I'd like to propose merging Gordo (dinosaur) into this article. Not only were the two merged for nearly three years, with no extra information being added to the former upon its resurrection, but it would also be more in line with the general policy used for named dinosaur specimens. Nearly all of the information included in the former is also present in the latter, albeit under the specimen number and not under the nickname. The Morrison Man (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also paging @Randy Kryn, who reinstated Gordo (dinosaur). The Morrison Man (talk) 11:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What general policy? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Generally individual dinosaur fossils are included in the page on the genus or species, instead of seperately, due to issues that often arise with reliable sourcing and relevance. I would say that also applies here The Morrison Man (talk) 12:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please, what general policy? When the word "policy" is used on Wikipedia in means a specific written and agreed-upon policy. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if my wording made things unclear. I'm simply referring to the way in which 99% of individual dinosaur specimens are handled, where they are featured on the parent page of the genus or species. Notable examples include Big Al & Big Al II on the Allosaurus page and Sophie on the Stegosaurus page. Usually a specimen is only kept seperate if it has a particularly long and/or troubled history or a lot of media coverage, like Sue (dinosaur) and Dippy. I'd argue that Gordo falls into the former category rather than the latter. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Palaeontology has been notified of this discussion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Dinosaurs has been notified of this discussion. PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose, Gordo retains notability as the largest dinosaur fossil in Canada and as a central exhibit at the Royal Ontario Museum in Toronto. Gordo is "one of the most complete specimens of the Barosaurus genus in North America" along with another example in New York, a notable distinction for this exhibit. The previous merge was done without discussion, and buried Gordo's page for three years. The article has been worked on, edited, and is a better presentation than it was three years ago. In short, nothing is broken here, and Gordo should continue to stand within its own page. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:47, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  To say that the article is a better representation than it was three years ago would be overstating things. Yes, edits have been made, but these have not improved the overall quality of the article, which still seems like something that was thrown together quickly, no offense to any editors who have worked on it since the reinstatement. As for the information presented, all of this is featured on the main Barosaurus article already, as mentioned above, under the specimen number (ROM 3670). I think that the size-related argument, while a fun fact, doesn't make this specific specimen notable. The ROM recently installed a mount of Futalognkosaurus in the main lobby, which is similarly sized.

  It is a centrepiece in its exhibit, but that information would be better used on the page of the Royal Ontario Museum, as it related more to the structuring of the exhibitions than the specimen itself. Being this complete is a distinction, but doesn't warrant a seperate page. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The facts are worthy of also being included in the Gordo article itself. I anticipate more will be added soon. Has the recent Futalognkosaurus similarly-sized fossil now become the largest dinosaur fossil in Canada, tied, or not as large as Gordo? Size, completion, backstory, and notable use all go towards keeping the separate page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ignoring the fact that the 'backstory' is not remarkable at all (it is in fact quite mundane), size is never a good argument for a seperate page in extinct taxa, because there's a decent probability of a larger specimen being uncovered (in fact, there are already larger specimens referred to Barosaurus sp.). The completeness is also irrelevant if no sources on the bones are available or used in the article. As for notable use, I don't see how the use of this specimen is more notable than literally every other fossil on display in museums around the world.

  As an aside, the sources on the article are very poor. Including a (now defunct) website made by schoolchildren, a History Channel documentary and news articles/blogposts. Not a single scientific publication, which the relevant section on the main Barosaurus article does include. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  ? Well, then let's get those sources (which I see include video) to the stand-alone page as well. And please don't remove the interesting full image of Gordo from its page which I've returned, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I have removed it again because the image is by all means not a full image. It's cobbled together from seperate ones and is missing more than half of the torso, alongside other skeletons around Gordo having half of their body floating in front of the rest. I will look for a better image, if we have one, but I've removed the 'panorama' again. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Have put it back in view of its removal coming at the same time as this merge proposal. Better images will probably be taken and provided soon. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Frankly I don't see how the removal of an image which is clearly of bad quality would impact this merge proposal in any way. The Morrison Man (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm going to abstain from this merge proposal in favour of removing the objectively awful image. "A better image will come along" is not a reason to keep a bad one around. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:24, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - no apparent reason for keeping this separate. FunkMonk (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I gave several reasons in my comment. Please address those per "no apparent reason", thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:53, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - There is no apparent reason for keeping this article separate given Gordo's lack of media coverage, lack of unique cultural significance, and history that perfectly fits within the coverage of the Barosaurus article. Specimens like Big Al are within their own page despite being the most well known Allosaurus specimen and having an entire WWD special covering the reconstructed life of them. Gordo falls under the category of locally significant, but not significant enough to be what's essentially a household name like Sue and Dippy whom are very well known globally unlike Gordo. Both afformentioned specimens also have significant media coverage related to various important events and topics outside of the coverage that would be appropriate for their respective taxa's articles (politics, various appearances in media, etc.). The fact that Big Al is merged within the Allosaurus article when they're a more prominent specimen than Gordo should set the precedent for whether or not we merge the article, in this case not. This and again the lack of significant media coverage and unique cultural significance. Singapore has three Diplodocus displayed which are the only dinosaur fossils on display in the entire country, that doesn't mean they deserve their own article. Same goes for Judy the most complete Australotitan specimen, they're the most complete sauropod specimen from Australia and shed important information on the evolution of Australian sauropods yet there's no mention of the specimen in the Australotitan article at all and I personally don't think there needs to be. For all the afformentioned reasons of a lack of significant media coverage, lack of unique cultural significance, and history that perfectly fits within the coverage of the Barosaurus article, I support the remerging of this article. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The page is well sourced, so the support comments seem to verge on "I don't like it". If Big Al and Judy and other mounted dinosaurs have as many sources as Gordo then they should all have their own pages. Over time many stand-alone dinosaur fossil pages have been discussed, I've yet to understand why editors don't want these pages to exist. Aside from the already good and adequate sourcing on the page, there will probably be more coming within a week or so. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:45, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I have mentioned above, the sourcing is of particularly bad quality. I would also like to see you acknowledge the criticisms raised in the entries above instead of just saying that "the support comments seem to verge on 'I don't like it'." The Morrison Man (talk) 15:12, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The page is objectively not well sourced at all as @The Morrison Man points out in an earlier response, your assumption that my reasoning is "I don't like it" when I've stated my position clearly with evidence is also not very professional. As I already said in my statement, the reasons why these specimens don't need their own articles is because they would be stubs that dont cover anything that's outside the scope of the information the main article covers. The reasons why Sue and Dippy have their own separate articles is because, like I said, they hold unique cultural significance and large amounts of media coverage because of that, this means covering them properly would need to cover topics outside of what would be appropriate to cover in their respective taxa's articles (Sue being the most complete Tyrannosaurus specimen, as well as being the centre of the debate regarding the ethics of auctioning fossils. Dippy being the main specimen which the majority of Diplodocus casts are casts of, and featuring in various media cameos). The fact that all which was gathered from my statement was "I don't like it" tells me that my statement wasn't read fully/carefully, as all I've done here is reiterate the evidence behind my support of this merge with no emotion-based arguments present. Please directly acknowledge my points instead of disregarding them for pathos, as I've already said, it's quite unprofessional. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• We seem to be looking at different page sourcing, what I read are a good sized Smithsonian Magazine story and various other sources which for any other article would be adequate. This confusion on either my or other editor's part could be where my "I don't like it" comment comes from. There are also sources on this page which could be transferred over to the Gordo article, and, as mentioned above, I expect more information will be added within the week. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry, but I have trouble accepting "I expect more information will be added" as a valid reason for why this article should be kept. The Morrison Man (talk) 16:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  As I stated in my earlier statement, please adress the other points of my argument. This still doesn't change the fact that your assumptions of me are unprofessional at best ("confusion" is not a valid reason to form baseless assumptions unrelated to a literal yes or no vote), and projecting at worst given the fact that all your reasoning for keeping the article separate is based solely on your own opinion ("I expect more information will be added" for example) rather than following the general trends of how we've been writing articles for over a decade now. I would expect someone who's been around for that long to have an intimate understanding of the standard processes or at the very least the general trend present. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 11:51, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Your professionalism or unprofessionalism is not an issue here. I think the sources are fine for a stand-alone article, you don't. And yes, more information will be added within the week. Discuss the topic not the editors, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:09, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  That's a bit ironic coming since the only counterpoint that's been given to my arguments is "You just don't like it" as oppose to any objective evidence like my previous statements contain. Sauriazoicillus (talk) 09:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per above. RandyKryn's arguments are non-starters, and the lack of good sources- as well as that highly inappropriate image- means this discussion shouldn't even be happening. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 15:29, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. It is a poor article, and the Barosaurus page already seems to cover this topic in even greater detail than this article does. Unless there is a lot more to write about it based on high-quality sources (which I don't think is the case), a separate article is content over-splitting. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As already noted the article is a content fork of Barosaurus. It has no weight of individual notability that elevates it above any other dinosaur mount on display and the small portion of specimen specific information is already fully detailed on Barosaurus.--Kevmin § 20:34, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per previous comments—Ignoring the very poor state of the page as it is, specimen-specific information is generally contextualized most effectively within the broader narrative of the relevant museum/institution or dinosaur genus (in this case, ROM/Barosaurus). Furthermore, maintaining a precedent for creating separate pages for any dinosaur skeleton with a name, published news article, video, or minor record can set an unsustainable and impractical standard for encyclopedic content. We would see a proliferation of articles with marginal notability, overshadowing truly notable fossil exceptions and diluting the quality of content with redundancy. The currently recognized criterion for notability (significant media coverage, unique cultural/historical significance, and exceptional scientific importance) ensures Wikipedia is a focused resource rather than a fragmented collection of minor distinctions. -SlvrHwk (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The unique cultural and historical significance comes with Gordo being the largest dinosaur fossil in Canada as well as being one of the largest and likely the most complete example of Barosaurus known. Editors are saying the Gordo page is in poor condition compared with the information presented in this article. That is easily remedied and, as I said, additional material will likely be available and hopefully added within the week. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge, meaning keep. The Gordo article clearly meets the usual notability criteria and the sources are fine. I acknowledge that the professional paleontologists above are on the other side of this debate, but I don't have a feel for why. There is unlikely to be a flood of articles about extremely specific dinosaurs because of our decision here, partly because so few dinosaurs meet the high criteria here. An article about a single exhibit might be trivial, but on a plain reading, Gordo's skeleton has an interesting dramatic history and is the largest on display in Canada. I added a citation to a full article which was entirely about Gordo and its curatorial history which was published in The Globe and Mail, one of Canada's two largest newspapers. The sources overall seem plenty strong and diverse to me. -- econterms (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  What, exactly, are the high criteria you speak of? As for Gordo having an "interesting dramatic history", I do not see how being locked away in a collection for 45 years and subsequently being put in display, as was always the plan, is dramatic or interesting in any way. In fact, it is quite mundane. The Morrison Man (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The topic as such should be relevant. The problem is rather that this article simply duplicates content that is already discussed in detail in the Barosaurus article, and therefore is content duplication with no additional value. Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Looking at the overlapping bits, they seem to be about the recent history Gordo skeleton alone and therefore to belong in that small article. They don't address Barosaurus in general. I'm thinking of how to move things around that way. Agreed that duplication per se is not useful, although some of it is necessary in a general encyclopedia. -- econterms (talk) 22:17, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  If I understand correctly, you're suggesting that said information (the paragraph on ROM 3670) be removed from Barosaurus? If so, I would strongly advise against that. Being one of the more complete specimens, the history of the ROM 3670 specimen is relevant in the space it currently inhabits on the Barosaurus page. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I won't do anything rash, without consulting. Need to think it out. -- econterms (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Would agree that the information already present in, and important to, this article, should be kept and probably expanded (especially with a possible usuable image being arranged). The more page-relevant data the better to understand the topic. The need to leave a good amount of data here further indicates that Gordo is an important and notable specimen, and thank you Econterms for adding major sources at its article. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

discussion[edit]

Randy Kryn What specific information will be included in a week that can't be included today? Please give us an outline of the sources you seem to have that will significantly change the quality of the article as it stands now. "Superlatives" (The "biggest"/ "most complete") are not grounds when dealing with fossils where less then a dozen are known.--Kevmin § 16:52, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevmin, sent you an email. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Randy Kryn Thank you for the email, I dont really feel it was needed tbh, it could have been summed up with anything reviling here. To sum it up generically without detail, you feel that a visit to the museum is going to yield new and amazing sources that the paleo project has so far missed. Why do you feel that is?--

I would also like some clarification on this topic. The Morrison Man (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because I knew exceptional editors and researchers would be present. The new Globe and Mail and Atlas Obscura sources seem enough to keep the page as a stand-alone notable topic and to do so without removing material from this article. Please read both the Globe and Mail and Atlas Obscura features where additional cited data can be found which would not be used on the Barosaurus page but could be added to the stand-alone article. This seems to affirm, especially with its now obvious adequate sourcing, Gordo's stand-alone status. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the sources seem to have any new information that isn't already covered in the Barosaurus article. The Morrison Man (talk) 08:49, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are great additional sources. This discussion is creating hoops to jump though - it has asked for feature newspaper articles and these have now been added. Information within them will add data to Gordo's page without the same information being transferred in a full merge. Let's leave this one remain stand-alone. One photo needed could be from outside the museum, where Gordo is apparently well-seen and displayed through the window arrangement (I missed that interestingly-sounding view while there, darn). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody in this discussion has asked for newspaper articles to be added. Aside from this, you fail to give any concrete indications of improvement, with most of your arguments content-wise resting on hopes that more information will be added to the page. Having once again read through the two new sources that were added, they do not provide any extra information that would be particularly notable, or not already present on either page. The Morrison Man (talk) 15:58, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]