Talk:Labeobarbus aspius

Requested move 31 October 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Consensus also that a 2-way DAB should replace the redirect. No case for deleting redirects from any of the common names. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Drakensberg minnow → Labeobarbus aspius – Fishbase and IUCN call Labeobarbus aspius either the Drakensberg minnow or Maluti minnow, both names reference geographic features in South Africa/Lesotho, but the text says that it is a species from the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It looks to me as if there is an error in the sources used. As there is another species which also has one of its vernacular name's as Drakensberg minnow Pseudobarbus quathlambae, this page should be moved to Labeobarbus aspius and remove reference to the apparently incorrect vernacular names. I also think that a disambiguation page for Drakensberg minnow should be set up. Quetzal1964 (talk) 23:30, 31 October 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 7 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support move but not deletion: It's WP:OR to try to "correct" the sources or deny them. There are numerous things with vernacular names that are not accurate, and that's just the way it is. However, this species is obscure, and has two vernacular names; there are insufficient sources (not a statistically valid sample) to declare one of them the WP:COMMONNAME, so using the unambiguous binomial is the best choice, as we do with obscure plant species, and non-obscure ones with no certain most-common vernacular name. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ< 20:19, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support Drakensberg minnow should be a disambiguation paging including P. quathlambae. Plantdrew (talk) 00:15, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment: I'm not entirely sure what remove reference to the apparently incorrect vernacular names means, but so far as the RM goes, if it means deleting the redirects from common names, that is completely contrary to practice and policy, and these names should therefore also appear in the article which is the redirect target. Andrewa (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2017 (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.