Talk:Selenetherium
Latest comment: 4 years ago by BegbertBiggs in topic Requested move 15 November 2020
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Requested move 15 November 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 discussion.
The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 18:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Selenotherium → Selenetherium – misspelled name 2A02:AB04:2C44:1900:A5C2:25FE:2C19:B308 (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support: This should be fairly straightforward, it is a clear spelling mistake. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 13:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- No support - No evidence that this is a spelling mistake. This source uses the current spelling on the page Eyebeller (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mackaye, Brunet and Tassy, the authorities who named the taxon, named it with an e. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The sources say otherwise. Eyebeller (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- They don't, actually. The source you link to, van der Made (2010), uses both spellings in different places in the paper; in the reference list it embarrassingly mis-spells the title of the paper by Mackaye, Brunet and Tassy (2005) which is undeniably the most reliable reference for the spelling. (For me, the researchgate link to van der Made's paper only showed the abstract and one page of the paper to begin with – to get the entire paper you will probably need to click the button "Full-text available".) Mackaye et al. (2005) is also used in this article, and uses Selenetherium throughout. GScholar indexes seven publications using the spelling Selenetherium and two that use Selenotherium. Of the latter, one is van der Made (2010) (which again uses both spellings), and the other one, Pickford and Sénut (2018) only lists the genus in a table – it is not the topic of that article. --bonadea contributions talk 21:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, the authors of the name obviously determine which is correct, and they sued an e. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- They don't, actually. The source you link to, van der Made (2010), uses both spellings in different places in the paper; in the reference list it embarrassingly mis-spells the title of the paper by Mackaye, Brunet and Tassy (2005) which is undeniably the most reliable reference for the spelling. (For me, the researchgate link to van der Made's paper only showed the abstract and one page of the paper to begin with – to get the entire paper you will probably need to click the button "Full-text available".) Mackaye et al. (2005) is also used in this article, and uses Selenetherium throughout. GScholar indexes seven publications using the spelling Selenetherium and two that use Selenotherium. Of the latter, one is van der Made (2010) (which again uses both spellings), and the other one, Pickford and Sénut (2018) only lists the genus in a table – it is not the topic of that article. --bonadea contributions talk 21:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- The sources say otherwise. Eyebeller (talk) 17:17, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Mackaye, Brunet and Tassy, the authorities who named the taxon, named it with an e. Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI converse | fings wot i hav dun 14:06, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per my post above. I propose that the alternative spelling Selenotherium should be mentioned in the article, though, since the spelling does seem to vacillate a bit. --bonadea contributions talk 21:48, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
- As I am not a paleontologist and am perfectly capable of misunderstanding sources, I'll post a notice at the talk page of WikiProject Palaeontology to notify the editors who are active there. --bonadea contributions talk 12:24, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support, it is in the very title[1] of its original description. FunkMonk (talk) 12:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support per above. This should not be controversial, it is clearly an error. Lythronaxargestes (talk | contribs) 14:32, 16 November 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.