Talk:Nama hispida
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
 | On 2 March 2026, it was proposed that this article be moved from Nama hispidum to Nama hispida. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Requested move 2 March 2026
- 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 to Nama hispida. Consensus from the discussion here and at Talk:Nama (plant)#Gender is that this is non-controversial move with support from the editors involved. (non-admin closure) nil nz 03:47, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
Nama hispidum → Nama hispida – Nama hispida is the spelling accepted for this taxa. Sources such as GBIF, ITIS SEINet and CalFlora list Nama hispida as the accepted spelling and most include Nama hispidum as a synonym. Marsofthestars (talk) 01:12, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- It does seem that most taxonomic databases, including the all important IPNI, treat Nama as feminine and so use feminine endings for the epithets. The species list at Nama (plant) is confused, and not just this page needs to be moved. USDA uses neuter endings. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- See Talk:Nama (plant). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:55, 2 March 2026 (UTC)
- The brief discussion at Talk:Nama (plant) and the changes I have made to the article seem to me to make it clear that the move is uncontroversial, but the move request needs to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2026 (UTC)
- Thank you for weighing in and getting the rest of the Nama species moved! I didn't know the Latin gender agreement rules, so I appreciate having a basis for that now! :) Marsofthestars (talk) 13:37, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
- The brief discussion at Talk:Nama (plant) and the changes I have made to the article seem to me to make it clear that the move is uncontroversial, but the move request needs to be formally closed by an uninvolved editor. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2026 (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.