Talk:Apex (dinosaur)

Dinosaurs Low‑importance

	Dinosaurs portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dinosaurs, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of dinosaurs and dinosaur-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DinosaursWikipedia:WikiProject DinosaursTemplate:WikiProject Dinosaursdinosaurs articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Palaeontology Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article was nominated for merging with List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction on 11 August 2024. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

A fact from Apex (dinosaur) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 August 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that a Stegosaurus fossil sold for $44.6 million?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/August. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Apex (dinosaur).

Wikipedia

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Sohom Datta talk 01:27, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(

Comment or view
Article history

)

... that a Stegosaurus fossil sold for $44.6 million?

Source: Nicholls, Catherine (18 July 2024). "Stegosaurus skeleton sets auction record, selling for $44.6 million". CNN. Retrieved 19 July 2024.

Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Barack Obama (horse)
Comment: The sale made the news a few days ago (although it wasn't on ITN), I might add an althook later if I have an idea of something more catchy.

Created by Chaotic Enby (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 5 past nominations.

Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 23:54, 25 July 2024 (UTC).[reply]

(not a full review, although I might come back if it isn't merged) tagged for merging. Queen of Hearts ^talk 19:31, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- I have closed the merge discussion as no consensus. New and long enough, copyvio checks return fine, interesting hook, QPQ done, LGTM. Queen of Hearts ^talk 02:17, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction

After two weeks, I see no consensus on if this article should be merged. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts ^talk 02:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Articles like this serve little other purpose than "hey, this specimen was sold for a lot of money, but that's all we can really say about it because it's in a private collection." We at the WP:dinosaur project made List of dinosaur specimens sold at auction exactly for this purpose, to briefly cover such specimens that don't have much else to write about them than their price. FunkMonk (talk) 18:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was still in the process of writing the article, but there is more to say than just the price. The fossil is also interesting for other reasons, such as its excellent preservation of throat armor and skin impressions as well as being the largest Stegosaurus specimen, and spurred a certain amount of controversy due to its price. Plus, the specimen is likely to be displayed in a museum soon, so the merge will have to be reverted back then. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it ends up in a museum, we usually don't have articles for individual specimens unless they are extremely famous, like Sue (dinosaur), which is hardly the case here either. We also have List of dinosaur specimens with nicknames for cases like this. So no, the tag should not be removed unless that is the outcome of the resulting discussion when further editors comment. FunkMonk (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say the tag should be removed, I was just giving my opinion on the matter. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:59, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Being displayed in a museum or having exceptional preservation has next to zero precedent for qualifying a fossil as being worthy of its own article. Any species known from multiple discoveries has a best and a largest specimen. Hundreds of dinosaurs are displayed in museums across the world. Even if it eventually accrued so much scientific and public significance so as to be worth an article, that would still make its current existence WP:TOOSOON because Wikipedia is WP:NOTCRYSTAL. Apex as it stands is nothing more than a news story. The more of these high profile dinosaur auctions that happen the less and less it's easy to swallow their publicity as grounds for notability. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:01, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did not argue that being displayed in a museum was what made the specimen notable, it was just a response to the "we can't say much because it's in a private collection" argument. Regarding precedent, other specimens primarily known for being the largest and most expensive of their kind, such as Big John (dinosaur), are considered notable, although again WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument either way.
Regarding WP:TOOSOON, that essay is about topics for which it is too soon for them to have gotten coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Apex already has this coverage, and easily meets WP:GNG, so I don't see why notability is in question to begin with. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:41, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that Big John's article itself met significant opposition to being kept. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, as noted, other than the fact that this skeleton went up for auction, there aren't any notable features to this specific skeleton that would warrant a separate article. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL are very applicable here. There was significant controversy and heavy ARS influence in Big John's edit history, with repeated reversion of edits made the ARS to preserve a specific version of that article that was then used as the only allowable version to be discussed. Apex has not had coverage other than the same type as any other auction piece that an auctioneer wants to hype.--Kev min § 02:35, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some sources described the controversy over the auction already back in May, so there has definitely been non-hype coverage, and WP:NSUSTAINED is very likely already met. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 08:21, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose merging, the subject passes WP:GNG individually and has sustained coverage. It can certainly be included on that list page, but I don't think that means it should not have its own page. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:47, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.