 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
Article name edit
By my reading of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), it seems that this article should be under Lagodon rhomboides:
- If there is a choice of scientific names, use the lowest-ranked taxon which the article covers.
- Xenoturbella (not Xenoturbellidae or Xenoturbellida).
- Except that for extinct genera which contain only a single described species, name the article after the genus.
- Nodocephalosaurus (not Nodocephalosaurus kirtlandensis)
- For monotypic genera (ie. where the genus has only one known species), redirect the genus to the species article.
Which is not say that I care one way or the other, mind you. Walrus heart (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing this up, I had just asked Stemonitis about this, and his response is: "It's the general situation advocated by WP:TOL, whereby any monotypic genera are located at the name of the genus, not the name of the (only) species. Amphionides is a frequently-quoted example. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)" So I guess there is a bit of a conflict between the two guidances. I don't really care which one is used, I'm happy to keep it Stemonitis's way. Mmyers1976 (talk) 22:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
I've moved the article back for the time being. I'm of the opinion that the guidelines at TOL should not be applied unilaterally to all daughter projects without at least some sort of discussion being opened in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna), and I couldn't find any. In this case, I object to using just the title Lagodon because this article is fundamentally about the species, not the genus. A survey of scientific literature will show that virtually all use the full binomial when addressing this taxon.-- Yzx (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, it could just be that WP:TOL is an example of Wikipedia consensus being out of touch with science. I've never seen a species be called only by its generic name just because it is the sole representative of that genus (but only my undergrad is in biology and I'm certainly no expert on biosystematics or taxonomy). I don't care too much about this, but unless I see a scientific, nonWikipedian source that supports just using the generic name, if it comes down to a vote, I vote with you. Mmyers1976 (talk) 01:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)