The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. The move adheres to WP:FAUNA and is supported by a majority of editors participating in the discussion. Han (genus) may be a more appropriate title, but I'll leave that to a future RM or BOLD action. -- BDD ( talk) 17:59, 7 June 2013 (UTC) reply

– I think we should stick to the principle to describe fossils on the genus level, hence move the content to Han (trilobite) and REDIRECT this page. I think it is fine to explain the etymology, even outside the scientific source, however I think listing other species named after Han Solo, other Star Wars figures or even other movie characters, sits uneasy in this article, and would be better moved to the pages of the respective figure of this movie series or the Star Wars page itself. Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 13:02, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• I agree that the page should be moved to "Han (trilobite)," with "Han solo (trilobite)" as a redirect. But, we should also retain the list as, ultimately, the majority of readers coming to this particular page will be people who want to know about the trilobite named after Harrison Ford's alter ego.-- Mr Fink ( talk) 14:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Oppose; this is exactly the sort of case for which WP:IAR was written. Powers ^T 23:12, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support Move to "Han". Yes, it's a funny name, but this is not a humour site. FunkMonk ( talk) 23:38, 30 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Strong oppose this article is heavily about the etymology of the name, and half the article is about that. What you are proposing is a different article altogether, and should be created as a separate article. Moving this article to be about the genus would heavily unbalance such an article. Indeed such a move would make the genus article not about the genus at all, but about the etymology of the species name, which is a WP:COATRACK, and would end up being renamed back to "Han solo" -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 04:56, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply

That is not a valid argument. Half the article is "about that", but that's simply not what the article is for. The article is about the animal, not its name, and in time, the info will be balanced out. FunkMonk ( talk) 05:31, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply

• Oppose. An exception to the usual principle is warranted here. Hesperian 05:45, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support This is an article about a taxon. Wikipedia is not a popular magazine. I feel that the science behind the taxon must take priority over the popular view of things. I also believe that the paleontology project has a pretty firm guideline that one should create genus articles with species listed therein. And even in the gastropod project, for monotypic genera (genus with only one species) we create the genus article and list the full species info within it. I think a redirect would suffice to keep the popular side of this functioning. And if someone feels inspired to create a new list article Taxa named after fictional characters and actors or similar, then that I think would be the place to put the popular info about the naming of this and other similar taxa. Invertzoo ( talk) 12:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support The article is about the genus as well as the species, and the relevant guidelines are to have the article at the genus level, removing the necessity of a move should more species be described in the future.-- Kev min § 17:46, 31 May 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Move now or move later; what's the difference? Powers ^T 17:33, 1 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    • now follows the relevant guidelines and makes addition of additional species information easier. -- Kev min § 21:53, 1 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• To make this easier on the opposition: I have created an article on Albunione yoda, a section in the Star Wars article, and already in existence were a reference in the Geragnostus article and a reference in the Harrison Ford article. Dwergenpaartje ( talk) 09:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.