 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | This article was nominated for merging with Amphimenia on 6 April 2023. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was merge. |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was merge. UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
This article should be merged into Amphimenia, as it is typical for monotypic taxa to be co-resident with the containing taxon. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. It's policy for monotypic taxa, so just do it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not a proponent for such a merger, as both articles have a different code in Wikidata and are treated differently in other databases. But as it is the policy for monotypic taxa in Wikipedia, I can't object to such a merger. But what if in the future another species of this genus is discovered ? Then we'll have to recreate this article all over. That's why I'm not such a proponent of this policy.
JoJan (
talk)
08:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's easy to do. The old article is retained in the edit history - UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I just made
this sorta mirror for if another species of Amphimenia actually gets discovered. If it actually happens, I'll recreate this article by just copying that page and changing the part where it says it's the only species of Amphimenia.
IdfbAn (
talk)
07:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- But policy says the articles should be merged; there should only be one article. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:39, 9 April 2023 (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.
|
| This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
| This article was nominated for merging with Amphimenia on 6 April 2023. The result of the discussion ( permanent link) was merge. |
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
- The result of this discussion was merge. UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
This article should be merged into Amphimenia, as it is typical for monotypic taxa to be co-resident with the containing taxon. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- Absolutely. It's policy for monotypic taxa, so just do it. Peter coxhead ( talk) 20:23, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not a proponent for such a merger, as both articles have a different code in Wikidata and are treated differently in other databases. But as it is the policy for monotypic taxa in Wikipedia, I can't object to such a merger. But what if in the future another species of this genus is discovered ? Then we'll have to recreate this article all over. That's why I'm not such a proponent of this policy.
JoJan (
talk)
08:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
- That's easy to do. The old article is retained in the edit history - UtherSRG (talk) 11:12, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, I just made
this sorta mirror for if another species of Amphimenia actually gets discovered. If it actually happens, I'll recreate this article by just copying that page and changing the part where it says it's the only species of Amphimenia.
IdfbAn (
talk)
07:03, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
- But policy says the articles should be merged; there should only be one article. Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:39, 9 April 2023 (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.