Science (control)
Brontosaurus
The wording changed a lot over the full lifetime of the page (no single overhaul date stood out). Language openings emphasize different things.
Something to inspect — not a judgment of bias or bad faith.
Overview
Use this briefing to choose what to inspect. The tabs contain the underlying comparisons.
Open the live English Wikipedia article ↗The exact rewrite detector loaded 28 of 35 expected snapshots from the public revision history. It withholds the result rather than treating gaps in readable history as evidence.
Different websites cited: 10 → 51. We do not rate those sites. See Citations.
Did editors fight over it?
The page was not dominated by back-and-forth undoing. A quiet rewrite can still matter — it just means few people fought it on the page. About 1,085 recorded revisions in the measure.
Who wrote today’s text?
Half of the wording still on the page is about 4.3 years old or newer. 17.2% was written in the last 3 years. The ten most active accounts wrote 86.1% of what is there now (most of the current text comes from a small group of accounts; 164 different accounts overall). Snapshot data on this page runs through 2026-07-01.This is background only — a small group of writers is common on specialist pages.
Available evidence: Vocabulary, Citations, Framing, Versions.
Not available in this export: Rewrite, Facts. Missing coverage is not a negative finding.
Rewrite analysis has incomplete source coverage
The exact rewrite detector loaded 28 of 35 expected snapshots from the public revision history. It withholds the result rather than treating gaps in readable history as evidence.
Persistence-weighted changeThe share of wording lost, weighted so text that survived more snapshots counts more. by interval
Each row reports established wording lost, standing wording gained, and paired change as a replacement lead. The bar shows loss for continuity with earlier reports. Below-floor anomalies remain descriptive evidence but cannot receive exact confirmation. A coverage gap is shown descriptively but excluded from detector decisions. Candidate-window labels report the exact revision-level decision for the broader window containing that interval.
How the detector reached this state
- 1 · Coarse scanA snapshot comparison that finds candidate windows for closer inspection.UnavailableNo current coarse result is available in this export.
- 2 · Interval scoring27 intervals scoredThe bars below show persistence-weighted wording loss for each interval.
- 3 · Exact checkA revision-level test of whether a candidate window's durable spine collapsed.UnavailableNo current revision-level decision can be published.
- 2006-07-01Loss 8.2%167 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-01-01Loss 25.2%1,019 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2007-07-01Loss 37.4%1,841 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2008-01-01Loss 5.5%264 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2015-07-01Loss 79.0%5,616 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-01-01Loss 1.4%226 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2016-07-01Loss 9.3%2,914 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-01-01Loss 1.0%408 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2017-07-01Loss 1.2%657 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-01-01Loss 0.1%103 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2018-07-01Loss 1.1%922 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-01-01Loss 1.7%1,686 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2019-07-01Loss 0.1%53 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-01-01Loss 0.7%813 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2020-07-01Loss 0.3%430 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-01-01Loss 1.0%1,496 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2021-07-01Loss 0.5%761 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-01-01Loss 0.2%434 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2022-07-01Loss 2.5%4,753 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-01-01Loss 0.3%664 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2023-07-01Loss 5.6%12,362 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-01-01Loss 3.4%7,990 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2024-07-01Loss 0.0%4 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-01-01Loss 0.4%1,072 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2025-07-01Loss 0.6%1,893 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-01-01Loss 1.0%3,199 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
- 2026-07-01Loss 0.5%1,785 removed · 0 added PWRMeasured: no anomaly threshold crossed
Which words grew or shrank?
Words that became more common or less common between the compared versions. Handy for noticing a shift in topic or tone — not a score of bias.
Comparing 2006-01-01 -> 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history). Rough word count: 622 → 4,077. Overall: wording changed a lot.
Used more afterward
- vertebrae0 → 26
- formation0 → 24
- long0 → 22
- morrison0 → 22
- cervical0 → 17
- parvus0 → 15
- diplodocids0 → 14
- neck0 → 13
- neural0 → 12
- ribs0 → 12
- animals0 → 11
- jurassic0 → 11
Used less afterward
- bronto3 → 0
- brontosaurs3 → 0
- fact3 → 0
- baby4 → 1
- article3 → 1
- feet3 → 1
- lost3 → 1
- battle2 → 1
- book2 → 1
- bully2 → 1
- discovered2 → 1
- itself2 → 1
These are the standout words, not a full dictionary of the article. Boring markup words are filtered out. Treat this as a hint, not a conclusion.
How the footnotes changed
How the article's own footnotes changed across the rewrite: which websites and books were cited more or less. We only show the mix — we do not rate sources as good or bad.
Looking at 2006-01-01 → 2026-07-01 (no L1 pivot — whole history): 50 websites were cited more (or newly), 9 less (or dropped). Number of footnotes: 0 → 209. Different websites: 10 → 51.
Mix of citation types: — → journal 54%, book 22%, web 14%, news 9%, report 1%.
| cited more often | before → after |
|---|---|
| ghostarchive.org | 0 → 5 |
| svpow.com | 0 → 5 |
| archive.org | 0 → 5 |
| evolbiol.ru | 0 → 4 |
| nytimes.com | 0 → 4 |
| time.com | 0 → 4 |
| doc.rero.ch | 0 → 4 |
| marsh.dinodb.com | 0 → 3 |
| academia.edu | 0 → 3 |
| collections.peabody.yale.edu | 0 → 2 |
| ajsonline.org | 0 → 2 |
| connection.ebscohost.com | 0 → 2 |
| cited less often | before → after |
|---|---|
| apologeticspress.org | 2 → 0 |
| dinoruss.org | 1 → 0 |
| angelfire.com | 1 → 0 |
| britannica.com | 1 → 0 |
| unmuseum.org | 1 → 0 |
| imdb.com | 2 → 1 |
| lhl.lib.mo.us | 1 → 0 |
| infoplease.com | 1 → 0 |
| en.wiktionary.org | 1 → 0 |
Counted from the article’s own footnotes. We list domains only — we do not call any source trustworthy or untrustworthy.
Cross-language lead comparison
How the opening of the article presents the topic in different languages. Disagreement is a reason to read carefully, not a final answer.
The EN Wikipedia lead is the most detailed, including specific paleontological attribution (Tschopp et al.), precise geographic and stratigraphic data, detailed size estimates per species, and taxonomic classification within Diplodocidae/Apatosaurinae. The IT edition attributes the 2015 reclassification study to an England-Portugal research group rather than naming Tschopp, and adds historical detail about the 1903 reclassification not found in EN. The MK edition (largely garbled with template code) offers a more generalized, less precise account, omitting specific dates, locations narrowed to Utah/Wyoming, and detailed taxonomic subfamily discussion, while giving broader size and geographic claims lacking species-level distinction found in EN.
Languages compared: en, mk, it.
contradict opposite claims · differ different emphasis · missing only one side mentions it
| topic | how they compare | English says | other language(s) say | languages |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| study attribution for 2015 reclassification | differ | Study by Emmanuel Tschopp and colleagues found Brontosaurus distinct “a 2015 study by Emmanuel Tschopp and colleagues found it to be distinct” | Study conducted by a joint English-Portuguese research group “uno studio sui sauropodi del 2015, condotto da un gruppo di ricerca congiunto tra Inghilterra e Portogallo” | EN, IT |
| 1903 reclassification history | missing in English | Not mentioned specifically; only notes it was long considered synonym of Apatosaurus for decades “For decades, the animal was thought to have been a taxonomic synonym of its close relative Apatosaurus” | States specifically that in 1903 B. excelsus was reclassified as A. excelsus “nel 1903, la specie tipo di Brontosaurus, B. excelsus fu riclassificata come A. excelsus” | EN, IT |
| number and naming of species | agree | Three species named over time: B. excelsus (1879), B. parvus (1902), B. yahnahpin (1994) “B. parvus in 1902 and B. yahnahpin in 1994” | States researchers in 2015 proposed three species: B. excelsus, B. yahnahpin, and B. parvus, without individual dates “содржи три вида: B. excelsus, B. yahnahpin, и B. parvus” | EN, MK |
| geographic range described | differ | Lived in what is now Utah and Wyoming, specifically Como Bluff, Wyoming for type specimen “in the Morrison Formation of what is now Utah and Wyoming” | States it lived in the Morrison Formation of present-day North America generally “во Морисоновата формација на денешна Северна Америка” | EN, MK |
| size estimates | differ | B. excelsus reached 21–23 m and 15–20 t; B. parvus up to 19 m | States adults estimated up to 15 tons and up to 22 meters long, without species distinction “Возрасните единки на Бронтосаурусот се проценува дека тежеле до 15 тони и биле долги до 22 метри” | EN, MK |
| taxonomic classification detail (Diplodocidae/Apatosaurinae) | missing elsewhere | Detailed classification within Diplodocidae family and Apatosaurinae subfamily, including 1929 naming and 2015 validation “Brontosaurus is a genus in the subfamily Apatosaurinae, which includes only it and Apatosaurus” | IT and MK do not mention Diplodocidae or Apatosaurinae subfamily classification at all | EN, IT, MK |
Differences are invitations to read both sides — not a score of who is right.
Versions we used
These are the exact public Wikipedia versions behind the checks on this page. Open any link to read the original. Wikidata item: Q3222766.
| language | comparison point | article title | version | when | text used (chars) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| en | saved | Brontosaurus | open version 1362749745 | 2026-07-06T00:00:09Z | 47,467 |