 | A fact from Rhinesomus appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 10 January 2012 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | On 22 November 2012, it was proposed that this article be moved to Rhinesomus triqueter. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
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 no consensus. --BDD (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC) (non-admin closure)
Rhinesomus → Rhinesomus triqueter – General practice has been to have monotypic genera articles redirect to the species article as any information about the genus would also apply to the species and thus the lowest taxon level is where the article is generally placed. relisting see below Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Divingpetrel (talk) 05:02, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Im not familiar with this, current practice for WP:Paleontology, plants, and insects at least has been to have monotypic genera at the genus name. What guideline are you working from?--Kevmin § 06:43, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oppose The de facto standard used across all taxa and all time periods is for monotypic genera to be at the genus title. The only guideline which suggests otherwise is WP:FAUNA (contra WP:TOL, etc.), and that guideline should be changed to reflect common practice and general consensus. --Stemonitis (talk) 06:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be a more serious issue here... the article says in part The names Lactophrys triqueter and Rhinesomus triqueter are synonymous. But that seems to imply that some put the species in Lactophrys. That seems to support the move, if the classification of the species is controversial. But there's no direct mention of such a controversy in the article. Am I somehow wrong in assuming there is one? Andrewa (talk) 16:17, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- On reflection, relisting in the hope that those with more knowledge in the area can clarify my concerns here. Andrewa (talk) 16:19, 2 December 2012 (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.