Talk:Ovatoryctocara granulata

	Paleontology portal 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.PalaeontologyWikipedia:WikiProject PalaeontologyTemplate:WikiProject PalaeontologyPalaeontology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Arthropods Low‑importance

	Arthropods portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Arthropods, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of arthropods 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.ArthropodsWikipedia:WikiProject ArthropodsTemplate:WikiProject ArthropodsArthropods
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Advocated move to Ovatoryctocara

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: not moved as the genus level article has now been created. Salix (talk): 23:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ovatoryctocara granulata → Ovatoryctocara – Moving this species level article would be consistent with guidance from the WikiProject Paleontology. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So this is a monotypic genus? The article isn't clear on this point. --BDD (talk) 17:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This recent paper would suggest otherwise; it lists at least 3 (presumably all valid) species. --Stemonitis (talk) 15:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose If there are other species in this genus, it would be misleading to rename this species after the entire genus. --BDD (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are cartloads of articles on fossils on the level of genera, and only a few on species. We do this because in most fossils, relatively few characters have been preserved and species differ only from each other in very few observable characters. This also brings little stability in the nomenclature. This approach avoids species articles that are largely repetitions of the same information. Please look at examples such as Olenellus or Bristolia. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ovatoryctocara granulata is of particular interest as the First Appearance Datum of this species is considered as the defining marker for Cambrian Stage 5. Recently I extended the article on Lotagnostus and accomodated the consideration of L. americanus (a separate article on this species does not exist) as defining marker for Cambrian Stage 10 in a special section. The difference with Ovatoryctocara granulata is that a species article is in existence, while a genus article is not, contrary to the situation that the Lotagnostus genus article existed, but a L. americanus species article is not. I think a consistent approach here has merit. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 08:59, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How about a compromise? While this is the only species of Ovatoryctocara we describe, redirect Ovatoryctocara here and tag it with {{R with possibilities}}. If we get articles on the other species, we can make a call as to whether they should all have separate articles or if they should all be described at genus level. How's that? --BDD (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only, I will make a genus level article, and not species articles. And the information I'll put in for O. granulata will be more substantial than the information in the current article on O. granulata. But yes, if people will not start to split up the new content, I'm fine with your proposal. Dwergenpaartje (talk) 20:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Page Ovatoryctocara already exists and is a full article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see Dwergenpaartje created it. Any objections to closing this, then? --BDD (talk) 23:14, 28 June 2013 (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.