Talk:Maaradactylus

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
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).

Brazil Low‑importance

	Brazil portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics 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.BrazilWikipedia:WikiProject BrazilTemplate:WikiProject BrazilBrazil
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles: Pterosaurs Low‑importance

	Maaradactylus 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
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).

Spielbergi

Latest comment: 3 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

So one result found spielbergi in this genus, but mention of this was removed as "fringe". Even if it's a minority view and isn't taken as gospel, it has to be mentioned under history. Also, the species needs to be covered somewhere, and its names redirected there. FunkMonk (talk) 11:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I don't think this is true because it's not a position that was pushed by a paper as a conclusion they really stood by. It was a binomial used one time in a figure and a table; the paper did not consider it worth discussing and it never appeared again. It's not a minority competing view but a phylogenetic blip of no significance. I've redirected the redirects to Anhanguera where the species should be covered. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 14:36, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

Then that could simply be stated specifically, that one result found this position. Ignoring it looks like an omission. FunkMonk (talk) 14:52, 15 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

I've added a clarification about the rejection of the reclassification. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 20:37, 16 April 2026 (UTC)Reply

This page was redesigned at the edge.

A page that knows where it met you.

Talk:Maaradactylus

Spielbergi