Talk:Pteraspidomorpha

Requested move 12 April 2025

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Counting together the requester and the 1 supporter, there are two in favor of the new title. The two supporters left replies arguing against the 1 opposer, who did not comment afterwards. FYI: I am not an editor involved in marine biology, I am just a page mover closing an RM discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) ―Howard • 🌽³³ 10:19, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

---

Pteraspidomorphi → Pteraspidomorpha – Recently the Pteraspidomorpha class was in the monotypic superclass Pteraspidomorphi. This usage was not accepted universally so I deleted that superclass. Now we have to move the page to Pteraspidomorpha. Jako96 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Reading Beans, Duke of Rivia 08:37, 17 May 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. Garsh (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Oppose: Pteraspidomorphi is the class name. Literature refers almost entirely to Pteraspidomorphi, not Pteraspidomorpha, and Google and Scholar.Google up "Pteraspidomorphi" instead of "Pteraspidomorpha". Mr Fink (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikiproject fishes has recently (within the last year or so) made a push to standardize the extinct fish classification around Fishes of the World's 5th edition, which varies in its naming scheme pretty wildly from that used by many older works on these groups. Pteraspidomorphi is certainly the more commonly used term at the class level in both older literature and in some other comprehensive sources on extinct fish classification like Philippe Janvier's Early Vertebrates, but favoring the traditional classification scheme puts the page at odds with FOTW and by extension the classification used on several other extinct fish pages. This similarly goes for classes/orders within osteostraci/cephalaspidomorphi/morpha, the pages for which do not seem to have attracted major attention from editors since before 2016 and which I have detailed below. The composition of the groups are not changed by these renamings or rerankings, just the taxobar and the name, so I don't see the need to overrule in favor of use in literature rather than just keep the page in line with the agreed, authoritative taxonomy source for one of the relevant Wikiprojects (Wikiproject Paleontology has no agreed upon taxonomic source at all). Gasmasque (talk) 23:13, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

No. The class name is Pteraspidomorpha. Pteraspidomorphi was a former monotypic superclass. Jako96 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

Strongly support per monophyly and per consistency with other ostracoderm classes, which use the class name rather than the monotypic superclass name. As presented in FOTW 5E Pteraspidomorphi/a have equivalent definitions and the lower classification (morpha) would be the one the page should be named and structured around. I disagreed with your recent tweak to Thelodonti to remove mention of the superclass because it is still worth including in the article's body, but I agree that they are redundant and should not be the name or primary focus of the page.

On a related note, should similar moves be proposed for the classes/orders within superclass Osteostracimorpha/Cephalaspidomorpha? Fishes of the World considers Osteostracimorphi to be monotypic, containing only the class Cephalaspidomorphi (ranked as a superclass on the Wiki and not monotypic on here), which is itself subdivided into the orders Pituriaspiformes, Galeaspiformes and Cephalaspidiformes/Osteostraci (all currently ranked as classes and named as such). The Wiki's classification and naming scheme is that that was standard prior to FOTW, and seems to have just never been fully updated, resulting in a somewhat confused mess of some names and rankings being those from FOTW 5 and some being presumably based on Janvier's Early Vertebrates or John Long's Rise of Fishes from the 90s. Gasmasque (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this discussion. I think we should ask someone to move this page. And yes, I think that we should use the FotW5 taxonomy for these pages too. Jako96 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2025 (UTC)

@Graham Beards. Can you delete the page Pteraspidomorpha so we can move this page to there? Jako96 (talk) 10:01, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes if and when a consensus is reached. I don't think we have one yet. Graham Beards (talk) 11:28, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

What do you think about this, then? Jako96 (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

There may simply not be enough active editors in this area to weigh in and reach consensus. If Avancna disagrees with the move I don't think it is a very big deal if the page's name is maintained given the low traffic, very few interested editors, and inconsequential nature of one letter being changed in the name. His opinion, given his work as one of the only archaic fish editors on the site, has merit, and the rest of Wikiproject Paleo is made up largely of dinosaur and mammal editors who have expressed no opinions on the matter in the last months. It may be worth bringing this up on the (admittedly largely inactive) WP:Fishes talk page, or directly notifying some of the editors who decided that extinct fish should still align with FOTW (2016), but they themselves focus primarily on modern fishes and extinct groups only came up in that discussion as something of an afterthought. I stand by my original statement that it is best to have a unified page and taxobox naming scheme as long as alternatives are discussed in-text, and that the page should align with FOTW in this case, but I don't particularly expect that change to be made. Gasmasque (talk) 22:10, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: More discussion may need to be required, as there are good arguments supporting both titles. Garsh (talk) 18:09, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.