Talk:Fossil track

Latest comment: 4 years ago by SS49 in topic Requested move 10 August 2020

Requested move 10 August 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: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 04:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply


IchniteFossil track – Common name, current title is incomprehensible to most readers. See discussion here:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I'm actually surprised by that, didn't see the technical term was more common. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Pinging Jens Lallensack who I discussed this with earlier, I'm not so sure what to do at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
This is not correct, just enter the word "dinosaur tracks" into those statistics; see also my comment below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose/rename - or rename to "ichnofossil". We should not avoid teaching the readers the Greek words commonly used in scientific papers, especially also because we link them for the articles anyway. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
"Ichnofossil" is a different article with a much broader scope. "Ichnite" is not a commonly used word in the scientific literature in comparison with "track". See comment below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, we have trace fossil for that. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

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.