Talk:Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum

WikiProject class rating[edit]

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following is a closed 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 not moved. Worth waiting a bit for the paper to be published and for the reclassification to be generally accepted. --rgpk (comment) 17:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum → Ophiognomonia clavigignenti-juglandacearum — A recently accepted study demonstrates the reclassification of Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum into the genus Ophiognomonia. Broders KD, Boland GJ, Reclassification of the butternut canker fungus, Sirococcus clavigignentijuglandacearum, into the genus Ophiognomonia, Fungal Biology (2010), doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2010.10.007[1]. 131.104.139.148 (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Note that the URL above is to a corrected proof of a peer-reviewed paper not yet published in the Journal, and won't work once it is dead tree published. But the paper is already citeable, I think as Broders K. D. and Bolanda G. J., Reclassification of the butternut canker fungus, Sirococcus clavigignenti-juglandacearum, into the genus Ophiognomonia, Fungal Biology (2010) but may not have the bibliographical details quite right. Andrewa (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Per WP:COMMONNAME as the current name gets many more google hits. Additionally there is little evidence that the new name is commonly supported by the scientific community - one unpublished article such as this is hardly conclusive especially in a field such as this where different papers and methodologies will often support a different placement in the tree and so a different name. If the new name becomes accepted in the scientific community then I'd support such a move. Dpmuk (talk) 12:19, 21 December 2010 (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.