Talk:Musca depicta

Article Title concerns
Aware that this article's title is potentially misleading as it's not a valid scientific name (unlike the real species of fly, Musca domestica), I moved it to Musca depicta (illustration) to avoid confusion. This seems especially important for users searching on the scientific binomial. However, the article creator has moved it back again, which I don't agree with, so I seek consensus here as to the most appropriate title for this page. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Our policy says we do not add disambiguating quailifiers for titles which have a single meaning. I fail to see how can this be confusing: it is sufficient to read the first line of the article. Really, don't treat readers as idiots; modern American liberal education does this successfully without help from Wikipedia. Nevertheless nobody is worried that Lupus Hellinck is not a skin disease and if someone decides that Canis Major is Big Bad Wolf then the problem is certainly in his head, not in Wikipedia.. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Another possible reason for adding flies to paintings
Could flies have been depicted because they were more of a part of everyday life back then? I don't know if people could keep flies out of their buildings like now, as the window screen was invented around 1840. Greg Dahlen (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)