Talk:Maaradactylus spielbergi

	Paleontology portal This redirect 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
	This redirect is supported by the Pterosaurs task force.

Brazil

This redirect 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 articles

Amphibians and Reptiles: Pterosaurs

	Maaradactylus spielbergi 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
	This redirect is supported by the Pterosaurs task force.

Merge discussion

Initiated by User:FunkMonk

Comment I don't really know much on the subject, but the Maaradactylus article cites this for spielbergi's reclassification into that genus, which doesn't really give any justification. It just gives the combination Maaradactylus spielbergi in the appendix in a list of taxa used in a character matrix for Coloborhychus clavirostris's phylogeny. It might be too early to redirect this to Maaradactylus, but I would be in support of a merge to Coloborhynchus because it doesn't seem to be a particularly well-studied species which would in any way justify its separation from the genus article User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 00:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in any case, there isn't much justification for a separate article. FunkMonk (talk) 10:03, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had originally created some of these species-level articles for species that had highly variable classification, as a way of avoiding the constant cycle of merging and splitting a species which is clearly distinct, bouncing between various genera in different phylogenies. That way, the various different classifications could be discussed in a single section, while the rest of the article remains unchanged. Dinoguy2 (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there'd be too much text to sort through should a merge ever arise for this one. Even the more famous dubious taxa Stygimoloch and Dracorex didn't take much effort at all to merge User:Dunkleosteus77 |push to talk 04:34, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion started months ago, I'd strongly suggest a merge at this point, it's just the same thing that happens with Anhanguera piscator, a separate article for a different species, which is practically useless, specially if the text is basically just 4 paragraphs. Seeing the info in the article now, it should probably just take several sentences to include about this species to the genus article Maaradactylus. So, should we merge it now? JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 17:54, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]