Talk:Brachiosaurus Replica

Notability as separate article

I performed a merge of this article into the Brachiosaurus#Cultural significance section, which was undone by Another Believer, and a Work In Progress tag was added to this page. The addition of all of this articles content to the target was not undone. While admittedly my merge was WP:BOLD, I'm not going to start an edit conflict over it, a discussion should be had. If we can't reach a consensus here this will likely be opened as an AfD to draw wider opinions. I'll notify some relevant wikiprojects to get a scope of opinions here. My reason for the merge (or deletion) comes about as a result of two main points:

1. This article is a composite of two different replicas. The skeleton mounted in the O'Hare International Airport and outside the Field Museum are not the same. This means citation 1 is on a separate topic from citations 2-5, and is misused. Without citation 1, the article title is incorrect: "Brachiosaurus Replica" is only used by the one Chicago Park District site and not in reference to the O'Hare skeleton. "Replica" is not a noun, so even if we give leeway and allow citation 1 to dictate this articles title, it still isn't an appropriate description. "Brachiosaurus replica" does not read as a standalone article and a redirect to a discussion of the cultural significance (including replicas, movies, etc) seems more proper. Without a true title the notability of this article is shakey.
2. None of the citations for this article are good secondary sources on the topic to establish notability. Citation 1 (Chicago Park District) is not talking about the mount inside O'Hare. Citation 2 (Chicago Tribune) is pawyalled but the topic is moving the one replica to the airport to make room for a Tyrannosaurus; this happened in 1997 (see Chicago Park District page). Citation 3 (Tribune again) provides the most probable notability argument, being a discussion of what the skeleton is; again this is not from the last two decades. Citation 4 (USA Today) mentions the O'Hare Brachiosaurus only in passing, as the rest of the content is on the Tyrannosaurus nearby. Citation 5 (Thrillist) adds very little; the Brachiosaurus is namedropped in the title but otherwise not even once in the content, even in the discussion of the Field Museum Store that it is placed as part of. These citations do not provide discussion of why a replica in O'Hare is a cultural topic, or how popular it is, or any sort of details that are specifically for the replica and NOT Brachiosaurus (size etc is applicable to both), all we can get is a note of why there is one where it is. And the history of the one replica is not even that long, they made a replica for the museum, but the museum got a Tyrannosaurus so they moved the replica outside, but it was not intended to be outside so they moved it into the Airport and made a new weather-proof one for outside. That's the history.

The article is new, so further additions in the form of citations or content may be expected, but I want to save time of those who would expand this article by having this discussion first. The article is a WP:SYNTHESIS of two different replicas, with the best citation (Chicago Park District) discussing a "Brachiosaurus Replica" outside the Field Museum, while the rest discuss an untitled replica inside the O'Hare Airport. The lack of an applicable title (Brachiosaurus Replica is only used for the outdoors replica) brings up the question of why this article is notable, and the available primary sources do not give that notability context needed. Most only mention the O'Hare replica once in passing. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for starting a discussion and for notifying WikiProject Dinosaurs. I've posted at WikiProjects Public Art, Sculpture and Visual arts, and would welcome folks from WikiProject Chicago. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I've notified WikiProject Chicago. I think its fair to get as many perspectives as possible. Personally I'd rather see a merge over to the Brachiosaurus page where cultural significance and impact is discussed, since deletion removes things like redirects that are useful. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 16:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! I am failing to understand why this article cannot discuss both casts of Riggs' Brachiosaurus. There are many Wikipedia articles about sculptures with multiple casts. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge. I don't see any information here that cannot be easily covered in the Brachiosaurus article. I also wonder if "Brachiosaurus Replica" is just an ad hoc name. If so, it is clearly unsuitable as a title, regardless which mount it referrs to. A better title might be "Skeletal mounts of Brachiosaurus", but then again, that's oversplitting of content as there is not really anything to cover here that the Brachiosaurus article cannot. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
• I have expanded the article significantly and do not agree that a merge would be appropriate. It is clear these replicas have cultural significance and there's enough detail and sourcing to justify a fork from Brachiosaurus. I understand the concern with calling the article Brachiosaurus Replica based one a single source presenting this as a formal title of an artwork, so I wonder how editors feel about moving the page to Brachiosaurus replicas in Chicago. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I still believe that this article is better condensed to a single paragraph and moved to Brachiosaurus. The topic might be notable but notable topics do not necessarily require their own articles. I feel that you overstreched it a bit now, especially all the different opinions about the airport mount seem excessive; we should keep it consise and apply WP:Summary style. But despite this, my opinion here is not a strong one any longer. If kept, I would call it "Brachiosaurus mounts in Chicago", or else you would need to include every additional replicas of individual bones that the Field Museum certainly has as well. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I still think a merge is the best use of the content, but I also am less strongly inclined now. There are some details that appear questionable, such as labelling it as "one of the best Brachiosaurus skeletons" (there is only really one Brachiosaurus skeleton and the casts are the only replicas of it) and splitting the mentions of donning sports jerseys split between two separate sections. The title is definitely a point for improvement, Brachiosaurus Replica has to change, Brachiosaurus mounts in Chicago is wordy and I don't know if "mount" is the best descriptor, but "replicas" is less correct. IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 19:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

• Merge per above. FunkMonk (talk) 01:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
• Open to a page rename, but oppose merge to Brachiosaurus, which is already an extensive featured article. The article has been expanded significantly and seems like an appropriate fork of Brachiosaurus, Field Museum of Natural History, and List of public art in Chicago. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Page title

Can we talk page names? Suggested thus far:

• Brachiosaurus mounts in Chicago
• Brachiosaurus replicas in Chicago

Other ideas? Thoughts or concerns? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:59, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ref

https://www.chicagotribune.com/2022/06/14/art-institute-lions-head-for-a-steam-and-a-wax-field-museum-dino-goes-to-dumpster/

• "And closer to Lake Michigan, the Brachiosaurus cast lording over DuSable Lake Shore Drive at the Field Museum was disassembled and discarded Monday after a routine inspection revealed severe damage."
• "... the Field Museum’s outdoor Brachiosaurus cast seems to be heading back toward extinction"
• "A worker waters the flowers and foliage near the all-weather replica of the 75-foot Brachiosaurus outside the Field Museum on Aug. 13, 2021."
• "The Field Museum’s Brachiosaurus cast sits disassembled in a dumpster, June 14, 2022, at the museum’s northwest corner, where the cast had stood since 1999."
• "On Tuesday, the Brachiosaurus’ giant gray bones were just barely jutting out from a metal dumpster next to the spot where it had watched millions of cars pass on Lake Shore Drive since 1999. But in some sense, the towering dinosaur will live on. The steel that held the massive cast together will be recycled, and another cast still stands at O’Hare International Airport, Russell said."

---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:38, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

So the outdoor cast, the "Brachiosaurus Replica" outside the Field Museum, no longer exists as of 2022 since it was found to have structural damage. I think that can be summarized as a single sentence, but it doesn't help with restructuring this article. Which replica is this article meant to focus on? The now-removed outdoor replica, or the one inside O'Hare? IJReid ^{{{T - C - D - R}}} 17:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Both! Aren't both casts of Riggs' Brachiosaurus? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:14, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Possible images

• 
• 

• commons:Category:Dinosauria skeletal mounts in the Field Museum of Natural History
• commons:Category:Terminal 1 (O'Hare International Airport)

--Another Believer _(Talk) 16:51, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Also, found an instance of an image from Wikipedia being used: https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/pin-the-nose-on-the-dinosaur ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Sources

https://www.gjsentinel.com/news/western_colorado/riggs-put-grand-valley-dinosaurs-on-the-map-120-years-ago/article_2a86d658-de5a-11ea-818f-c77d9dc78bc5.html

• "A plaster cast of what the Brachiosaurus skeleton may have looked like is on display outside the Field Museum. But it is believed to be a composite, using casts of bones from other dinosaurs as well as Riggs’ Brachiosaurus to produce a replica of a full skeleton."

https://www.cbsnews.com/chicago/news/field-museum-cubs-jersey-playoffs/

https://www.chicagomag.com/chicago-magazine/june-2015/ohare-midway-guide/navigate-the-airports/ (confirms 72 feet tall and located at Terminal 1)

https://archive.curbed.com/2017/9/22/16350508/airport-amenities-guide-cool-unique

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/travel/nine-american-airports-art-lovers-180956100/

• "Stop by Terminal 1, Concourse B for a skeleton model of a Brachiosaurus, a nod to the city’s famous Field Museum"

---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Height discrepancy

Some sources say 45 feet tall, others say 72. I wonder if this might be an instance of skeleton being approximately 45 feet tall but also measuring 72 feet from head to end of tail? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:19, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

From Field Museum

https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/why-we-dont-dress-sue-or-any-other-real-skeletons

• "Despite being created based on two different but related real fossils, this particular plastic skeleton (and the same plastic skeleton found in the O’Hare Airport) is made from durable materials that make it possible to show them without having to worry about damage to real fossils."

--Another Believer _(Talk) 18:40, 11 October 2024 (UTC)