Talk:Type locality (biology)

Summarize Timeline Fact Check

It has been proposed in this section that Type locality (biology) be renamed and moved to Type locality. 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

Type locality (biology) → Type locality – This is a WP:ONEOTHER situation where I think it's Type locality (biology) is more notable than Type locality (geology). Page views are clearly in favour of Type locality (biology) and I don't see how other sources of significance might play a part here, so I think that dealing with this ambiguity with a hatnote instead of a DAB would be a net benefit to readers. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 23:52, 26 May 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 05:07, 3 June 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Tree of Life has been notified of this discussion. Chess enjoyer (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2026 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Geology has been notified of this discussion (banner of Type locality (geology)).⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 01:00, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

• Comment - On a longer time scale (over 10 years) the pageviews are more similar, although I accept that things have gradually shifted towards a preponderance of Type locality (biology). My main concern is the third item on the DAB page Type site, which attracts more page views than either of the others. I don't myself see anything here that needs fixing. Mikenorton (talk) 14:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)

  Looking at the long-term pageview trend, I'm skeptical that the biology term has that much of an edge over the geology one, and would be inclined to somewhat oppose the move on that basis alone. My own searches don't show any significant use of type locality to mean type site (archaeology), however, so I don't see that as much of a concern.

  I think the current arrangement of pages is probably for the best. It would be nice to have clickstreams from type locality, but Wikinav is refusing to give me data on that atm. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 14:36, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  While I know it doesn't determine PTOPIC on its own, I would like to point out that Type locality (geology) is little more than a glorified stub while Type locality (biology) is a nearly 5,000 word article. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:17, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  In return, I would point out that article length rarely correlates with notability or primaryness. Furthermore, the current state of type locality (biology) is the result of a one-editor effort (or, given this editor's history, a one-LLM effort), not evidence that dozens of editors have expanded it because it is such an important topic. Until last month, in fact, it redirected to a section of another article. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 18:57, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

  Sure, but how many people are trying to get to Type site by searching for Type locality? ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 16:14, 1 June 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm largely in agreement with Mikenorton and Cremastra. The biology topic's pageviews lead solidified around early–mid 2022 and has grown but is not overwhelming. WikiNav doesn't work, I think, because pageviews for the dab page are too low. With ≈‍1 hit per day, hardly anyone is landing at the dab page, anyway, so there's not much of a navigation problem that needs solving here, anyway. —Myceteae‍🌈 (talk) 22:57, 5 June 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose. I oppose the move because Type locality (biology) and Type locality (geology) are two equally notable and distinct topics. Because they belong to two distinct areas of sciences, Earth sciences and Life sciences combining them will only confuse people and serves no useful purposes. Combining them will only make navigation more worse. As stated in another comment: "I don't myself see anything here that needs fixing." Paul H. (talk) 20:31, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

Alright, I concede there is pretty clear consensus against this. I considered withdrawing but I'd rather have an explicit consensus against declared by a non-involved editor. ⹃Maltazarian ^{ᚾparley${\displaystyle \lor }$investigateᛅ} 21:50, 6 June 2026 (UTC)