Talk:Wellnhopterus

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 Low-importance).

Amphibians and Reptiles Low‑importance

	Wellnhopterus 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.

Merge with Wellnhoperus?

Seen as this species is described on the basis of the same specimen as Wellnhopterus, would it be wise to merge the articles?TimTheDragonRider (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality is unnecessary

Javelinadactylus has been validly named under ICZN 8.5. Life Science Identifiers were provided and the article is archived in the Biodiversity Heritage Library. Wellnhopterus is thus an objective junior synonym. Andres in his article does not claim otherwise; the articles simply crossed due to the long publication procedures. So there's nothing to be neutral about as regards the nomenclature.--MWAK (talk) 06:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Naish seems to argue for the opposite here: "I am reliably informed by Tyler Greenfield that Wellnhopterus brevirostris is now considered officially published, whereas Javelinadactylus sagebieli is still classed as an “advance online publication” and is thus not an “available publication” according to Article 9.9 of the ICZN. The name Wellnhopterus is thus the one we should use."[1] FunkMonk (talk) 11:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Darn, I overlooked 9.9 :o(. But neutrality would still be unnecessary. Wellnhopterus is valid, Javalinadactylus a nomen non rite publicatum.--MWAK (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That info wasn't in the blog post when I looked yesterday, so it must have been added later. So yeah, if that's the case, it seems Wellnhopterus is the correct name. And I believe we can cite Naish's blog, per WP:SPS. But would be nice with some more discussion of this we could cite... FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, it depends on whether the Biologia article is withdrawn or changed. If it isn't, Javelinadactylus will be the junior synonym once the paper version is printed. Citing the blog should suffice.--MWAK (talk) 14:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Azhdarchid or azhdarchoid?

The Javelinadacytlus paper classified it as a non-azhdarchid azhdarchoid while the Wellnhopterus paper classified it as an azhdarchid azhdarchoid. To keep with WP:NPOV, should the article be renamed "Javelina Azhdarchoid" since it does not go against either study? Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The logic is that "Javelina azdarchid" is an actual term that's been used to refer to it consistently in the literature, whereas "Javelina azdarchoid" would be our own invention. Page names traditionally go by what is the common way to refer to the thing in question. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. That makes sense. I am just worried that referring it as an azhdarchid is not accurate.Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 18:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before long, we will have some kind of resolution to what should be the correct genus name. Until then, I think we can live with the current name. The article already makes it clear there are differing classification. FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wellnhopterus

How about we create a separate article called "Wellnhopterus"? Magnatyrannus (talk) 18:56, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why have two articles about the exact same subject? Both names are based on the same specimen. FunkMonk (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Wellnhopterus" formally named? Magnatyrannus (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the issue is whether Javelinadactylus was technically named before. And this is not clarified yet. FunkMonk (talk) 20:12, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Javelinadactylus article retracted

It has come to my attention that the Javelinadactylus article has been retracted. J. Spencer (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting outcome, that settles it for Wellnhopterus then. FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guys I'm really sorry but how do we redirect the article back? I tried to change the name back to Wellnhopterus but accidentally typed the wrong name and I couldn't change it back. I'm sorry this was a silly mistake of me to do. Junsik1223 (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]