Talk:Orange leaf-nosed bat

Mammals: Bats Low‑importance

	Mammals portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mammals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mammal-related subjects 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.MammalsWikipedia:WikiProject MammalsTemplate:WikiProject Mammalsmammal
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Bats Task Force (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Orange leaf-nosed bat is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Requested move 28 January 2019

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.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 08:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orange leaf-nosed bat → Rhinonicteris aurantia – Several names, common or outmoded, refer to Rhinonicteris aurantia, without doubt the most commonly used name in English and other languages. Fwiw, leaf-nosed is not a unique description, the nose-leaf is often part of the diagnosis to numerous species. It is orange, or golden, apparently. Anyway, the norm is to move a species to the monotypic genus name, which is Rhinonicteris. Please also read the article, this tiny fella is button cute and interesting, one form is in difficult circumstances. cygnis insignis 08:43, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment Cygnis insignis not sure what the conventions are. I looked around to confirm monotypy and it looks like there is an extinct species of Rhinonicteris, Rhinonicteris tedfordi. In theory, there could be an article about R. tedfordi. Does the "move species to monotypic genus name" apply when it's only referring to extant monotypy? I'm not sure. Enwebb (talk) 16:34, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to check that! Fairly sure that has seen genus articles split to the species, and Tedford's would have different things to say. I've altered the move target, cheers. If it is moved I'll add Rhinonicteris tedfordi to the list and create a separate genus article, unless someone gets there first. cygnis insignis 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The general consensus for mammals is to use the common name from MSW3. While the taxonomy of MSW3 has become outdated in some areas, and those changes could lead to ambiguity or other reason to change the article title, I am not seeing a revision to the taxonomy that would impact the appropriate article title in this case. I am open to revisiting a discussion on whether mammal species articles should (in most cases) be under the scientific name, which in this case would be Rhinonicteris aurantia barring a further consensus to treat monotypic genera differently, but absent that I think we should retain the current article title. Rlendog (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that preferable? Where was the discussion to adopt MSW3 labels attached to the taxonomy, except as proxy to that purpose, and which I think states the standard disclaimer that it has no intention of making decisions on which vernacular is promoted. And why would they, make a redundant system, the only place that has happened in the IOC and wikipedia. It is against policy and guidance, why twist and turn on article titles when that is well established by our sources. cygnis insignis 16:56, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Had an edit conflict with the prior comment, but if there is an extinct species under Rhinonicteris then that would be further reason not to make this move, since Rhinonicteris should then cover both species.Rlendog (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You have to split the article in any case, it is both species and genus article currently. cygnis insignis 16:58, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. A part of the Taxonomy section of this article should be moved to a Rhinonicteris article if and when that article gets created. I also checked a couple of other sources which use a more up-to-date taxonomy than MSW3 regarding the common name. ITIS and Mammal Diversity Database both agree that the common name for this species is "orange lead-nosed bat" so I don't see a problem with the article title. Rlendog (talk) 17:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've expressed a preference for the current title, which required the name of the proposed title to verify. Why do that? cygnis insignis 17:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the question is. I think this species should be under the current title "Orange leaf-nosed bat." Ideally, someone should make an article for Rhinonicteris, covering the genus and including some information from the taxonomy section in this article. And ideally there should be an article on Rhinonicteris tedfordi too. Rlendog (talk) 18:14, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or to put it another way, my first choice would be to split this article into "Orange leaf-nosed bat," covering most of the content that is already here, and another article Rhinonicteris, containing the 1 1/2 paragraphs from this article's taxonomy section that covers the genus, as well as mention of the fossil species Rhinonicteris tedfordi. My second choice would be to just leave this article as is. Neither choices require a page move though. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose moving the page to the scientific name. I think that "orange-leaf-nosed bat" is the commonly recognizable name per WP:COMMONNAME. Scientific names may be the most intuitive for taxonomists, but the vast majority of people would have no clue what an article titled Rhinonicteris aurantia is about. I don't see enough common names floating around that there is genuine confusion over what the common name of this species is, which could justify using the scientific name. I believe that Rhinonicteris should be a standalone article and that we should also make an article for R. tedfordi. Enwebb (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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