Talk:Pterosaur

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Pterosaur article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

Pterosaur has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 3, 2012	Good article nominee	Listed

Palaeontology: Pterosaurs High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Pterosaurs task force (assessed as Top-importance).

Amphibians and Reptiles High‑importance

	Pterosaur 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Pycnofibres in all pterosaurs

"Most or all pterosaurs had hair-like filaments known as pycnofibers on the head and torso" Is there any primary research to support the "most or all"? As far as I know there is only evidence of pycnofibres in a few select taxa (Sordes, Jeholopterus, Pterorhynchus); it seems to me that it's quite the assumption to make that ALL pterosaurs had pycnofibres given the scarcity of data. 2A02:C7F:6017:E900:98B5:946F:ACD2:EDC5 (talk) 09:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Pterosaur

I found this https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2019.12.17.879783v1.full. Joan Wiffens Pterosaur was described, they named it Parirau ataroa or something like that--Bubblesorg (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We should start a new article for this new pterosaur then. I've read part of the paper, and the phylogenetic analysis is very blurred, but it's explained at the bottom of it. From what I understood, a major change is that Pteranodontidae is grouped within Ornithocheirae, and sister taxon to either Ornithocheiridae or Targaryendraconia. So, if this is true, looks like we have to do a lot of work on these pterosaur articles on their classification? But then again, we could always wait for another paper supporting this conclusion. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 15:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sure--Bubblesorg (talk) 18:11, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the Pterosaur#Expanding_research section, in the first sentence it currently says "by Richard Owen named as Dimorphodon,", this should be changed to "named as Dimorphodon by Richard Owen," as that makes more grammatical sense.146.112.56.112 (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Done MxWondrous (talk) 15:58, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there passive aggressive comments in the article? It’s unprofessional and should be reworded to be clear to the reader.

“It was thought that by the end of the Cretaceous, only large species of pterosaurs were present (no longer true; see below). The smaller species were thought to have become extinct, their niche filled by birds. However, pterosaur decline (if actually present) seems unrelated to bird diversity”

If the person who made these edits is so sure as to their fact, why not rewrite the wording instead of adding arbitrary clauses that take away from the information in the article.

The whole Evolution and Extinction part of the article seems to just be rambling on about research disagreements rather than explaining the current selected research findings that we point to.

The discussions raised aren’t specific, it’s fine to say that evolution and extinction of Pterosaurs has conflicting research but it doesn’t need that much detail and it reads like a university essay.

This is especially exacerbated when there is an entire section on the page about “History of Discovery” which is where that should go. If a user clicks on the extinction portion of the page, they don’t expect to be given a full historical rundown of different researchers who disagreed with each other. Polarctic (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

In the third and fourth paragraphs at the start of the article there still seem to be some incorrect edits made on 22:58, 19 July 2024‎. While many of this edits changes have since been changed back, those two paragraphs still contain incorrect and misleading information in them that, as I am very unconfident in my own ability to switch them back without messing up, I would request to be changed back please. 86.10.219.165 (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for pointing out the problem.-Gadfium (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]