Talk:Austrophya mystica

Requested move 22 June 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Austrophya mystica per nom. No such user (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Austrophya → Austrophya mystica – no longer monotypic John Tann (talk) 13:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:30, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * queried move request Anthony Appleyard (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The article currently states that it is a monotypic genus. You'll have to provide some evidence that this is no longer the case. Lennart97 (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * New species in genus Austrophya in addition to Austrophya mystica, see Austrophya monteithorum. There can be found references to this new species at World Odonata List, Complete Field Guide to Dragonflies of Australia, Australian Faunal Directory, original journal article naming this species, and IUCN Red List category. Is that evidence reasonable? Or should I include links here? John Tann (talk) 14:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the move, the existence of the article Austrophya monteithorum is of course sufficient evidence that the genus is no longer monotypic. Lennart97 (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Support the move, as detailed above. Summerdrought (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Anthony, do you still contest this technical request? John Tann (talk) 13:52, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * It was me, not Anthony, who contested the request, and I have since voiced my support, so there's a clear consensus to move. I'm not sure why this RM hasn't been closed yet, but I technically can't do it as I'm involved. Maybe Anthony can? Lennart97 (talk) 14:05, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
 * On retrospect, this move was mostly unnecessary, since (AFAICT) we still need two articles, one about the species and the other about the genus. I therefore performed a quick WP:SPLIT, moving the appropriate material back into Austrophya, but the articles will need some attention by someone in the know (categories and history in particular). No such user (talk) 14:47, 8 July 2021 (UTC)