Talk:Pterodactyls in popular culture

This article was nominated for deletion on March 20, 2007. The result of the discussion was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE with no prejudice against a {{mergeto}} tag.

Palaeontology: Pterosaurs

	Paleontology portal This redirect 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
	This redirect is supported by the Pterosaurs task force.

Sexual Position

Any reference supporting this edit? 160.39.180.191 07:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Common Name

According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life, In cases where there is a formal common name (e.g. birds), or when common names are well-known and reasonably unique, they should be used for article titles. Scientific names should be used otherwise. Under this guideline, Pterodactyl should probably be the title for the article currently titled Pterosauria. However, I know "pterodactyl" can variously refer any pterosaur, any pterodactyloid, or Pterodactylus itself. So... what say you?Dinoguy2 19:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I would leave it here, to avoid poluting otherwise good articles with pop-culture garbage. --Martyman-(talk) 23:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientifically speaking, isn't "Pterodactyl" reserved for Pterodactylus? 61.230.78.158 07:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that people 'erroneously believe pterodactyls are dinosaurs' .. if we're going to use the word 'pterodactyl' to mean any pterosaur, then you might as well use 'dinosaur' to mean any prehistoric reptile, because that's also the common parlance.

That's not the same thing... Dora Nichov 09:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are Pterodactyls Real?

Are Pterodactyls real. I've always grown up thinking they are, but are they really? I just found out that the Brontosaurus didnt exist, and now Im questioning my own existance. jk.

Im new to Wikipedia please send answers to allisonsharkey@gmail.com

OF COURSE THEY EXIST!!!! Brontosaurus exists too, 'cept it's name has been changed to Apatosaurus. *Sigh* Whispers: Absurd, crazy and silly... 61.230.78.158 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! The guy had a genuine question! No need to be abusive. I'm sure there are heaps of stuff you know little about as well.--Gazzster 13:57, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... OK... But it was a bit silly though... Dora Nichov 09:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they exist. Its like saying that dodos weren't real! Mr.Smartypants —Preceding comment was added at 10:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usefullness of this entry?

At present this entry consists of a short and random list of pop culture trivia. I seriously doubt anyone would find this atticle useful, since there are thousands of comics, tv shows, toys, video games, etc that feature pterodactyls or pterodactyl-like creatures. I plan on making this page a redirect to Pterosaur if there are no objections.Dinoguy2 16:24, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above the advantage of this article existing is that all the pop culture references have somewhere to go, rather than poluting otherwise good articles. Believe me when I say there is significant support for these meaningless pop culture additions within wikipedia. If you are willing to take on reverting any mention of pop culture from pterosaur for ever more then feel free. --Martyman-(talk) 20:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a stub

I've removed "{{paleo-stub}}" & "{{reptile-stub}}". It's not a stub but a disambiguation page. Jimp 23:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

proposed heading change

Does anyone have any objection to changing the heading 'Usage of the term Pterodactyl outside of scientific fields' to: 'Use of the term Pterodactyl outside the scientific field'? Ballista 04:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No comment received - any adverse or positive opinions? - Ballista 13:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article appears to be Ptrodactyl outside scientific fields (especially considering that the term pterodactyl is not *used* in scientific fields...). All the scientific info here is redundant with Pterosaur. Do what you like :) Dinoguy2 15:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While you have a good point and the term pterodactyl may indeed be redundant, that does not stop the usefulness of this article (witness remarks in item below). However, I would propose just rewording the heading that I have mentioned, in order to make better 'English'. Any objections to this proposed (minor) change? Ballista 20:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a useful entry in my opinion

I found this entry very useful. My 3 yr old is quite into dinosaurs and prehistoric creatures and has a few pterosaur toys. One is labeled a pterodactyl and the other a pteranodon, yet they both look like the same creature. That made us both wonder what the differences were and if one toy was actually mislabeled. I said, let's go look it up on Wikipedia and see what we can find out. I also liked the pop culture references being there, I thought it was interesting information and it actually aided in helping to explain things to my son. My personal opinion is that the entry, just as it is, is a good tool for parents to help explain questions about pterosaur/pterodactyl/pteranodon to children. Wikipedia is such a great tool for parents and children to use together, our family will be making regular yearly donations to help support it. Sjordanmom 06:28, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is very encouraging - thanks for taking the time to comment - Ballista 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thin covering of fur?

the only thing that struck me as questionably is the reference in the first paragraph to the thin covering of fur on the said creature. seriously, fur? who's seen fur on one of these things? i would be interested to read more about fossilized fur... dude, seriously..........righthonorablgentleman

Several pterosaurs have been found with fur, most notably Sordes. Studies of pterosaur "fur" show that it is not the same thing as mammal fur (many just call it "ptero-fuzz"). A few scientists think that pterosaur fur is directly related to feathers, since it is similar to the primitive feathers in some early dino-birds like Sinosauropteryx. But, yeah, pterodactyls had fur. Weird, no? Soft tissue/skin impression,s though extremely rare, almost *always* reveal something really, really bizarre about pterodactyls. Most that have been found show that the particular species in question had some kind of keratin or skin crest that wasn't known before. One (Pterorhynchus) even shows an extravagant, very long "mane" of fur dangling from below the neck and some pretty interesting skin ornamentation on the tail. Sort of like a pterodactyl "bird of paradise".Dinoguy2 15:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thankyou, i suppose i could have just read the pterosaur article in the first place...

Useful Article, but..

I think the article under the name pterodactyl needs to be here. Certainly the references to popular culture are relevant and important. But it does seem that it repeats a lot of the info covered by pterosaurs. Perhaps there should be a note like, 'for a scientific treatment of pterodactyl, see pterosauria.'--Gazzster 14:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]