Talk:Hyperplagiodontia

Requested move 14 September 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 section. 

 No consensus. See below no good rebuttals to the opposition rationale. As is usual with a no-consensus outcome, arguments can be strengthened, new arguments can be found, and editors can try again in a few months to garner consensus for this new name. (nac by page mover)  P.I. Ellsworth &numsp;- ed.  put'r there 09:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Wide-toothed hutia → Hyperplagiodontia – per multiple project guidelines (extinct, monotypic, rarely used vernacular etc.) this should be at the genus name Hyperplagiodontia Kev  min  § 19:20, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose: "Wide-toothed hutia" is used in several sources relating to the species, including ASM, Catalogue of Life , Idaho governmental website , Mammal Species of the World , ITIS , GBIF , etc. I don't think I need to provide anymore evidence. Keep as is. J0ngM0ng (talk) 23:08, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * That is not many sources, and google.scholar shows no instances of "Wide-toothed hutia" being used as a species name, compared to 13 for Hyperplagiodontia. Made up "vernacular names" that are not actually used often do not automatically supersede the most commonly used names, in this case 'Hyperplagiodontia''.-- Kev min  § 23:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Google scholar lists 80 results for "wide toothed hutia". I think you inputted it wrong. And while it isn't many sources, they are pretty notable taxonomic websites which are all reliable. Quality over quantity. J0ngM0ng (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * While I did get 80 results on google scholar for "wide toothed hutia", all of those hits were for papers that contained wide, toothed, and hutia in them.... but not as a name of anything. Support move, as the vernacular name is not the common name (or, in fact, ever used in scientific literature). --SilverTiger12 (talk) 12:56, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So the links I provided above are not considered scientific literature? Interesting. J0ngM0ng (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The links you provided run the spectrum of scientific to lay media and most are just copy/pastes of each other (why Idaho would even have/need a page for an extinct Caribbean species...) The ACTUAL researchers who study the field do not use the purported vernacular, as noted by .-- Kev  min  § 21:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not questioning why the sources exist, just that they do. And are they copy/pastes or do they all simply use the same vernacular name? Think about it. J0ngM0ng (talk) 23:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Why do yo assume we have not thought about it?-- Kev min  § 15:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Not assuming, just saying to consider any possibility. J0ngM0ng (talk) 17:14, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * We have, and we go with what the researchers how study the taxa use, not a fabricated pseudo vernacular name created for a compilation list.-- Kev min  § 17:58, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Right well, it's not psuedo vernacular if those scientific sources use it. Also not sure what "complilation list" you speak of. J0ngM0ng (talk) 22:15, 16 September 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.