Bush moa is part of WikiProject Birds, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative and easy-to-use ornithological resource. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Please do not substitute this template.
This article is a part of WikiProject Extinction, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on extinct animals, extinct plants and extinction in general. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource 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.
This article is about the species Anomalopteryx didiformis; however it is called Anomalepteryx. I propose that we move Anomalepteryx to anomalepteryx didiformis. Discuss awsy. speednat (talk) 23:38, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
The genus is monotypic. See talk at Darwinius: FunkMonk (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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The result of the move request was request withdrawn, not moved. BencherliteTalk 11:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
It seems that there is only one species, the type species. As with other palaeontology and dinosaur articles, articles discussing only one genera are typically named after the genus, not the species. The article should be backed to the genus level. --Spotty11222 01:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
As I mentioned already, this article should be named after the genus. Only move it if there is consensus for a move. I have moved it back. FunkMonk (talk) 01:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose — For a monotypic genus, the Wikipedia convention is to use the genus name as the page name. --Una Smith (talk) 05:22, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
Oppose I guess mark this up as "my bad". First, I didn't look hard enough to see that it was monotypic, and second, per the guidelines on moves, I thought it was a non-controversial move. Again --- my bad. speednat (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.