Talk:Stegosaurus

Pop culture section and spin off article

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)

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)

FunkMonk, fine by me. LittleJerry (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

@FunkMonk: 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)

The discussion above 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.

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)

Freely licensed excavation photographs of NHMUK PV R36730 ("Sophie") available

COI disclosure: I took part in the 2004 excavation of this specimen at Red Canyon Ranch near Shell, Wyoming, and I am the photographer of the images below. Because of that connection I am not adding them to the article myself, and I leave it entirely to uninvolved editors to decide whether they are useful.

I have donated two photographs to Commons under CC BY 4.0:

• File:Stegosaurus dorsal plates being exposed, Shell Wyoming, July 2004.jpg — dorsal plates being exposed in situ
• File:Stegosaurus leg bones in situ, Shell Wyoming, July 2004.jpg — leg bones in situ

The article currently has no photographs of the specimen during excavation. These were taken on site in July 2004, before the removal and jacketing work, and show the material as it was found in the Morrison Formation. Both are 2240×1680 and unwatermarked.

More frames from the same excavation exist, and I am glad to release any of them under the same licence if they would be useful to the article. BoscosRockPile (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Those are very helpful indeed, many thanks! Do both photos show the specimen "Sophie"? Do you possibly also have an overview photo showing the excavation site as such? Such a photo could be even more useful. Jens Lallensack (talk) 09:44, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Yes — both photographs show NHMUK PV R36730 ("Sophie"); they were taken during her July 2004 excavation at Red Canyon Ranch. And yes — I've uploaded an overview of the excavation site under the same licence: File:Sophie Stegosaurus excavation site, Red Canyon Ranch, Shell Wyoming, July 2004.jpg. Happy to provide anything else that would be useful. BoscosRockPile (talk) 21:25, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

Many thanks for those! I now added two of them to the article, how does that look? Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:39, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

That looks great — thank you for placing them, and for writing the alt text.

Both are from the initial excavation in July 2004, when Bob Simon, Don Pfister and I were the three-man crew on the quarry. I have more frames from those weeks if any would be useful to the article — including the tail spikes as they first came out of the ground, and further detail shots of bone still in the matrix. I'm glad to upload any of them under the same licence; just say which would help. BoscosRockPile (talk) 03:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

The tail spikes could indeed be very nice; maybe they fit even better than the leg bones as they are such an recognisable feature. For this general article, I feel that more than two excavation photos of the same specimen would be a bit too much, but it is very possible that we will have a stand-alone article on "Sophie" at some point in the future, where additional shots could prove quite valuable. Sometimes, such shots also fit with other articles. In any case, it's always nice to have something to choose from, so please feel free to upload any photos you think might be suitable. Thanks, Jens Lallensack (talk) 04:52, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

A correction to my note above: I'm new to Wikipedia and Commons — I set my account up only a few days ago and I'm still learning how things work here. I offered more broadly than I should have. Beyond the three images already on Commons, I'm not releasing further photographs from that excavation. I'm glad the three have been useful, and thank you for placing them and for writing the alt text. BoscosRockPile (talk) 22:37, 28 August 2026 (UTC)

You are welcome, and thanks again for those photographs! For any questions regarding how things work here, please don't hesitate to ask. Jens Lallensack (talk) 05:32, 29 August 2026 (UTC)