Talk:Saurolophus angustirostris

{{WikiProject Paleontology|class=redirect}

A fact from Saurolophus angustirostris appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 25 June 2014 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that though many specimens of Saurolophus angustirostris have been found, it was not clearly differentiated as a separate species from Saurolophus osborni until 2011?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2014/June. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Saurolophus angustirostris.

Wikipedia

Why split?[edit]

Is there any reason why this species was split off from the genus page? The genus article wasn't that long. And it will be even shorter now that S. morrisi has become Augustynolophus FunkMonk (talk) 18:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Really! I split the species because with all the combined info of S. osborni, S. morrisi and S. angustirostris would create a monster article. I had absolutely no idea that S. morrisi just became a new genus when the article was split. Now, there really is now reason for the seperation, but since this article became a DYK, I am not sure what to do with it. IJReid (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the box above could just be moved to the Saurolophus article talk page. As for the new genus, see: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9298467&fileId=S0016756814000284 FunkMonk (talk) 00:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should we merge? The two articles combined will not be very long. Edmontosautus annectens was also split, but that is because it is likely that Anatosaurus will be resurrected some time soon. FunkMonk (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah sure, go for it. You can merge them if you want. IJReid (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. What info in this article is not found in the other one? FunkMonk (talk) 15:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Second paragraph of Discovery, skull info, and some of the crest info as well. IJReid (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. The unified article doesn't look so far from FA, perhaps... FunkMonk (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]