This article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
Requested move 28 March 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 section.
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
Estopedist1, you could have {{db-g7}}'ed the dab page and then moved the article yourself. Though you can't do that any more as there's been an objection. –
Uanfala (talk)16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I see no reason to consider the oppose rationale invalid. A scientific synonym such as the plant genus, Greniera, is still a valid genus. I'm no scientist so I must fall back on what I know, which might be wrong; however, "car" and "automobile" are synonyms, and yet they are both valid names for what they represent. Are synonyms in science much different than that? P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there06:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
In ictu oculi often uses what is, in principle, a clever trick for fishing out sources on the web where the term in question is specifically defined. However, that trick fizzles here: the one result that comes up is one where the words Greniera and in belong to different phrases, so they don't show what In ictu may have expected them to show. And besides, a single result from a search is below the threshold of statistical noise. If I were the closer of this discussion, I would discount that !vote. And as a participant, I would probably support the proposal: the synonym for the plant genus appears to be long outdated, and virtually all results I saw on the first page of a Google Books search were for the fly genus. –
Uanfala (talk)10:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
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 article is within the scope of WikiProject Insects, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
insects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InsectsWikipedia:WikiProject InsectsTemplate:WikiProject InsectsInsects articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
flies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
This article has been rated as Low-importance on the
importance scale.
Requested move 28 March 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 section.
It was proposed in this section that multiple pages be
renamed and moved.
Estopedist1, you could have {{db-g7}}'ed the dab page and then moved the article yourself. Though you can't do that any more as there's been an objection. –
Uanfala (talk)16:09, 29 March 2021 (UTC)reply
I see no reason to consider the oppose rationale invalid. A scientific synonym such as the plant genus, Greniera, is still a valid genus. I'm no scientist so I must fall back on what I know, which might be wrong; however, "car" and "automobile" are synonyms, and yet they are both valid names for what they represent. Are synonyms in science much different than that? P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there06:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
In ictu oculi often uses what is, in principle, a clever trick for fishing out sources on the web where the term in question is specifically defined. However, that trick fizzles here: the one result that comes up is one where the words Greniera and in belong to different phrases, so they don't show what In ictu may have expected them to show. And besides, a single result from a search is below the threshold of statistical noise. If I were the closer of this discussion, I would discount that !vote. And as a participant, I would probably support the proposal: the synonym for the plant genus appears to be long outdated, and virtually all results I saw on the first page of a Google Books search were for the fly genus. –
Uanfala (talk)10:10, 30 March 2021 (UTC)reply
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.