# Talk:Pterosaur

In the third and fourth paragraphs at the start of the article there still seem to be some incorrect edits made on 22:58, 19 July 2024‎. While many of this edits changes have since been changed back, those two paragraphs still contain incorrect and misleading information in them that, as I am very unconfident in my own ability to switch them back without messing up, I would request to be changed back please. 86.10.219.165 (talk) 03:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for pointing out the problem.-Gadfium (talk) 04:41, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

A couple of folks over at WT:PAL have discussed a big consolidation of the taxonomy articles for Pterosauria.  The exact details of our plan can be found here.  I will be posting a notice on all the proposed articles so that anyone can express objection/support regarding any specific merge in particular.  The merges in general are based on the criteria of WP:N, WP:NPOV, and WP:REDUNDANT as well as the precedent established with the merging of similar dinosaur articles (Cerapoda, Genasauria, Plateosauria, Averostra, etc). A Cynical Idealist (talk) 00:35, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Support per the original discussion. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Birds take off from the ground. A deep keel is necessary for mechanical advantage. Do these animals have deep keels? 2A00:23C6:F68D:2E01:295F:B026:AC9E:E28F (talk) 21:15, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Did you look at the article before you wrote this? FunkMonk (talk) 21:19, 7 July 2025 (UTC)

Exapophyses are an anatomical feature that only applies to pterosaurs. I agree with LLL that they are too niche as a feature of a restricted group to warrant a standalone article, and should just be discussed in the anatomy section pterosaur article. The pterosaur article is not excessively large that it cannot absorb the current paragraph of content in the exapophyses article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:39, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

LLL has suggested off-wiki that the anatomy section of this article should be spun out as Anatomy of pterosaurs and the current anatomy section condensed, in which case Exapophyses would be redirected to that article. I think this would be a good solution that would address the article size concerns. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:47, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
This is a possibility; the size limit in principle is 50 Kb plain text. Not that I care but there is an on-going campaign to reduce all GA's so an uncontrolled reduction is looming. Shall I create the separate anatomy article and condense the main article?--MWAK (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
@LittleLazyLass Thoughts? Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:04, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I've created an outline laying out what I think a revised version of the Pterosaur article, with higher levels of detail sectioned off to subarticles, could look like at User:LittleLazyLass/Pterosaur. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:20, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
I created the Exapophyses page and I'm fine with it being merged into a more comprehensive article. This is the first I've heard about the GA reduction campaign, it sounds very counterintuitive by reducing discoverability behind further links. But that's not really my fight, at least for now. NGPezz (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
We probably reached consensus on ar least the anatomy part, so I'll create the article and we can subsequently merge. The outline is an excellent guideline for the condensation.--MWAK (talk) 17:51, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
So we're all now on the same page to merge exapophyses into the anatomy of pterosaurs article? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 04:47, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
It seems so :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Wrote up a revised skull section to start - hopefully I can get through the other anatomy sections in the coming days. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 21:26, 3 October 2025 (UTC)
In my outline I wasn't quite sure what to do with the postcranium, but I tried out "neck and torso" and then separating off "tail" and I think that works well. Maybe it'll be awkward having cervicals and dorsals in a separate section than caudals, but I think it has a big positive impact. Consolidating the points about the shoulders and pelvis, and then being able to cover the proportions of the neck and torso right in sequence, feels much more intuitive than spreading it all across different sections. However, trying to shove the entire vertebral column in with all of the torso information creates an "everything postcranial except the limbs" section that overshoots and feels too broad. Removing the tail fixes this issue, while also creating a strong sense of flow across the whole description section. Start with the skull, move down the neck and learn about the central torso, then cover the forelimbs, move further back to the hindlimbs, and then finally cover the tail before moving on to non-skeletal anatomy. I'm open to feedback on this set of sections and the order, though. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 06:04, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, but whether something "feels" right or is "intuitive" is rather subjective. Treating the tail separately from the remainder of the column also might suggest to the reader that this is normal anatomical practice or that there are deep and fundamental biological reasons for this distinction. In fact the division of the vertebrae is quite arbitrary. Hence all these "cervicodorsals", "dorsosacrals" and "sacrocaudals". Why not simply follow the sources?--MWAK (talk) 07:02, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
This feels like overthinking reader behaviour - lay readers aren't thinking of animals by their vertebral columns, nevermind the different sections of it. So I'm trying to approach it on that level - a section for the "body", and one for the "tail", with vertebra covered as appropriate. It doesn't stand out that it's separate from the rest of the vertebrae because "vertebra" is not, at any point, a distinct section. That makes more sense for the more detailed anatomy article. They'd just be covered naturally as part of the neck and torso, and then the tail. Plus, I frankly don't think it's unusual at all consider the tail as its own anatomical subject. Tail anatomy, as a distinct thing, is one of the most noted differentiations between different groups of pterosaurs. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 07:39, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Indeed readers probably have a totally confused (lack of) understanding of the internal build of any animal. Precisely for that reason we should be as formally correct as possible. Where the tail is mentioned is not so important, but I'm unhappy with dumping the shoulder girdle and the pelvis into "torso". These structures are in all sources seen as part of the appendicular skeleton.--MWAK (talk) 10:08, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
We can't use the term "appendicular skeleton" in a section title when most readers have no understanding of what that means. That might pass down at the genus level, but not in a vital article. "Torso" is accessible, and it's not like it changes the information contained in the actual text - it's purely an aid of navigation. Now, sure, we could explode this into separate sections to avoid the issue entirely. But I think this would be a mistake, chiefly because the shoulder girdle and notarium (i.e. dorsals) are in such anatomical tandem it is unnatural to cover them separately (or otherwise, repeat its existence in two sections). If this were an article on sauropods, I'd agree we absolutely need a "vertebra" section. If it were an article on mammals, I'd insist on a section about teeth. But vertebra are, comparatively, not a driving force in pterosaur studies outside of azhdarchids. Instead, the way the whole front of the body has been adapted to support the wing is highly important to understanding the construction of the entire clade Pterosauria. So I believe we should present it that way. To me, trying to force these intro separate sections is making the article actively worse in the name of being technically correct. This article isn't here to teach people about the nomenclature of vertebrate anatomy - it's here to teach them about pterosaurs the best it can. The anatomy of pterosaurs article can get into all the juicy technical details and justify enough information about every aspect of their bodies for separate sections.
So I argue the dorsals and shoulder girdle go together - and at that point instead of some horrific "anterior torso" section, why not just cover the sacrals and pelvis too? After all, they share a similar fused structure to the shoulder girdle. Neck section, I can go either way on. Putting them together allows us to cover the details of vertebral anatomy in one place where cervicals, dorsals, and sacrals all live, plus the Anhanguera image gets to succinctly illustrate the whole section. But if it's a separate preceding section, it's not a big deal and I'm fine compromising on it (which neatly puts cervicals, dorsal/sacrals, and caudals in separate headers). While caudals are separated from other vetebrae under my model, the bedrock of the tail section will be higher level anatomy of general tail size and construction rather than the info about "cotyles" and "expophyses" and whatnot above, so I think that's fine.LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:15, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Please read Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. We are not writing a scientific textbook, we are writing a general encyclopedia article for a layman general audience. In particular the relevant section Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_understandable#Avoid_overly_technical_language. It is Wikipedia policy to use simpler terms if these are more understandable, even if they don't capture the entire nuance of the original technical term. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for using the term "appendicular skeleton", I argue that because the shoulder girdle functioned to power the wings and the pelvis to power the legs we had best organise the text to make clear how the animal functioned. Not "where" those bones "lived" but how the pterosaur used them to live. And I always avoid Latin jargon when possible, such as cervicals, scapula, sternum and femur for which good vernacular equivalents are available.--MWAK (talk) 17:19, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Now that I'm done the size section, I'll be moving on to vertebrae and "torso" contents next - what, specifically, would be your preferred organization of sections? I still think my organization is ideal (and I did prefer having notarium, shoulder girdle, and breastbone in one paragraph), but I'd like to know specifically what the alternative option is here. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 02:48, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, the alternative would be to have separate chapter titles, but now that the information is much condensed (and would be condensed even more for the pelvis) a single chapter is probably more elegant. I would keep a paragraph separation though, to make more clear to the reader what parts anatomically belong together.--MWAK (talk) 13:01, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
And I'm a bit surprised that your size section is now in the main article?--MWAK (talk) 13:07, 7 October 2025 (UTC)
Well, the main article does need a section on size; I considered this to be the bare minimum overview of the topic. Variation in pterosaur size, upper and lower limits, change in size over time, and a few important notes qualifying these facts. If you feel any of it is excessive detail though I'm open to feedback on it. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 19:32, 8 October 2025 (UTC)
But why would a "bare minimum" have to include a largely discarded "law" (Cope's Rule) only to point out it was not really applicable to pterosaurs (showing that it was not such an essential aspect to begin with)? Also Nemicolopterus and Tropeognathus are old hat. Correcting common mistakes in older popular-science accounts is useful but not necessary in a minimum, especially as many readers don't know about them anyway and over time such mistakes will be forgotten.
We have to keep in mind the rationale behind this whole exercise: to bring the article size below 100 Kb or so, lest some Destroyer of Articles come along and wreck it all. Adding 5 Kb is nonconstructive in this respect :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I figured Nemicolopterus was worth including since it's so commonly cited as the smallest pterosaur, but I can part with it if it's deemed unnecessary. Tropeognathus certainly isn't a necessity. At least something on the cope's rule thing is useful, I think, as it's still broadly true that earlier pterosaurs were smaller and the largest ones lived Late in the Cretaceous. Maybe there's a briefer way to frame it, though. In evening out the quality of the article there will be small cases of additions within the larger pattern of cutting fat; there's still a lot of size to make up in the other sections. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:46, 9 October 2025 (UTC)
I've trimmed down the size section to cut the extraneous details. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 16:56, 9 October 2025 (UTC)