The contents of the Rubeosaurus page were merged into Styracosaurus on 22 February 2021. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.
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
This article 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
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Just a note that a whole bunch of articles about frill morphology, ontogeny, evolution, taxonomy, etc. of Styracosaurus were published this year, so it'll take some time to get this old FA up to date. See the following:[1][2][3]FunkMonk (talk) 08:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
CLOSED
Agree to merging of article(s) as per weak consensus and unhelpful Content Split. Someone familiar with the topic would be preferable. Perhaps proposer, Borophagus or other knowledgeable editor would consider doing the merge? GenQuest"scribble" 04:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC) Non-Administrative closureReply
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Formal request has been received to merge: Rubeosaurus into Styracosaurus; dated: February 4, 2021. Proposer's Rationale: There's effectively no reason for them to be separate articles, since Rubeosaurus turned out to just be another specimen of Styracosaurus. There are pages for other invalid ceratopsians, but only because we don't really know if they're unique or just fossils from something else. -User:Borophagus . Discuss here. GenQuest"scribble" 22:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Based on the latest words on the issue[4][5][6], I also think a merge is in order. FunkMonk (talk) 01:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Comment: Proposer or interested editor may want to consider a BOLD merge at this time. GenQuest"scribble" 04:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion
The Rubeosaurus article has now officially been merged with this article.
Borophagus (talk) 12:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
But it doesn't seem like the info from the relevant article has been moved here? That's part of merging, though, information shouldn't be lost. FunkMonk (talk) 13:54, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
I added mentions of Rubeosaurus being a possible Styracosaurus just now. 49.144.195.51 (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Looks better, but I'm also thinking of all the text about its discovery, description, and discussions about its historical classification, which can be seen at the old revision:[7] I can also try to copy it over if no one else gets to it. FunkMonk (talk) 14:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)Reply
Sorry! I meant to carry the info across, but I forgot. I'll add some more information from the Rubeosaurus article when I have the time.
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
