Talk:Trichosphaeriales

Requested move 3 May 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: No consensus to move  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  22:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Trichosphaeriales → Trichosphaeriaceae – As per WP:MONOTYPICTAXA. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. This seems pretty noncontroversial, do we need to wait for RM to be over to make the move? Esculenta (talk) 00:37, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can do it go for it. On your head be it ;). I can't because I'm not admin. YorkshireExpat (talk) 15:12, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Nah, I can't do it either because of my weak powers. I put in a request at Requested moves/Technical requests. Esculenta (talk) 17:17, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I'm not convinced this is a move that will benefit readers. WP:MONOTYPICFLORA does say "because genera are better known than the other ranks (and families are better known than orders)..." that it may be better to put the monotypic order at the family name rather than the order. But I'm not convinced that the family is better known than the order in this instance. An ngram search reveals that "Trichosphaeriales" is significantly more common in book sources over the past 15 years or so, and the likes of Encyclopaedia Britannica and the National Biodiversity Network Atlas also refer to these fungi as Trichosphaeriales. Looking at this from a reader-centric and WP:COMMONNAME, rather than a rules-focused approach, I think the current name is preferable. Cheers &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Might have a point here. YorkshireExpat (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)