Talk:Aerodactylus
Appearance
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on November 4 2009. The result of the discussion was speedily deleted as a hoax. TNXMan 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC). |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from this version of Pterodactylus was copied or moved into Aerodactylus with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Copyright detection
[edit]This page has a flag for copyright violation because some external web site seems to have copied the same info from Wikipedia... Dinoguy2 (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
- Also funny that the article was apparently started back in 2009, as either a hoax or a reference to the Pokemon character, which is the basis for the new name. Would be a sure winner at DYK or in the news, with all the game stuff that usually floods the mainpage anyway... FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
- @Dinoguy2: Hi, yes it looks like the bot flagged on a mirror of Pterodactylus. Did you use content from that page here? We'd just need to attribute that if so, but I can take care of that. And yes, this has DYK written all over it! CrowCaw 21:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
- This species was originally classified as a Pterodactylus but is now its own genus, so the relevant paragraphs were spun off to make this article. The material originates on the Pterodactylus Wikipedia page. The mirror page was presumably created between the time it was written for the Pterodactylus wiki page and the time this page was created. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- Ok, perfect. I'll apply the appropriate templates for attribution. Thanks! CrowCaw 18:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
- This species was originally classified as a Pterodactylus but is now its own genus, so the relevant paragraphs were spun off to make this article. The material originates on the Pterodactylus Wikipedia page. The mirror page was presumably created between the time it was written for the Pterodactylus wiki page and the time this page was created. Dinoguy2 (talk) 18:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Lumped again.......
[edit]Bennett has dumped this taxon back into Pterodactylus: [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Haha, great... But I think we should keep the article until consensus emerges. Seems every other new pterosaur genus has the same problem... Seems the paper has even more ramifications for anhanguerid diversity. FunkMonk (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
- Anyhow, the paper's revisions are probably at least noteworthy, if not grounds for a full reorganization. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 04:41, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Nomen dubium or not?
[edit]I wonder if Bennett only said that Aerodactylus is sunk back to Pterodactylus but doesn't say they were nomen dubium… — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.237.203.92 (talk) 08:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Categories:
- C-Class amphibian and reptile articles
- Low-importance amphibian and reptile articles
- C-Class amphibian and reptile articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles articles
- C-Class Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance Palaeontology articles
- Low-importance C-Class Palaeontology articles
- C-Class Pterosaurs articles
- Mid-importance Pterosaurs articles
- Pterosaurs task force articles
- WikiProject Palaeontology articles
- C-Class Pokémon articles
- Low-importance Pokémon articles
- WikiProject Pokémon articles