Talk:Gomphocarpus fruticosus
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
- 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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. ErikHaugen (talk | contribs) 05:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Gomphocarpus fruticosa → Gomphocarpus fruticosus – Updating taxonomy, made a typo, didn't realize there was already a redirect with that name. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 20:56, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support This is housekeeping, right? Is there any reason to think this move could be controversial? I have no subject matter expertise. Can a source be provided confirming that the target name is correct? If so, then that convinces me. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Support Housekeeping. Blue Raspberry, here's a source for you ([1]). The genus Gomphocarpus has masculine grammatical gender; the genus in which this species was previously placed, Asclepias, has feminine gender; the ending of the species name should agree with the gender of the genus. If the genus ends in -us, the species usually should end in -us, not -a (though there are some exceptional cases where a -us genus is feminine). Plantdrew (talk) 16:40, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- It is my opinion that this should be closed. Sminthopsis84, in the future go to the talk page and state that you are conducting a move. Make an assertion that you believe the move is uncontroversial housekeeping, then provide a source which verifies that the name you wish to use has been used in a reliable source. After that, go to the target page, nominate it for speedy deletion with criteria WP:G6 for uncontroversial housekeeping, then wait for an administrator to delete that page and execute the move. This is just an option; you made a correct choice in doing it the way that you did, and if you ask me, then I can conduct this for you and anyone else would also be happy to do this if you made the request in this way again. Let me know if there is ever anything else I can do for you. Thanks for doing this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll make notes to myself that a deletion request for the problematic redirect is the way to go. I'd forgotten that because I hadn't done this sort of thing for a while. As a general comment if someone is interested in streamlining this sort of thing somewhere deep in the system, I was unable to make the move myself because AvicBot had brought the total number of edits on that redirect up to 2, but if it had remained at 1 I would have had the power. Perhaps AvicBot could be considered an exception in the rules about moving pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks, I will reply to this on your talk page because bot talk is a bit off topic for this article's discussion page. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you. I'll make notes to myself that a deletion request for the problematic redirect is the way to go. I'd forgotten that because I hadn't done this sort of thing for a while. As a general comment if someone is interested in streamlining this sort of thing somewhere deep in the system, I was unable to make the move myself because AvicBot had brought the total number of edits on that redirect up to 2, but if it had remained at 1 I would have had the power. Perhaps AvicBot could be considered an exception in the rules about moving pages. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:07, 10 January 2014 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.