This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Arctic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Arctic 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.ArcticWikipedia:WikiProject ArcticTemplate:WikiProject ArcticArctic articles
This redirect 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
This redirect 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
Another study suggesting Ugrunaaluk is Edmontosaurus
As a distinct species? Because in that case, we have the little problem that the two Edmontosaurus species have their own articles, so it would follow that this one should too... Though I must say I'd prefer merging all dinosaur species articles into their genus articles. FunkMonk (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Like the previous paper which had this opinion, they retain it as E. sp. because the remains are immature. If adult specimens are found I'd imagine that it may or may not be retained as a separate species. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 21:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am a little bit split on the issue of keeping the page distinct. On one hand, it is not being used as a distinct species in these studies and there is not nearly as much to say about it. On the other hand, I think the information on this would end up lost and scattered in the extensive main article, and may benefit from being presented in its own article like this. Lusotitan (Talk | Contributions) 22:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The paper is a bit open ended and tentative, as Lythronax says they state "the validity of the species “kuukpikensis” is left as questionable and unresolved. Therefore, we agree with Gangloff and Fiorillo [32], Mori et al. [36], as well as the subsequent works by Xing et al. [37] and Wosik et al. [38] that adult material is critical for determining the finer-scale taxonomy of this hadrosaur. We advocate for a more conservative approach and recommend the PCF hadrosaur be referred to Edmontosaurus sp. until further discoveries of more mature individuals from the Prince Creek Formation and/or comparably immature Edmontosaurus annectens and Edmontosaurus regalis allow comparison of anatomy of individuals of all three taxa from the same ontogenetic stages". Therefore I think we can't really take drastic measures here yet. FunkMonk (talk) 07:50, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably a better compromise than the current title, yes. And then we can only wait for who knows how many years when adult material is published on... FunkMonk (talk) 09:07, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, if this combination isn't used in the literature, we can't really use it. So if we do want to retain a stand-alone article for now just to be safe, it should be at Ugrunaaluk (as do with other dubious names, though this is of course a unique case where it is assigned to a different genus but not species). If not, it should be merged to Edmontosaurus. FunkMonk (talk) 07:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course we cannot create our own Edmontosaurus species and comb. nov.; and nobody has ever suggested that this would be a distinct species within that genus. The name "E. kuupukensis" needs to be deleted from Wikipedia entirely, since it does not exist. Also the recent edits in Edmontosaurus should be reverted. I furthermore think that the literature is clear enough to warrant merging it with Edmontosaurus. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 12:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know much about the subject here, but when searching Edmontosaurus kuukpikensis online, only its Wikipedia page contains this name, other websites therefore have the name (and info about) Ugrunaaluk kuukpikensis, which I assume it's the correct name for the species. So I kind of agree with Jens and FunkMonk that E. kuukpikensis can't really be used. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 14:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about keeping the article as a distinct genus, I only said that Edmontosaurus kuukpikensis can't be used, therefore I would also support a merge to Edmontosaurus. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 02:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a response to me; it was only in case we want to keep the article separate temporarily, then the genus name would be more appropriate than a made up binomial (I didn't know it had never seen print when this was discussed previously). FunkMonk (talk) 09:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
