Talk:Dakota (fossil)

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