Talk:Bateidae

Requested move 27 October 2024

It has been proposed in this section that Bateidae be renamed and moved to Batea (genus).

A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil.

Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly.

Links: current log • target log • direct move

Bateidae → Batea (genus) – Per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, a monogeneric family should be described at the genus's title. However, in this case the genus requires more disambiguation than the family, which might contradict WP:NATDIS. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:36, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: WikiProject Tree of Life has been notified of this discussion. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:45, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (crustacean), not (genus) is the most consistently used disambiguating term for amphipod genera that are ambiguous (see Category:Amphipod genera). WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA does call for using the genus title for a monotypic family. The essence of MONOTYPICFAUNA is that monotypic taxa should be covered at the title of the lowest non-monotypic rank, but no lower than genus: classes/orders/families with a single genus redirect to the genus title; genera with a single species have the species redirect to the genus title. However, MONOTYPICFAUNA does indicate an exception when a genus with a single species is ambiguous; the species name is used as the title in that case. Genera are the only taxonomic rank where ambiguity of titles is a significant issue. Using (monotypic) family titles to avoid ambiguity of genus titles makes some sense, but does complicate the logic of MONOTYPICFAUNA, which is already pretty complicated. Plantdrew (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:NATDIS and the spirit of WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA, which also mentions natural disambiguation. In any case, per Plantdrew, it would be prefereable to not use 'genus' as the dab term. YorkshireExpat (talk) 13:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, in agreement with Expat, and also that dab should be "Batea (crustacean)". It looks like only two actual pages link to the existing dab, so that's a trivial change. Dyanega (talk) 14:55, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dyanega: Are you talking about:
The exception is when a monotypic genus name needs to be disambiguated. The article should then be at the species, since this is a more natural form of disambiguation.
That doesn't apply here, since it's the family that's monotypic, not the genus. jlwoodwa (talk) 14:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]