Talk:Aerodactylus

This article was nominated for deletion on November 4 2009. The result of the discussion was speedily deleted as a hoax. TN X Man 15:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Aerodactylus is part of WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles, an effort to make Wikipedia a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource for amphibians and reptiles. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Amphibians and ReptilesWikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and ReptilesTemplate:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptilesamphibian and reptile articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Palaeontology: Pterosaurs Low‑importance

	Paleontology portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pterosaurs task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Pokémon Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pokémon, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Pokémon universe 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.PokémonWikipedia:WikiProject PokémonTemplate:WikiProject PokémonPokémon articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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! Crow^Caw 21:26, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ok, perfect. I'll apply the appropriate templates for attribution. Thanks! Crow^Caw 18:14, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lumped again.......[edit]

Bennett has dumped this taxon back into Pterodactylus: [1] Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 16:10, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]