Talk:Pristimantis actinolaimus
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was created or improved during WikiProject Latin America's "Latin American and the Caribbean 10,000 Challenge", which started on November 1, 2016, and is ongoing. You can help out! |
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was move per request. All the moves are done. I will work on the next step of cleaning up the names but not today.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Eleutherodactylus actinolaimus → Pristimantis actinolaimus
- Eleutherodactylus actites → Pristimantis actites
- Eleutherodactylus acutirostris → Pristimantis acutirostris
- Eleutherodactylus affinis → Pristimantis affinis
- Eleutherodactylus alalocophus → Pristimantis alalocophus
- Eleutherodactylus albericoi → Pristimantis albericoi
- Eleutherodactylus altae → Pristimantis altae
- Eleutherodactylus altamazonicus → Pristimantis altamazonicus
- Eleutherodactylus aniptopalmatus → Pristimantis aniptopalmatus
- Eleutherodactylus anolirex → Pristimantis anolirex
– NOTE: This RM concers over 310 pages (see full list at Talk:Eleutherodactylus actinolaimus). Per guidance given in Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Taxonomy amphibian pages on Wikipedia should follow the taxonomy given by Amphibian Species of the World (ASW). Currently, the classification used in amphibian pages is a confusing mixture of old and new. When Polbot was creating pages around six years ago, it used IUCN Red List as a source. I don't know what IUCN used then; these days they seem to follow ASW. A lot of research has been done on taxonomy and phylogenetics since then, but few of the articles has been updated to reflect this. As a result, interested editors have created a second page for the same species without checking whether a page existed under a junior synonym. For more background, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles#Amphibian taxonomy; unfortunately that project is fairly quiet these days. So to get the ball running and draw more eyes on the topic, I would propose to move some 300 Eleutherodactylus pages to Pristimantis. Almost all of these pages were created by user:Polbot, so it should be fairly simple to update them assisted by a script (see Eleutherodactylus zophus for an example - it took a minute or so). For those who are interested, ASW gives a brief account about Pristimantis and the literature covering it here. Just to clarify: the list here includes only those pages currently located at Eleutherodactylus whatever, which a) ASW considers to belong to Pristimantis and b) Pristimantis whatever is a red-link. Also included are few pages located under Spanish common name, which should also be moved to Pristimantis. 88.148.249.186 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
- I am Polbot's creator. I have no objection to this move request, although I really have no idea whether Pristimantis is more appropriate than Eleutherodactylus or not — I'm not a biologist. If those more knowledgeable than myself thing the move is appropriate, then I'm all for it. (But I suppose the Eleutherodactylus and Pristimantis pages should be updated as well.) – Quadell (talk) 13:57, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
- This appears to be uncontroversial. Who's willing to do the work? --BDD (talk) 19:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.
Cleaning up after the move
edit- @Quadell, BDD: Cleaning up after these moves is is a much, much more laborious process than just doing the moves, which was negligible by comparison. First, identifying what would need to be done is key I suppose. So we need to replace the old title with the new in the lead and in the infobox and the the defaultsort. Then, what about the genus, species and binomial names? And if we are changing that, then the binomial_authority would have to change as well, yes? All that prior information was cited to the IUCN red list, but would it still be verified by that citation or should that change as well? I couldn't begin to tackle this without input from people in the know as to proper scope and methodology for the cleanup (and I think this is really a bot task, if possible). Can polbot clean up after these moves if we identify what needs to be done? (Should this thread be somewhere else where more subject matter experts will see it?)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:45, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I'm not able to run bots anymore, so Polbot can't be of assistance here. (I wish she could!) You could ask at Wikipedia:Bot requests, although I'm sure they'd want to be sure the changes made are in line with both policy and the sources. – Quadell (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)