Talk:Dippy

Requested move 24 February 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. Consensus is to move as proposed and merge the subtopics into this article. There appears to be a consensus to merge the subtopics into this article but separate notification and discussion is recommended per WP:MERGEPROP (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 05:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC) (Edited merge comments. —В²C ☎ 13:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC))

---

Dippy (Diplodocus carnegii) → Dippy – Clear WP:PTOPIC; the other two articles at Dippy (disambiguation) are simply modern copies of this skeleton. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Oppose, no clear primary topic. You only created this article today and the London cast has a significant degree of notability in its own right. PC78 (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
• 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 misunderstanding about which came first, however. Dekimasuよ! 23:35, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

By "recent Pittsburgh one", they likely meant Dippy (statue) - a model created to commemorate the 100th anniversary of Dippy's excavation. Today I moved this to its current name from [[Dippy (Pittsburgh)]]. Until today this topic had been poorly covered, with much confusion. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support, 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
• Support 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 the London cast. However, the Carnegie skeleton is clearly the original. 18:09, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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. Onceinawhile (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support (move and subtopic merge); I think that both Dippy (London) and Dippy (statue) should be merged here to make a single comprehensive article about the specimen and its related popular culture. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 05:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

User:FunkMonk suggested the same at [1]. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support move and merge of subtopics - this is essentially a single topic, all are derived from the same specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• 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 article with items, such as the Field Museum cast, not yet listed in this pages chart) Randy Kryn (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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). FunkMonk (talk) 14:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Good points, although I've seen some 'merges' which consisted entirely of a redirect (so a full merge sometimes has to be explained). Randy Kryn (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, unless it is badly sourced, a merge should not lead to removal of valid information. FunkMonk (talk) 14:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Support merge 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. Onceinawhile (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

One of Our Dinosaurs Is Missing!

What happened to Dippy (London)? An article on one of the most famous exhibits in the Natural History Museum, London, 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 blue whale.

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, without proper attribution. Did no one think to contact the author of Dippy (London) or Dippy (statue), or to add a tag to the articles, before merging? No, obviously not.

What is this article about anyway? Not Diplodocus, clearly, as we already have a featured article about that. Not Diplodocus carnegii, 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 Diplodocus already. So, is this article about the skeleton of Diplodocus carnegii, and the casts of the skeleton? Nice image gallery, but why is almost all of the text about one of the casts (I think we know why), and why was Dippy (statue) 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.)

Unimpressed, on several levels. Theramin (talk) 02:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

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 children have grown up loving that particular Dippy. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Theramin, you are right that the correct process does not appear to have been followed.

However, I disagree with your assessment above. The London Dippy article 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 cast.

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 first.

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 again.

Onceinawhile (talk) 06:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

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 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:46, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• 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 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. FunkMonk (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Well, excuse me, Onceinawhile, but:

• I created the article Dippy (London) on 7 October 2017.[2] 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 Dippy (statue) for almost 12 years.
• Dippy (London) was not "entirely unsourced". It didn't have many footnotes, true (why should it, as the contents are not contentious), but it did 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).
• If Dippy (London) 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 footnotes.

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 this, 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.

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 Diplodocus carnegii, when almost all of the biological details are in Diplodocus? 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.

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.

But fine, whatever, I wash my hands of this whole debacle. Do what you think best. Theramin (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Theramin, a few quick reactions:

• 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 course.
• 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 Red Rum is the same topic as horse. It seems to be an unusual suggestion.

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.

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.

Onceinawhile (talk) 00:42, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I see a 2019 Bone War 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.

"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 contradicting several scientific papers is cherrypicking and not suitable for a proper DYK. Tisquesusa (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tisquesusa: 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 let me know what type of verification would satisfy your uncertainty. Onceinawhile (talk) 07:28, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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 version), my problem is with that source and the statement itself. They may claim "the most famous dinosaur skeleton (toto) 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 other 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 casts (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". Tisquesusa (talk) 14:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

None of this explains why they should be separate articles (notability can be used to determine if the info is to be included on Wikipedia 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 the casts seems more appropriate. FunkMonk (talk) 07:20, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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 editors, page watchers, and wikiprojects were not notified of the above RM which resulted in the unexpected removal, something the closer, Born2cycle, 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 08:51, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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. FunkMonk (talk) 11:10, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

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 again we can comment anew. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Pinging the closer Born2cycle 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. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done —В²C ☎ 13:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you kindly. And all of London thanks you. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)