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: not moved because Thermotogae is the more popular name. (non-admin closure) Jako96 (talk) 20:35, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thermotogae → ThermotogotaThermotogota – The phylum should be the name instead of the class I think. Jako96 (talk) 10:16, 1 April 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:26, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, agreed. Artoria2e5 🌉 06:23, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The convention for animals (WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA) and plants (WP:MONOTYPICFLORA) is to use the lowest rank for the page title in cases of monotypy. There isn't any explicit convention for bacteria, but I don't see a reason to adopt a different practice for bacteria. Plantdrew (talk) 17:04, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Unless there is a genus, species or infraspecific taxon, I think for prokaryotes we should choose the highest taxon. Fusobacteriota for example, sole phylum in the kingdom Fusobacteriati. I think Fusobacteriati should be the name there too. I'll soon request a move there.

  Like think about it. The order Fusobacteriales is in the monotypic class Fusobacteriia, Fusobacteriia is in the monotypic phylum Fusobacteriota and Fusobacteriota is in the monotypic kingdom Fusobacteriati. Should we really name it Fusobacteriales? Like there is a whole kingdom there!

  And there are exceptions to some cases. For example, WikiProject Dinosaurs says that:

  • When a combined article includes a genus, the article should be named after the genus and focus on the genus (use the genus)
  • When a combined article includes a family and higher-ranked group, use the family
  • When a combined article includes any group higher than a family and not any of the above circumstances follow, use the highest-rank group
  • When a combined article includes a clade and a linnaean group, use the linnaean group
  • When a combined article includes two clades, use the more inclusive group

  Jako96 (talk) 17:48, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  By the way I requested the Fusobacteriota to Fusobacteriati move at Talk:Fusobacteriota - Wikipedia. Jako96 (talk) 17:53, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jako96 I see what you mean, but I oppose because I believe the taxon level preference for article titles should go like this: Most common name → Phylum → Genus → Class → Order → Family. Any monotypic taxon above phylum (kingdom, superphylum, etc.) should be titled after the phylum, because that's the high-ranking unit used in deep evolution (e.g., Micrognathozoa, Telonemia). Any monotypic taxon below phylum should preferably be titled after the genus, because that's on average the most widely used taxonomic unit in microbial diversity after phylum (e.g., Platysulcus, Olisthodiscus). In cases where the most common name is not a phylum or below (such as Provora) this can be overriden. This is my opinion based on the instinctual notion I've developed over time while researching biodiversity. — Snoteleks (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You didn't oppose me. You supported my point. Now the page's title is Thermotogae, which is the class name. I proposed to make it the phylum's name, which is Thermotogota. And I didn't understand what you said with Provora. Jako96 (talk) 17:24, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jako96 Oh... I completely misread then. I thought somehow you were asking for a kingdom-level rank move. Sorry, I was not fully awake yet.

  The Provora mention also makes no sense on my part. It's not monotypic. I don't know why I thought it made sense. — Snoteleks (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay. So let's move the page to Thermoproteota. You guys agree? Jako96 (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jako96 I'm still unsure. Google Scholar gives only 797 results for Thermoproteota as opposed to 6,460 results for Thermotogae. It seems that Thermotogae remains as the most widely used name, and there's still no "official" policy in WP:TOL when it comes to article titles (the policy per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA and WP:MONOTYPICFLORA is to use the lowest rank, but there's nothing settled for bacteria, archaea, or protists). In WP:PROTISTA I have advised to use the most commonly used name in scientific literature, because that's what I've seen as the standard procedure in many articles. I would suggest that you don't move it yet, and bring this into a general discussion at WP:TOL so that we can all agree on what names take priority—not just here but in every article.

  A generalized discussion about this topic would benefit me as well. For example, I made the article Nanomonadea (a monotypic class) and another editor has subsequently lowered the article title to the order Uniciliatida even though that's a *far* less popular name, and even though it's not a plant, fungus, or animal. Every instance of these organisms is mentioned as Nanomonadea in the scientific literature, because that's what they were first described as. — Snoteleks (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I started a discussion at WP:TOL. See: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Which Taxon Should Be The Article Name In Monotypy Situations for Fungi, Prokaryotes and Protista? Jako96 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. There is no real rationale provided beyond what different editors think the title should be. Absent specific guidance for bacteria, alignment with the naming conventions for plants and animals is reasonable. Also, as brought up here Thermotogae is the common name in scientific literature. Thermotogae has 6,470 hits in Google Scholar compared to Thermotogota with just 536. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 16:08, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  You are right. Jako96 (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Myceteae If you don't mind, could you chime in at our discussion in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life and express support over preferring the most common name in scientific literature? — Snoteleks (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  My position here is limited in scope to the case presented and current WP policies and practices. I'd want to understand the impact of a broader standard for all these other organisms before deciding a universal standard. I will weigh in on the WP:TOL thread. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:32, 10 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Can we close this discussion now? Jako96 (talk) 19:22, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jako96 Yeah, pretty sure the conclusion is to keep the lower rank name. — Snoteleks (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]