Redirect to:
Merge with Pteranodon?
Since it's been general practice to not create article below the genus level for prehistoric animals, because information would be largely redundant for genera and species in the great majority of cases, does P. sternbergii merit one at this point? It's certainly different, but can it sustain an article on its own? J. Spencer (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- I agree, work should rather be focused on the Pteranodon article itself, which doesn't seem too comprehensive yet, I doubt there's enough information about the different species to justify there being articles that don't just repeat each other for the most part. And anyway, the Pterosaur wikiproject "rules" state "Articles should not get any more specific than genus level. Individual species should be discussed in the article about the appropriate genus. "Significant" higher order taxa should also get their own pages." Funkynusayri (talk) 03:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
- Merge. There is no information on Pteranodon sternbergi that could not be easily absorbed within Pteranodon. In fact, there isn't much in the way of information, or any reason as to why it warrants its own separate page. Mark t young (talk) 16:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
- But they're different species though. Maybe a disambugation (sp?), it's kinda like merging the different dog and cat breeds together. --HoopoeBaijiKite 02:17, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
- Well, the difference is that we have enough information about current animal species to have separate articles for all of them, whereas that can't be said about extinct species (except for recently extinct ones). We don't know anything about the differences between the two Pteranodon species, other than that they didn't look alike. FunkMonk (talk) 02:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Geosternbergia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:32, 26 March 2023 (UTC)