Talk:Dakota (fossil)

United States: North Dakota Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	North Dakota portal This article is supported by WikiProject North Dakota (assessed as Low-importance).

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.

A fact from Dakota (fossil) appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 8 December 2007. The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the dinosaur fossil Dakota is so well-preserved it has caused researchers to revise their estimates of the appearance, size, and speed of a whole group of dinosaurs known as hadrosaurs?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2007/December.

Wikipedia

Merge?

I disagree with the proposed merge, at least to Edmontosaurus. If anything, it should merge with Trachodon mummy to a broader "mummy dinosaur" page. It would be a more natural choice given the amount of detail involved, as opposed to adding paragraphs on a single specimen into the genus article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Spencer (talk • contribs)

Makes sense to me. Anyone opposed to merging this article into Trachodon mummy? Firsfron of Ronchester 02:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we at least change the name to Hadrosaur mummies or something? We could also merge in Leonardo, and nayways, the generic assignment of Dakota is pretty ripe for controversy once a re-assessment of Maastrictian "edmontosaurs" comes out, not to mention shifts in personal genericometers. MMartyniuk (talk) 03:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course - it would be "Hadrosaur mummies" or "Dinosaur mummies" or something like that; the former's a bit more accurate as only hadrosaurs have been found as "mummies", the latter gives room to grow. Interestingly, we don't have an article on Leonardo (not that I'm asking for one to be started). J. Spencer (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is Bakker's Triceratops mummy... MMartyniuk (talk) 02:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]