Talk:Coelophysis? kayentakatae

Requested move 3 December 2021

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.

No consensus to move. After much-extended time for discussion, there is no consensus for a move at this time. The current construction may be awkward, but there is a reasonable argument that there is at least some precedent for this formulation. BD2412 T 23:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coelophysis? kayentakatae → Coelophysis kayentakatae – I'm no expert on dodgy dinosaur names, but the question mark is not a part of the name, whether valid or not, and should have no place in a Wikipedia article title. Lithopsian (talk) 14:36, 3 December 2021 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran • sign the guestbook • (talk) 06:07, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support - also, such controversial edits should be discussed first, the last few days of constant page moves are disruptive and unnecessary. FunkMonk (talk) 15:29, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - old discussion at Talk:Megapnosaurus makes a strong argument that the page should be under the name Syntarsus kayentakatae, based on number of uses in the literature, and I would forward that name as the best option. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:42, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Oppose Quotation marks and question marks are actually a very widespread nomenclatural practice in paleontology (eg Amia? hesperia) when an author notes the questionable placement of a species in a genus. There are a number of wiki articles that have the markup.--Kev min § 18:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But has this particular taxon been frequently listed as such in the literature? FunkMonk (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

? Nycticebus linglom and ?Oryzomys pliocaenicus are rated as Good Articles. Halictus? savenyei follows the format used in the original description. More examples could be found going through Category:Taxonomy templates with query (a ? would only potentially appear in the article title in cases where the taxonomy template is for a genus). Worth noting that these three examples differ in where the ? is placed and spacing (in my opinion we should follow the literature for each case rather than forcing a standard format across Wikipedia).Plantdrew (talk) 17:49, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I'm opposing this particular move as the genus Coelophysis is incorrect for this taxon. Having the ? shows the reader that, and as @Kevmin: points out there is a precedent for the ? being used in page names. The problem here seems to be that the taxon does not have a correct genus defined, and the literature shouldn't be blindly followed when it is incorrect. @LittleLazyLass: Syntarsus is also defintely wrong as the name is preoccupied, and whatever this thing is it ain't a beetle; at least Coelophysis is a dinosaur. Therefore, the current page title is less wrong than anything else currently proposed. However, if someone comes up with something more correct I'm happy to withdraw. Also, apologies @FunkMonk:, I was trying to be bold. YorkshireExpat (talk) 07:38, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

But again, if sources about this taxon don't use the question mark, we are basically doing WP:original synthesis by using this format. What we should do is reflect the format used by most recent literature, not make stuff up out of convenience. FunkMonk (talk) 14:44, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To judge what is a "right" or "wrong" name for the taxon seems irrelevant and also original research; it seems likely it's a distinct genus, so all of them are "wrong" in a sense, but if Syntarsus kayentakatae is what it is most commonly referred to as in the literature that is for all intents and purposes its name. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 17:20, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A notable portion of recent liturature actually is using the structuring "Syntarsus" kayentakatae, so the sources are already doing what has been done with the article title here (albeit with the jr homonym Syntarsus which is already preoccupied by Syntarsus Fairmaire 1869, itself a jr synonym of Cerchanotus Erichson, 1845). IF a move were to happen the appropriate target would be "Syntarsus" kayentakatae, not Syntarsus kayentakatae, or to Megapnosaurus the validly published replacement name for the homonym.--Kev min § 18:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds more reasonable to me. As I said before Syntarsus kayentakatae is defintely wrong, and I don't think we should be knowingly wrong in an encyclopedia. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Syntarsus" kayentakatae seems agreeable to me. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 18:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if we're going on "most sources use xyz as a name", then "Syntarsus kayentakatae" is basically a common name as it's not scientifically valid. Hiroizmeh (talk) 22:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is the problem though, "Syntarsus" has already been replaced as a generic name, so it can NOT be used for the article title. the only options we really have are having this article at Coelophysis? kayentakatae, "Coelophysis" kayentakatae or Megapnosaurus, regardless of Marsh and Rowe (2020) missing or ignoring the homonym and replacement names.--Kev min § 23:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't it? I still don't see why this isn't an arbitrary distinction. We're not here to follow the written rules through our own original research judgement, we're here to use the most widely used name for the subject. The numbers say that what this taxon is being referred to most commonly in the literature is "Syntarsus" kayentakatae. If that is an acceptable format for peer reviewed science then why are we above it? LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's scientifically used though, so I don't think the common name comparison fits. LittleLazyLass (Talk | Contributions) 23:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - as per Incertae sedis#In zoological nomenclature and KevMin. If people are confused by a big scary question mark, they can start reading the article. --awkwafaba (📥) 14:54, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was an interesting wiki comment from @Hiroizmeh: in a previous revision here at the top of the source, but I can't find a citation to back it up. YorkshireExpat (talk) 18:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support but only because academic sources don't seem to use the question mark [1]. It's either Coelophysis kayentakatae or "Syntarsus" kayentakatae, and I oppose the latter, as the name is preoccupied. Super Ψ Dro 11:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the combination "Coelophysis" kayentakatae also used before. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 19:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to "Coelophysis" kayentakatae. YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

C. kayentakatae is also inaccurate as it hasn't been definitively assigned to Coelophysis. "Syntarsus" kayentakatae and "Megapnosaurus" kayentakatae are also possible, but no matter what the genus name is, it should be put inside quotation marks. Additionally, Megapnosaurus and Coelophysis are both valid coelophysid genera, while Syntarsus is not. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 23:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Megapnosaurus" kayentakatae does not need, (or ever get) the quotation marks, as it is a genus specifically erected as a replacement for a "S." kayentakatae. The modern lit uses (with one author as exception) either "C." kayentakatae or M. kayentakatae.--Kev min § 02:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't M. kayentakatae be inaccurate though? From most cladograms I have seen kayentakatae and M. rhodesiensis are not sister taxa, and thus not in the same genus. Logosvenator wikiensis (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The species has not been assigned a genus, to remove the ? would be a scientifically misleading title.Spider241 (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2021 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.