![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You say that new paper=not a consensus, but there was never a consensus over the validity of Geosternbergia. Leading minds in the field, Bennett, Witton, Martin-Silverstone etc. all oppose the idea. In fact, the article even admits that it "is often considered simply an earlier species of Pteranodon itself". So much for a "consensus" -- Edaphosaurus ( talk) 10:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation, I'll keep an eye out for Bennet's new paper if and when it comes -- Edaphosaurus ( talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was just curious about the meaning of Geosternbergia, but I didn't find it anywhere in the Internet. Mr. Hunter 6amm4 ( talk) 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Is pteranodon sternbergi may belong to geosternbergia or not, or should we merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium ( talk) 01:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Geosternbergia → Pteranodon sternbergi – Current title is a violation of due weight. There is only one prominent advocate of using the name Geosternbergia, Alexander Kellner; nearly every other pterosaur researcher to mention sternbergi has either explicitly argued in favor of using Pteranodon sternbergi (e.g. Witton, Martin-Silverstone) or simply continued to use the name Pteranodon sternbergi without comment (e.g. Andres, Bennett). Ornithopsis ( talk) 05:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
You say that new paper=not a consensus, but there was never a consensus over the validity of Geosternbergia. Leading minds in the field, Bennett, Witton, Martin-Silverstone etc. all oppose the idea. In fact, the article even admits that it "is often considered simply an earlier species of Pteranodon itself". So much for a "consensus" -- Edaphosaurus ( talk) 10:00, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok, thanks for the explanation, I'll keep an eye out for Bennet's new paper if and when it comes -- Edaphosaurus ( talk) 18:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
Well, I was just curious about the meaning of Geosternbergia, but I didn't find it anywhere in the Internet. Mr. Hunter 6amm4 ( talk) 19:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Is pteranodon sternbergi may belong to geosternbergia or not, or should we merge? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samweithe4 ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Page moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) Jerium ( talk) 01:35, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Geosternbergia → Pteranodon sternbergi – Current title is a violation of due weight. There is only one prominent advocate of using the name Geosternbergia, Alexander Kellner; nearly every other pterosaur researcher to mention sternbergi has either explicitly argued in favor of using Pteranodon sternbergi (e.g. Witton, Martin-Silverstone) or simply continued to use the name Pteranodon sternbergi without comment (e.g. Andres, Bennett). Ornithopsis ( talk) 05:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)