| Revision as of 20:22, 30 July 2011 editInnotata (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers43,065 edits →further rename request← Previous edit | Revision as of 01:41, 2 August 2011 edit undoVegaswikian (talk | contribs)270,510 edits →further rename request: No consensus to moveNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| == further rename request == | == further rename request == | ||
| <div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:polltop --> | |||
| :''The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. '' | |||
| '''No consensus''' to move. ] (]) 01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC) | |||
| {{Requested move/dated|Stenodus}} | |||
| ] → {{no redirect|1=Stenodus}} – Per ], only the genus name should be used for monotypic ] (those with only one species), and the taxonomy used now at least gives ''Stenodus'' as monotypic. —] 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | ] → {{no redirect|1=Stenodus}} – Per ], only the genus name should be used for monotypic ] (those with only one species), and the taxonomy used now at least gives ''Stenodus'' as monotypic. —] 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| Line 38: | Line 40: | ||
| *'''Oppose'''. The taxonomy is controversial, and evidently in a transition to recognising two species. While the WP approved fish taxonomy authority FishBase currently has a page for one species of ''Stenodus'' only, it explicitly that a page for the other one will be created in future - thus refuting its own current taxonomy in this case. A (temporary) move of the current article contents would thus appear as unnecessary maneuvering at this stage, serving no good purpose. (BTW, we for two taxa even here). ] (]) 23:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | *'''Oppose'''. The taxonomy is controversial, and evidently in a transition to recognising two species. While the WP approved fish taxonomy authority FishBase currently has a page for one species of ''Stenodus'' only, it explicitly that a page for the other one will be created in future - thus refuting its own current taxonomy in this case. A (temporary) move of the current article contents would thus appear as unnecessary maneuvering at this stage, serving no good purpose. (BTW, we for two taxa even here). ] (]) 23:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| **Still, we can only use one taxonomy as that followed (in things like the taxobox and division of articles) at a time, and calling the article by the species name and discussing both (sub)species also is making use of the classification as one species. That FishBase intends to recognise the split and that it'll become more widely accepted is a bit of prediction, and we should stick to the current situation. So it's not perfectly clear this should be moved, but seems like the best way to treat this to me. —] 20:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | **Still, we can only use one taxonomy as that followed (in things like the taxobox and division of articles) at a time, and calling the article by the species name and discussing both (sub)species also is making use of the classification as one species. That FishBase intends to recognise the split and that it'll become more widely accepted is a bit of prediction, and we should stick to the current situation. So it's not perfectly clear this should be moved, but seems like the best way to treat this to me. —] 20:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.</div><!-- Template:pollbottom --> | |||
Revision as of 01:41, 2 August 2011
 | Fishes Start‑class Low‑importance | |||||||||
| ||||||||||
Etymology
The name almost certainly comes from French: "inconnu" = "unknown". The Jade Knight (talk) 06:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Move request
- 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 22:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Inconnu → Stenodus leucichthys — The fish has several English names, of which inconnu is not the primary FishBase or FAO name. Olaff (talk) 09:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support "Inconnu" should be a disambiguation page. 65.93.15.213 (talk) 04:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Support yes, unless someone can show that "sheefish" or another name is the primary one. Suppose "inconnu" should be a disambiguation, though the other topics with articles are all partial matches and less significant even than the fish. —innotata 15:11, 20 July 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.
File:Stenodus leucichthys nelma.jpg Nominated for Deletion
|
An image used in this article, File:Stenodus leucichthys nelma.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests July 2011
|
| A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs.
This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2011 (UTC) |
further rename request
- The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
Stenodus leucichthys → Stenodus – Per Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (fauna), only the genus name should be used for monotypic genera (those with only one species), and the taxonomy used now at least gives Stenodus as monotypic. —innotata 02:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oppose. The taxonomy is controversial, and evidently in a transition to recognising two species. While the WP approved fish taxonomy authority FishBase currently has a page for one species of Stenodus only, it explicitly states that a page for the other one will be created in future - thus refuting its own current taxonomy in this case. A (temporary) move of the current article contents would thus appear as unnecessary maneuvering at this stage, serving no good purpose. (BTW, we previously used to have entries for two taxa even here). Olaff (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
- Still, we can only use one taxonomy as that followed (in things like the taxobox and division of articles) at a time, and calling the article by the species name and discussing both (sub)species also is making use of the classification as one species. That FishBase intends to recognise the split and that it'll become more widely accepted is a bit of prediction, and we should stick to the current situation. So it's not perfectly clear this should be moved, but seems like the best way to treat this to me. —innotata 20:21, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.