Talk:Pteranodontia

	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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Amphibians and Reptiles Mid‑importance

	Pteranodontia 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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

"Ornithocheroid"

A superfamily CANNOT be within another superfamily, and is therefore not an orniithocheroid group. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.176.114.76 (talk) 19:59, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

They're both clades, which means that they're unranked within the traditional classification, and therefore not superfamilies. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ornithocheiromorpha

This article currently places Ornithocheiromorpha within Pteranodontia, but is this the current consensus? Kellner et. al. (2019), Hone et. al. (2020), and Longrich et. al. (2018) found Pteranodontia to be restricted to Nyctosauridae & Pteranodontidae, although Pentland et. al. (2019) found the topology shown in the article currently. Would a more restrictive Pteranodontia be better? The group covered by this article is basically equivalent to Pteranodontoidea as recovered by the first three studies. Here's a proposed update to the navbox. I'll admit that I'm not terribly knowledgeable about pterosaurs, so if I've made any glaring errors in this comment, please inform me. Pinging JurassicClassic767, the main author of the article. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 19:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slate Weasel: I do know about those topologies, and I was wondering if we should change it in the past, now that you've said it again, I think we could just move the content from this page to Pteranodontoidea, as well as changing the navbox. I think it'll be pretty easy, we could just change the statements that say "pteranodontians" into "pteranodontoids" so the content still remains the same. Would you consider lending a hand, I know it's easy, but can you (or any other user) at least review if there are errors when I move content from this article to Pteranodontoidea? Thanks. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 19:28, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind looking over the article after you transition it. Also, do you know what the latest phylogenetic positions for Araripesaurus and Arthurdactylus are? I think that those are the only two taxa left for the navbox update. --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you just updated the navbox. Thanks for doing that! --Slate Weasel ⟨T - C - S⟩ 20:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I really don't know how did I do it 'cause I never really understood the navboxes, or cladograms to be honest. As for Araripesaurus and Arthurdactylus, no new sources or at least some mentions in references from them as far as I know, but I'll keep those in mind just in case. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 20:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]