 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Requested move
edit- The following discussion is an archived 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.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. — ΛΧΣ21 03:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Haptogenys → Haptogenys bipunctata – Since genus is monotypic and any information currently valid for the genus is also valid for the species, article should be under species name. This also makes it easier to create a general genus page should more species be described and removes the difficulty of having to cut and paste specific information into the species article. Divingpetrel (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose per WP:FAUNA, which says, "for monotypic genera... use the genus name for the article title." That said, based on the current state of the relevant categories, this is a very broadly ignored guideline, and it may be more sensible to just update the guideline to reflect practice. --BDD (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2013 (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.