
45:
43:
39:
38:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1101:
992:
987:
983:
979:
965:Onceinawhile
936:
929:
916:Onceinawhile
871:
868:
856:
849:
835:
811:Onceinawhile
808:
760:Onceinawhile
709:
699:
691:
675:
673:
655:
640:
616:
610:
595:Onceinawhile
590:
566:Onceinawhile
481:
465:Onceinawhile
443:
431:
415:Onceinawhile
402:
385:
369:Onceinawhile
327:
314:Onceinawhile
296:
265:WP:MERGEPROP
260:
256:
254:
242:
235:
207:
163:
107:WikiProjects
51:
48:Did you know
47:
37:Did you know
35:
27:
26:A fact from
625:move review
248:move review
42:check views
1152:Categories
1119:Randy Kryn
1083:Randy Kryn
1079:Born2cycle
1065:Randy Kryn
1035:Randy Kryn
1031:Born2cycle
997:Tisquesusa
958:Tisquesusa
941:Tisquesusa
864:Diplodocus
846:footnotes.
775:Randy Kryn
728:Randy Kryn
688:Diplodocus
680:Diplodocus
651:blue whale
538:Randy Kryn
505:Randy Kryn
390:Randy Kryn
621:talk page
306:WP:PTOPIC
183:Dinosaurs
170:dinosaurs
126:Dinosaurs
50:... that
32:Main Page
1050:FunkMonk
1016:FunkMonk
930:Bone War
874:Theramin
796:FunkMonk
712:Theramin
692:skeleton
674:What is
623:or in a
564:Agreed.
552:FunkMonk
524:FunkMonk
486:FunkMonk
347:Dekimasu
304:– Clear
898:Red Rum
893:course.
813:, but:
658:without
403:Support
386:Support
210:on the
97:C-class
34:in the
756:again.
752:first.
445:IJReid
328:Oppose
103:scale.
993:casts
988:other
980:claim
902:horse
748:cast.
676:this
302:Dippy
257:Moved
53:Dippy
28:Dippy
1123:talk
1102:Done
1087:talk
1069:talk
1054:talk
1039:talk
1020:talk
1001:talk
984:toto
969:talk
945:talk
920:talk
878:talk
852:this
800:talk
779:talk
764:talk
732:talk
716:talk
694:of
599:talk
570:talk
556:talk
542:talk
528:talk
509:talk
490:talk
469:talk
438:and
419:talk
394:talk
373:talk
336:talk
332:PC78
318:talk
202:High
172:and
1107:В²C
841:If
836:did
700:one
667:or
284:В²C
275:В²C
1154::
1125:)
1089:)
1071:)
1056:)
1041:)
1022:)
1003:)
971:)
947:)
922:)
880:)
802:)
781:)
766:)
734:)
718:)
653:.
615:.
601:)
572:)
558:)
544:)
530:)
511:)
492:)
471:)
463:.
421:)
396:)
375:)
351:よ!
338:)
320:)
300:→
292:)
240:.
1121:(
1110:☎
1105:—
1085:(
1067:(
1052:(
1037:(
1018:(
999:(
967:(
960::
956:@
943:(
918:(
876:(
798:(
777:(
762:(
730:(
714:(
637:!
597:(
568:(
554:(
540:(
526:(
507:(
488:(
467:(
417:(
392:(
371:(
334:(
316:(
287:☎
278:☎
272:)
268:(
214:.
109::
67:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
