Talk:Sue (dinosaur)

Quality

This article could be improved by more encyclopedic writing. If anyone would like to rewrite parts of it, that would be great.--MatthewLiberal 14:05, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well cut it some slack it's a brand new article. It does need work though—very nice start nonetheless. Interesting subject. Aaron Bowen 14:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Interesting subject, but it is written like a High School essay. Still, considering it's a new article, it has more sources than most. 24.205.34.217 16:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge

This article needs to be merged with FMNH PR2081 which is about the same fossil.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 18:50, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. That article didn't contain anything except the specimen ID that wasn't in this article. SchmuckyTheCat 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - makes no sense to have two articles on the same specimen. I started the FMNH PR2081 article as part of a series that will cover all Tyrannosaur specimens. As long as we can keep the category link to Collection of the Field Museum I have no problem with it Mistyschism 21:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. Everything is now in this article, and the other Redirects here. JQF • Talk • Contribs 21:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Sue Source

Here is a link to a source from Neil and Peter Larson on the Black Hills Institute Website - it gives some exact dates - such as when the FBI seized the fossil from the Institute. The majority of the articl is POV but it has some facts. Currently I am working on updating Hill City, South Dakota and have included a part about Sue in the History section. I only used the link I just posted as the source. If someone here could take a look at the Hill City page - that would be most helpful. Lmielke359 10:41, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Merge (new)

The merge-to article does not exist yet because it's just been proposed, to hold several separate articles on tyrannosaur specimens. The (Discuss) link should have taken you to the WikiProject Dinosaurs discussion on the topic. J. Spencer 04:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Cast?

Do you think it would be possible to mention the fact that there was a complete cast made of Sue, which is currently touring the country? It just came into my town about a week ago, fascinating thing. 74.242.15.223 02:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Commentary moved from article

I removed the following from the article because it's much more appropriate to a talk page. J. Spencer (talk) 00:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

A clarification of this statement would be useful. While legal title to a trust's corpus does technically reside in the trustee, saying that the trustee "owns" the property in question is highly misleading. It would be better to say that the property "belonged" to the trust or, better yet, to its beneficiaries. svanslyck 2008-06-07

Any information on damage to right leg?

When I saw this fossil, I photographed what appeared to be a pretty nasty infection on the right leg. It was the most readily visible sign of injury on the body of the skeleton, besides the obvious breaks in the ribs. Do we have any information on this, and if it had any role to play in Sue's death? »S0CO^{(talk|contribs)} 22:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the left fibula had been infected, as is stated by the article.--MWAK (talk) 17:07, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Size?

Its big, but how big? surely such a complete and well known specimin has a size. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 04:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

42 feet long. I believe 12 feet at hips. Abyssal (talk) 07:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

My point was is that the article makes no mention of its size what so ever. Spinodontosaurus (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

--Maybe this article should have a section about its stats, facts or morphology? An interesting fact is that although it's named Sue, no one is actually sure as to what its gender originally was. Possibly a boy named Sue, you could say. HaHa -END-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.249.235 (talk) 11:09, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, here are some stats from the Field Museum's website that might come in handy for said section:

Length: 40.5 feet (12.9 meters)

Height at hips: 13 feet (4.0 meters)

Estimated live weight: more than 7 tons (6.4 metric tons)

And here's the soure: "http://www.fieldmuseum.org/sue/#sues-vital-stats" -END-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.108.249.235 (talk) 11:18, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Auction

according to this Site from the Field Museum, "Sue" costs nearly US$ 8.4 Mio. In the article here is 7.6 mentioned ^^ -- Hartmann Schedel ^Prost 10:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The difference is accounted for by the auction commission, as explained by the article.--MWAK (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

forgive me, as I always say, my english is not the best one. Commission means the fee, the auctioner charges? however, thank you MWAK -- Hartmann Schedel ^cheers 01:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Huh?

This article states: "However, before the group could depart, on August 12, a tire on their truck was deflated" Huh? Someone intentionally deflated the tire? If no one fessed up, something like "a flat tire on their truck was discovered" would make more sense. "Before the group could depart" could also use some work too - as it is, it sounds like it was some sort of race between their departure and the tire going flat. Also the comma, (ha) between "depart" and "on" is just wrong. "However, when the group was preparing to depart on August 12, a flat tire on their truck was discovered." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.224.141 (talk) 22:21, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Such conservative weight estimates

Hi, I am Dinoexpert, I want to dicuss of the mass estimates given for this specimen:

Tyrannosaurus rex Sue is the largest known specimen of all, but the weight estimates are so conservatively low, in absolute. It is not only the largest T.rex but also a very massive animal and according to this article it weights about less than a large African elephant, Its immense bulk does not look from a 6.4 ton animal, It is a very conservative weight for such a big specimen.--Dinoexpert (talk) 22:53, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

the true furculum

I am surprised no one has yet picked up that the true furculum of Sue is a boomerang-shaped bone figured and described by Lipkin and Carpenter (Lipkin, C. and Carpenter, K. 2008. Looking again at the forelimbs of Tyrannosaurus rex. PP 166-190 in Larson, P. and Carpenter, K. (eds). T. rex: The Tyrant King (Indiana University Press). The image of the bronze cast is of either a gastralia fragment or cervical rib fragment. 66.111.125.85 (talk)

The mistake was corrected in 2019. --I am a Green Bee (talk) 15:52, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

validity

I get the story about the flat tire, and discovering Sue while the rest of the team moved on. You mean to tell me there wasn't even a Polaroid of this occasion? The land owner Maurice Williams didn't notice the "excitement", and pull out the old 35 mm and load it with some film? Really? I realize kids with smart phones making "selfies" next to the flat tire, with the dinosaur bones sticking out of the cliff in the background, is a technology that had yet to hit the streets. I myself, like a doubting Thomas, wish to put my fingers in the wounds of the Christ, to really "believe". Surely there must be some film evidence somewhere of actually finding the bones in the cliff. Sue needs this in order to hold water as a skeleton. I would think an event like this would have local news coverage and video of the dig. That's what this article needs. Validity. David Lango (talk) 00:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

First, this was 1990. That should speak for itself. And second, have you seen any other footage of the exact moment when a specific fossil was found? Fossil diggers back then would hardly drag out expensive cameras when walking miles and miles in faraway badlands to find fossils. The few times such occasions have been filmed are when fossil collectors have been followed by professional TV crews. And that is not exactly a common thing. Also, who said no photos or footage of the dig exists? Took me about ten seconds to find this: http://www.indiewire.com/article/television/cnn-films-and-lionsgate-acquire-dinosaur-13 FunkMonk (talk) 00:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

First, you appear to be speaking to issues other than validity. That is, your article speaks to the veracity of the claims of discovery, and their verifiability (see [1] and [2], versus [3]); hence, use of the term "validity" is perhaps a catachresis/misstatement. As to the metaphorical pretense of "hold[ing] water as a skeleton", no further comment. Otherwise, to my knowledge, there are no reliable sources expressing persisting doubt over the basic facts you reference regarding this discovery. Reliably sourced statements are required to introduce doubt as to the BHI's staff and volunteer's actually "finding the bones in the cliff" (statements regarding which, are sourced). An editor's personal predilection toward belief or doubt is not a basis for altering the article content. Find a source or sources relevant to your point, @David Lango, and present them here. Then an actual (valid) discussion between editors (with positions that hold water) can begin.

Trial query

Is there no further information or any related article on the trial, and the reason for the internment of the BHI staff person? As it stands, the article, by omission, appears to suggest malfeasance on the part of the BHI (since their case was lost, and one of their staff interned). The actual facts of the case need to be made clearer, and there are almost certainly Law Review or related secondary sources that have discussed it in the time since. An analysis of the trial—which may have been won and lost for any of a variety of reasons, including technical—it's process and result, is needed, perhaps en route to a separate longer article. RSVP, please. Cheers. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, you have to make a distinction between the civil lawsuit determining who had ownership, which, unsurprisingly, turned out to be Williams, and the separate penal law case against Larson c.s. In the civil case the BHI was only shown to have been "wrong" in that they had been mistaken in thinking they had indisputable property claims. In the criminal case they were acquitted on many points but nevertheless Larson was condemned to two years imprisonment, be it on charges that were not directly related to Sue. The article as it is now, does not reflect this distinction, perhaps from an subconscious aversion to discuss the awkward criminal aspect.--MWAK (talk) 06:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

She?

No information is provided about any evidence that the specimen is female. Yet the article refers to it as "she", starting in the section on "Bone damage", with no explanation.

Is there any such evidence? If so, it should be described in the article. If not, "she" should be replaced by "it".

It is one thing to give the specimen a female name and another thing altogether to imply without basis that the specimen consists of the remains of a female animal. ---Dagme (talk) 16:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

You make some good points. I did some preliminary research—a quick search engine hit[4]—and think that the basis of calling Sue "she" is definitely worth examining. While anatomy is inconclusive, the assignation of the name Sue for the discoverer may be a basis for a convention. Even if it is a convention at the museum or even among paleontologists, it may not be a convention that Wikipedia should adopt. I am not familiar with the relevant policies. I don't expect to get a chance to delve into the issue until after the weekend. I hate to make a quick comment, then run away, but I will do it this time. The "gender assignment" might be an interesting section to add, even if it is more sociology than paleontology. BiologicalMe (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sue (dinosaur)/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs expansion, copyediting, and expansion of the lead. Aaron Bowen 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 07:10, 18 April 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 07:14, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization?

It seems pretty common to refer to the dinosaur as SUE in all caps -- this is how it is referred to in Lance Grande's book Curators, on the Field Museum's website ([5]), and in various news articles: ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10]). Is it worth mentioning in a footnote? Umimmak (talk) 20:43, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

It's an interesting point. It looks like the museum encourages the use of all caps -- that's mentioned in the second link, the article in the Peoria Journal Star. Kind of like Spam, I guess. That might be worth mentioning in the article. I could go either way. Of course, the article itself should continue to use "Sue". — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Units

Per WP:UNIT we should decide on a primary unit system, US or SI, and provide conversions to the other system. Right now we've got a mix, and some conversions are missing. I would prefer SI, but I could see it going either way, as the article has strong national ties to the US but could be considered scientific or non-scientific. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

SI units are preferred for science articles. About national ties, the guideline you link says that national ties are only relevant in "non-scientific articles relating to the United States". FunkMonk (talk) 00:06, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'm leaning in that direction, but I could see someone arguing that Sue is general interest, not just science. If no one objects I'm going to change the primary units to SI, with conversions to US. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Well, that could be said about all dinosaur articles, but in any case, they are still science articles. FunkMonk (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Photos

Old photo

I think we should go back to the old photo for the infobox. It's a better photo, and shows Sue on display in the way most people will be familiar with her. The purpose of the lead photo isn't to be scientifically accurate, it's to help the reader verify that they are reading the correct article. See WP:LEAD.

I don't see an explanation in the edit summary for the removal of the other photos. If someone doesn't explain why these were removed, I'm going to restore them.

And I'd like to remind everyone that if you make a change, like to the lead photo, and get reverted, it's rude to simply re-apply your change. The polite thing to do is come here to the talk page and discuss. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, the image that shows the skeleton best is what should be used, not the most recent one. Now, Sue is not even on exhibit, therefore badly lit and probably hard to photograph from good angles, so it makes little sense to use such a photo now. FunkMonk (talk) 18:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, time to touch back on this. At this moment, Sue is still not on display as it used to be to the public. However, lighting has improved greatly, now that they put Sue in a sort of box while the actual construction takes place. I've uploaded two photos of Sue in her new space to Wikimedia, and I think that one or the other could replace the lead photo. The new mount and the old mount both have similar poses, so the pose will still be very recognizable for people. And the new mount is actually becoming a lot more recognizable. Almost all visitors to FMNH crowd around the little window into Sue's display, so a lot of people know about this new mount now. And this is one of the few photos with 0 people crowding around the mount(and with the new mount, in a small space, future photos are sure to have a ton of people crowding into the space). Of course, I still see the reasoning for the old photo. But I do think these new photos are better choices. I personally think the fact that this article is of the specimen Sue, not the mount of Sue should make it so that the lead photo tries to show as much of the specimen as possible, which this new mount, with gastralia and a furcula, accomplishes.Morosaurus shinyae (talk) 18:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• 
• 

The picture is still very dark and tinted, with busy scaffolding in the background. Sure, the current mount should be shown, but it still doens't seem a new picture that exceeds the old one in quality can be found. FunkMonk (talk) 12:39, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, I would stick with the old one for now. Kendall-K1 (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, that seems reasonable. Would we have to replace the current photo with a photo of the new mount once the new mount actually goes on display, since that would become the Sue that everybody would know? Morosaurus shinyae (talk) 05:14, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

That would make sense. Then the old picture can go somewhere else in the article for historical context. FunkMonk (talk) 08:47, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I've uploaded a new photo of the updated Sue mount onto Wikimedia Commons. I believe this photo(below) would be an improvement from our current infobox image. While the current infobox image does have the pro of having 0 people in sight, I think that the new photo, having higher resolution and clarity(if the clarity on the skeleton isn't enough currently, I can increase the clarity on the image), outweighs our current image's pros. The people in this new photo are also concentrated away from the mount in an inconspicuous area. I also took this photo close to the most popularly(from what I observed, from the number of people concentrated in that point) photographed angle, and, following what was said above in the talk page, this would consequently be closer to the most well-known view of Sue than our current infobox image. However, there's obviously much room for discussion on these two photos, so I want to know other's thoughts on the image. I also have much more photos that I could upload if that would be preferable. Morosaurus millenii (talk) 04:04, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• 
  The new photo I'm proposing.

Close call, but I would say the current image also has a slight edge in being a little less foreshortened. Also, I'm not sure about the resolution being better in the new image, the old one is 4,032 × 3,024 pixels, file size: 2.21 MB, the new one is 2,592 × 1,728 pixels, file size: 1.23 MB. FunkMonk (talk) 04:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I've uploaded two new photos of the mount onto Commons, which I think would be better choices for the infobox image. Both have different appeals, with one of the photos being more lateral than the other, though both photos are more lateral views than the current infobox image. Both photos also have a higher resolution than the current infobox image (the more lateral image is 2,592 × 1,728 pixels, file size: 5.31 MB, the other image is 2,591 × 1,727 pixels, file size: 4.87 MB, while the current infobox image is 4,032 × 3,024 pixels, file size: 2.21 MB) and, for my eyes at least, the two photos are both sharper than the current infobox image. While the current infobox image does have the benefit of being entirely devoid of visitors in the background, these new images also have very little numbers of visitors in the background. In the more lateral image, only one visitor is present in the background, and in a corner where the visitor wouldn't be distracting in the image. In the other image, the background is nearly devoid of anybody, with only some visitors in the far right corner. So, seeing as these two images have higher resolution, are sharper, and are less foreshortened than the current image, I would say that either of these images would work better for the infobox than the current image. Anybody have thoughts on the change? Morosaurus millenii (talk) 20:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• 
  One of the new images, with less visitors in the background.
• 
  The least foreshortened image of the three images (the two new ones and the current infobox).

I think the current photo has much better dynamic range, though, as in it is much easier to see details in thumb size due to the higher contrast. Also, the new photos have awfully much empty space at the top. FunkMonk (talk) 22:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's is a lateral view to consider Zissoudisctrucker (talk) 23:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

• 

@FunkMonk: I can crop both of the photos to get rid of the empty space, but do you know how I could make the dynamic range better? Would I just increase contrast, or are the two photos not going to get anywhere close to the current image no matter how much I play around with them? @Zissoudisctrucker:, as for the lateral view you uploaded, I would still probably go with our current image if choosing between your current image and your lateral view. Morosaurus millenii (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You could try. But I'm not sure what's wrong with the current photo, though. FunkMonk (talk) 14:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Unreliable source for size

The "Sue Fact Sheet"[11] is obviously in error; the 3.66 m given for the height is simply 12 feet converted with false precision. I'm going to just use 12 ft for now but we need a better source. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:44, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Cost

I'm uncomfortable with this change: [12]. It seems to have been made without referring to the sources. The original wording matched what the sources say. WaPo for example: "Including Sotheby’s commission, the final cost exceeded $8.3 million." Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

In any case, we have to stick t what the source says. FunkMonk (talk) 17:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Toyokuni3: Do you have a reliable source to support the change you made? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:52, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

This illustrates a basic flaw in Wikipedia procedure. The 'source' here is from the popular media and it is WRONG. So, because the source, some reporter who didn't understand what he was being told, has it wrong,Wikipedia has to be wrong?

The commission to an auction house is paid by the seller/consignor and it comes out of the 'hammer price'. e.g. the hammer price was $7.6 million. If the commission was 20% (that's low, 40 is more usual), the auction house keeps $1.52 million and the consignor gets $6.08 million. The commission adds NOTHING to the hammer price! But the auction house collects a 'buyer's premium' from the buyer, in this case (as is usual), 10%. Do the math. 7.6 x 1.1= $8.3 million, the price reported. Anyone who knows anything about auctions knows this.Toyokuni3 (talk) 00:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. How is it incorrect to say "The final cost after Sotheby's commission was US$8,362,500"? Are you saying the buyer paid something other than US$8,362,500? Can we just say "The final cost was US$8,362,500"? I don't like talking about a buyer's premium if we don't have a source that says that. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

It is incorrect because the clear implication is,anyone reading it will take it that it was Sotheby's commission that changed the cost from 7.2 to 8.4! And it wasn't. It was the buyer's premium.Toyokuni3 (talk) 22:51, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Can you clarify? Are you saying you don't like my suggestion, "The final cost was US$8,362,500"? Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Sue -- preferred pronoun, etc.

Recently an anonymous editor removed (as shown here) a referenced statement saying that Them magazine considers Sue to be "a non-binary icon", since the dinosaur's gender is not known, and in July 2018 the Field Museum staff changed Sue's preferred pronoun from "she" to "they". This information is definitely non-trivial, and therefore it seems to me that it should be left in the article. What do other editors think? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 19:03, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

I would doubt the WP:RS status of 'them.' The author does not seem to have any relevant credentials in paleontology, natural history, biology, etc. Elizium23 (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: The Field Museum has stated that the gender of Sue is not known. The article currently has one primary reference and one secondary reference for that. Additionally, the personification of Sue, as created by the museum, has stated a preference for the pronoun "they". (From the museum page: "Another change to note: since my original unveiling 18 years ago, scientific opinion on determining the sex of tyrannosaurs has lacked sufficient data. As such, I would like to state that my preferred pronouns are “they/them” to refer to me in the third person.") But what I'm saying is that the statement that Them magazine called Sue "a non-binary icon" should be put back into the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

I think you mean that the Field Museum has stated that the sex of Sue is undetermined. Isn't there a difference? Elizium23 (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Elizium23: You're right. I mean that the Field Museum stated that the sex of Sue is undetermined. What's not been said till now is that the museum seems to be making a statement about gender also. All the more reason to restore the referenced sentence about Them magazine. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:49, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

@Mudwater: as the editor who originally added that line/section in this [13] edit, I agree and thank you for raising this issue in the talk page. As for Elizium23's concerns, them. is an LGBT magazine; they might not have credentials in paleontology, but they can speak to SUE being a "non-binary icon", which was the purpose of that citation. Umimmak (talk) 05:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

T. imperator

While the validity of T. imperator as a species is perhaps still disputed, I still think the article should mention that FMNH PR2081 is the holotype of Tyrannosaurus imperator Paul et al., 2022. That they chose this to be the holotype for this species is uncontroversial, and the article can say that while still going with what seems to be the consensus of saying that's just a junior synonym of T. rex keeping its identity the same. What do others think? Umimmak (talk) 01:58, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning. The proposed split of T. rex into three species has not been generally accepted, so far anyway, and that should be mentioned too, of course. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

intersex ???

Is it possible that the dinosaur "Sue" is intersex? I am a Green Bee (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

There is no way we could know. FunkMonk (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Largest T-Rex

Your information is incorrect or not updated. The largest complete T-Rex skeleton is found in Saskatchewan, Canada. Scotty, the T Rex is officially the largest complete the skeleton ever found. 142.165.29.135 (talk) 21:57, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

At the time of your comment here, the article stated in multiple places that Sue is "one of the largest" skeletons found, and included a footnote about Scotty. This information has been in place since March 2019. What statements do you perceive as incorrect or outdated in the article? -Etoile ✩ (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Rib cage looks so wrong

Seriously why does it have ribs on the underside of its rib cage.. someone messed up during assembly lol 89.243.86.123 (talk) 02:59, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

These are gastralia rather than ribs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastralia Orbitalforam (talk) 14:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Pronouns & language in reference to Sue

The “Life and death” section of this article goes to great pains to avoid using any pronouns whatsoever in reference to Sue, to the point of clunky sentence structure in places; this is presumably due to previous incorrect usage of “she” and general confusion regarding the “correct” pronouns.

As noted in the article, since 2018 Sue has officially been referred to using they/them pronouns. The Field Museum has also interchangeably used “it” in reference to Sue, such as in this blog post:

https://www.fieldmuseum.org/blog/sue-t-rex “[…] study how our favorite dinosaur used its arms” (emphasis mine).

Given all this, I believe it makes sense to establish a sort of “style guide” for this article, as follows:

When referring to the T. rex which became Sue or the fossil specimen, use “it”, e.g. “It was discovered in 1990…”. When/if referring to Sue the persona/character, use “they”, e.g. “They are active on social media, describing themself as a ‘murderbird’.”

If there are no significant objections within the next few days, I’m going to WP:Be bold and make the edit, alongside a general copyedit. 4thGalilean (talk) 17:15, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the correct thing would be to simply call it an "it" in all contexts. 2A02:AA7:4049:EEB8:F969:6D47:1733:BB73 (talk) 18:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

While I understand the reasoning behind that and generally don’t think the article is likely to refer to the character/persona at significant length, the Field Museum has explicitly and repeatedly stated that Sue is referred to using they/them. Using “it” in reference to the character would be like referring to, say, Mickey Mouse or Kermit the Frog as “it”, as they are fictional constructs; but it is generally accepted that these fictional characters still do use personal pronouns. 4thGalilean (talk) 01:39, 3 December 2024 (UTC)