Talk:Bush moa
(Redirected from Talk:Anomalopteryx)
Latest comment: 15 years ago by Bencherlite in topic Requested move
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 16 March 2006. The result of the discussion was Speedy Keep. |
Moving
editThis article is about the species Anomalopteryx didiformis; however it is called Anomalepteryx. I propose that we move Anomalepteryx to anomalepteryx didiformis. Discuss awsy. speednat (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
- The genus is monotypic. See talk at Darwinius: [1] FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was request withdrawn, not moved. BencherliteTalk 11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
Anomalopteryx didifornis → Anomalopteryx didiformis — - Spelled incorrectly (my bad), I was moving it originally due to the fact that it is about a species but titled for the genera --speednat (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- It seems that there is only one species, the type species. As with other palaeontology and dinosaur articles, articles discussing only one genera are typically named after the genus, not the species. The article should be backed to the genus level. --Spotty 11222 01:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
- As I mentioned already, this article should be named after the genus. Only move it if there is consensus for a move. I have moved it back. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As it now stands, the proposal is Anomalopteryx → Anomalopteryx didiformis.
- Oppose — For a monotypic genus, the Wikipedia convention is to use the genus name as the page name. --Una Smith (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose I guess mark this up as "my bad". First, I didn't look hard enough to see that it was monotypic, and second, per the guidelines on moves, I thought it was a non-controversial move. Again --- my bad. speednat (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.