Talk:Red side-necked turtle

Synonyms

I have updated the synonymy to utilise Rhodin, 2011, I kept some of the information from Fritz and Havas, 2007. However some of the species in the earlier synonymy are now included in Mesoclemmys gibba. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 21:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there is a reason you have kept some of the dashes? Can we remove those? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

yep missed them, should be gone now. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 22:18, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Synonyms

In the example "Chelys (Hydraspis) rufipes Gray, 1831", what is meant by the "Hydraspis" part? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraspis is an old name for Phrynops and Gray decided it was a sub genus of Chelys not considered correct in any way but is a part of the history. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 22:25, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So according to Gray(at that time) its binomial name was Chelys rufipes? Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 22:39, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thats correct, Chelys is a junior synonym of Chelus or the Matamata. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 14:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger with the Rhinemys page

As this is a monotypic genus and with little additive content by having both a genus and a species page I propose that the two pages be merged under the species page. A number of other monotypic genera are already dealt with in the same way I think it makes sense to continue this practice. A redirect for the genus name can be made for searching to assist readers. The combined genus and species page would have more content on that page than either could alone. Faendalimas ^talk 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support
I support this proposal as the one who has suggested it. Faendalimas ^talk 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I'm not sure if there is anything to "merge". If there is nothing to merge I would instead recommend a redirect of Rhinemys to Red side-necked turtle. If there is something to merge, that's fine with me. I believe the genus synonyms (if any) should ultimately be covered in any merged article. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yep I am recommending the genus article be a redirect to the species article. Cheers, Faendalimas ^talk 23:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is common practice and dosen't need to be discussed. Just do it! (Is that copyvio?) Dger (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Comments
- I would oppose redirecting(moving article) from the species to the genus even when WP:FNAME has been read to imply doing just that. My thinking is the article title should matches it's contents, and not confuse the reader. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 20:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]