Talk:Rubidgina
Latest comment: 4 years ago by Paine Ellsworth in topic Requested move 24 May 2020
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Rubidgina article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Requested move 24 May 2020
edit- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
It was proposed in this section that Rubidgina be renamed and moved to Rubidgea.
result: Links: current log • target log
This is template {{subst:Requested move/end}} |
Rubidgina → Rubidgea – incorrect spelling 174.53.142.206 (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- @Station1 and 174.53.142.206: queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- There is already an article at Rubidgea. - Station1 (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
- Is the animal described in page Rubidgina the same animal as described in page Rubidgea? (Is there a palaeontologist on channel here?) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- According to this article's only source, http://fossilworks.org/bridge.pl?a=taxonInfo&taxon_no=39100 , both Rubidgina and Rubidgea are incorrect and should be Rubidginia. --Espoo (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose Fossilworks is not the only available source on the matter. "Rubidgea" and "Rubidgina" are seperate genera, with Rubidgea representing the species R. atrox and others (Interestingly, Rubidgea was also initially designated as a suborder, a concept has since been dropped) and Rudigina representing R. angusticeps. Rubidginia is a suborder as designated by Boettger (1952) and was never identified as a genus by Fossilworks. There are a number of papers, but here's a free one that I think sums up some of the matter well [1] Macrophyseter | talk 19:41, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
- According to Fossilworks, Rubidgina is a nomen dubium and separate genus than Rubidgea, it also states a Rubidginia, which is a suborder, so let's not confuse Rubidgina with Rubidginia, nor Rubidgea, I'd keep this page and also change the taxobox name, which is Rubidgea instead of Rubidgina. As for the suborder Rubidginia, I'd suggest creating a separate article. JurassicClassic767 (talk) 11:07, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- Changed taxobox name for now (Rubidgea to Rubidgina). JurassicClassic767 (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.