Talk:Aulonocranus

Requested move

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. —Darkwind (talk) 01:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aulonocranus → Aulonocranus dewindti – Being monotypic article should be under genus name. As it stands currently, any information applicable to the genus will also apply to the species. Having this information in the species article rather than the genus article also makes creation of a genus article should another species be described much easier and not require a cut-and-paste move. Divingpetrel (talk) 04:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It's true that this would make it easier to deal with the description of a new species, but the move would contradict WP:NCFAUNA. --BDD (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:NCFAUNA#Monotypic taxa. If and when a new species is discovered, the situation can be rectified quite easily. Favonian (talk) 17:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.