Talk:Sagitta (arrowworm)

Requested move 4 May 2018

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. See general agreement to not change the qualifier as proposed, as well as other suggestions to use as disambiguators with no particular consensus for any. It seems that this is a good time to leave "(arrowworm)" as is. Have a Great Day and Happy Publishing! (nac by page mover)  Paine Ellsworth  ^put'r there  00:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

---

Sagitta (arrowworm) → Sagitta (genus) – The article was recently moved to "Sagitta (arrowworm)," without discussion, by User:Caftaric. User:Caftaric has moved numerous other pages without consensus before. The original title is now a re-direction page. "Arrowworm" is not even a real word, and the use of the name from the phylum, "chaetognath," is discouraged in the favour of using "genus." HNdlROdU (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC).--Relisting. Cúchullain ^t/c 19:24, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

• Move to Sagitta (animal). (genus) as a disambiguator is far from satisfactory. The single biggest source of title conflicts for a genus is another genus described under a different code. While there is not another Sagitta genus in this case, consistency in titling is better achieved by avoiding "(genus)" as a disambiguator. Plantdrew (talk) 17:58, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
• If the use of "(genus)" as a disambiguation specifier is undesirable, then the specifier should be "(chaetognath)," which follows the name of the relative phylum. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed, 15:25, 9 May 2018 (UTC).
• Move to Sagitta (animal) per Plantdrew. Nine Zulu queens (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
• Support as proposed, or leave it as it is. I oppose Sagitta (animal) as too broad and potentially confusing. "Genus" is a fine disambiguator in the absence of other genera of the same name. I also don't see anything wrong with "arrowworm", it's certainly in use, including by Britannica.[1]--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The use of "(arrowworm)" as a disambiguation specifier would not be appropriate, as the article on Wikipedia does not refer to it as such, but as Chaetognatha. The lack of another genus of Sagitta makes the use of "(genus)" appropriate where "(chaetognath)" is for some reason discouraged. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed, 12:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC).
    • I don't see any problem with "arrowworm" as it's a redirect to Chaetognatha and is clearly in common use. (Chaetognatha) would also be perfectly fine if it's as or more common as "arrowworm". However, (genus) is the best option IMO as it's clearly recognizable and there's no other genus of the same name that has an article. The only thing I would oppose outright would be (animal) as it's too broad to be useful, and unnecessary as there's no non-animal Sagitta.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose “(genus)”, a technical thing of zero value for recognizability, it belongs as a category. Oppose “(animal)” also for lack of help for recognizability, too broad. Support instead Sagitta (Chaetognatha)Sagitta (chaetognatha), if there is a problem with “arrow worm”, which I am not persuaded there is. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:30, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
  • The use of "(arrow worm)" is discouraged in this instance as the Wikipedia article refers to the phylum as "Chaetognatha," rather than "arrow worm" or "arrowworm." The use of "(chaetognath)" to "(Chaetognatha)" is preferred, as such can be seen in similar naming structures on gastropod taxa articles. Yours Truly, HNdlROdU. Signed, 17:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC).

The capitalization was an accident. I suggest Sagitta (chaetognatha), noting that "arrow worm"/"arrowworm" is covered at Chaetognatha. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:35, 21 May 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Too many species

WoRMS has only three and has the others in the list here assigned to other genera, etc. DCDuring (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2023 (UTC).

WoRMS doesn't even account for a number of species listed here (i.e., doesn't have any record of them as even synonyms). WoRMS records for Chaetognatha don't appear to be actively curated; the record for the genus Sagitta has been updated once since 2004. While WoRMS does have some of the species listed in the Kassatkina papers cited in this article as synonyms, WoRMS does not, overall, appear to be a reliable source for the status of Chaetognatha species. Plantdrew (talk) 03:42, 3 May 2023 (UTC)