Talk:Cross River gorilla

Africa: Nigeria Low‑importance

	Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Africa 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.AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject AfricaTemplate:WikiProject AfricaAfrica articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Nigeria portal This article is supported by WikiProject Nigeria (assessed as Low-importance).

Primates Low‑importance

	Primates portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Primates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Primates 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.PrimatesWikipedia:WikiProject PrimatesTemplate:WikiProject PrimatesPrimate articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Attention needed

This article has only minimal information about an existing great ape subspecies. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 06:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposed

Very early in the life of this article, Gorilla gorilla diehli was redirected to Cross River Gorilla, which was the right thing to do. Later, Cross River Gorilla was renamed to Cross River gorilla. At that point or at some other point, the redirect was undone (by a bot, maybe).

In any event, the small amount of content in Gorilla gorilla diehli needs to be merged into Cross River gorilla, and then the article needs to be turned back into a redirect. If one of the gorilla-loving watchers of this page wants to check all of the content in Gorilla gorilla diehli to ensure that appropriate content and references appear on the Cross River gorilla page, I'll be happy to turn Gorilla gorilla diehli back into a redirect when you're done. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

I agree. This article with the scientific name should definitely be merged with this one. Nicholasemjohnson (talk) 21:53, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]