Talk:Litobranchus

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. — ΛΧΣ  21  03:27, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Litobranchus → Litobranchus fowleri – Since genus is monotypic and any information currently valid for the genus is also valid for the species, article should be under species name. This also makes it easier to create a general genus page should more species be described and removes the difficulty of having to cut and paste specific information into the species article. Divingpetrel (talk) 03:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Naming conventions (fauna) says the article should stay put. Gorobay (talk) 00:44, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Gorobay. I expressed similar concerns at the Haptogenys RM. Practice and convention are clearly out of sync, but I'd prefer to the the latter modified first. --BDD (talk) 19:18, 7 March 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.