Talk:Mendosoma lineatum

Copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of the large-scale clean-up project of a massive copyright infringement on Wikipedia. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously.

For more information on this situation, which involved a single contributor liberally copying material from print and internet sources into several thousand articles, please see the two administrators' noticeboard discussions of the matter, here and here, as well as the the cleanup task force subpage. Thank you. --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

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. The rule in WP:FAUNA tells us to name the article on a monotypic species after the genus. Moving (renaming) articles is not difficult should new species be discovered in the genus. We never do copy-and-paste moves. EdJohnston (talk) 04:25, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Mendosoma → Mendosoma lineatum – Species belonging to monotypic taxa should be described under the species name, not that of the genus. While I note that Wikipedia has adopted the convention of describing such species under the genus name, I feel that this is in error as monotypic genera do not always remain monotypic. Using the current convention, particularly in cases such as this where a simple move has been rendered impossible, will create the necessity of performing a copy-and-paste move should a second species be described for this genus. When a genus is maintained as a redirect to its sole species, then the discovery of additional species is much more easily handled as a simple creation of a new article without having to move any information around. Relisted Armbrust The Homunculus 22:53, 9 January 2014 (UTC) Divingpetrel (talk) 11:56, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:FAUNA, which says monotypic genera should be titled at the genus level. Am I missing something? --BDD (talk) 00:17, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose If another member of the genus is recorded, a new RM should pass without issue. Currently falls under FAUNA as BDD mentions. benmoore 14:31, 11 January 2014 (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.

Requested move 13 August 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. per discussion consensus. When/if a page is made for any other Monosoma species (or even before), then the genus can be made into its own page as well. Without such a page, it remains a redirect to this one. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Shibboleth ink  (♔ ♕) 19:45, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Mendosoma → Mendosoma lineatum – There are two species in Mendosoma. See here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support or three see Quetzal1964 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Support we usually go with FishBase for taxonomy at the genus and species level, but Catalogue of Fishes is also a good source. FishBase doesn't have any record of Mendosoma caerulescens (either as an accepted species or a synonym). M. caerulescens was described in 1848, so this is not a case of FishBase not yet having a record for a recently described species. Given the failure of FishBase to account for M. caerulescens at all, I don't think we can rely on FishBase to state that Mendosoma is monotypic. Plantdrew (talk) 18:07, 18 August 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.