Talk:Fossil track

Requested move 10 August 2020

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: page moved. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 04:25, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

---

Ichnite → Fossil track – Common name, current title is incomprehensible to most readers. See discussion here:[1] FunkMonk (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)—Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 10:08, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - Neither Google Ngram nor pageview statistics show Fossil track above Ichnite. However, a "commonly known as" could be added. Son of a T-14 Armata (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised by that, didn't see the technical term was more common. FunkMonk (talk) 22:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Jens Lallensack who I discussed this with earlier, I'm not so sure what to do at this point. FunkMonk (talk) 09:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

This is not correct, just enter the word "dinosaur tracks" into those statistics; see also my comment below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose/rename - or rename to "ichnofossil". We should not avoid teaching the readers the Greek words commonly used in scientific papers, especially also because we link them for the articles anyway. Tisquesusa (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

"Ichnofossil" is a different article with a much broader scope. "Ichnite" is not a commonly used word in the scientific literature in comparison with "track". See comment below. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, we have trace fossil for that. FunkMonk (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support per WP:COMMONNAME. The Google Ngrams clearly show that "fossil track", "fossil tracks", and "fossilized tracks" are all individually more common than "ichnite". [2] Rreagan007 (talk) 01:27, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

• Support – "Track" is clearly, by a wide margin, the most commonly used term in the literature. Page statistics and Google Ngram are misleading here, because the specific combination "Fossil track" or "Fossil tracks" is uncommon – much more common are more specific combinations such as "dinosaur tracks". The term "dinosaur tracks" alone, when entered in those statistics, turns out to be more common than the word "ichnite" by many orders of magnitude, even though "dinosaur tracks" are not the only type of fossil tracks! --Jens Lallensack (talk) 10:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support per above. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
• Support - terms are synonymous and new option is much more accessible Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:58, 23 August 2020 (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.