Talk:Neohomaloptera

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. Favonian (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neohomaloptera → Neohomaloptera johorensis – Generally articles dealing with species in monotypic genera have been placed under the species name. Since all information relevant to the genus also applies to the species, there is no reason to have a genus article wherein someone may create a species article that duplicates the information. It also makes it easier to create an expanded genus article should more species be described for the genus. As it stands now, the description of a new species would require a cut and paste move of the information in the genus article to create a "new" species article so that the species list can be expanded in the genus article. Divingpetrel (talk) 06:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Is it really the case that our pages on monotypic genera are put at the species name? I've had a look round Category:Monotypic genera and the opposite seems to be the case. (Although, personally, I dislike the idea of relying heavily on past practice as a rule for future edits). If the problem is that somebody else might create duplicate content, then moving the page - which still leaves us with one page, the other being a redirect - does not mitigate that risk at all. If in future the genus article could be expanded with newly-described species, well, we cross that bridge when we get to it. bobrayner (talk) 12:14, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. In fact, common practice is to use the genus name for monotypic genera. I don't see the risk for duplication; wherever the article is, the other form should be redirected, and there is equally little risk of someone accidentally creating a duplicate article. If additional species are discovered, the article will need to be rearranged whether it is at the species or the genus name. Ucucha (talk) 21:45, 4 January 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.