Talk:Murray crayfish

message: This species is more commonly known as the Murray Crayfish rather than the Murray River Crayfish and as such it should be titled Murray Crayfish. --Zig c 11:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, Zig, I've only just seen your message here. Firstly, all crustacean articles at the moment use lower case except for proper nouns, so your chosen title should have been "Murray crayfish". Secondly, I see no evidence that "Murray crayfish" is commoner than "Murray River crayfish". A web search for "Euastacus armatus + crayfish" gives a page full of "Murray River crayfish" with not a "Murray crayfish" in sight. Also, the name used by the ACT government in their document (see the reference in the article) is "Murray River crayfish". --Stemonitis 15:21, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No worries. I saw no replys so I acted!! With all due respect however as a fisherman (especially for this species) I have never once heard this species refered to as the Murray River crayfish. Curiously the ACT government refers to them as Murray crayfish here. An honours thesis that I have personally sighted by Asmus 1999 (which is refered to here) also refers to them as Murray crayfish (and this thesis unfortunately is one of the few pieces of primary research on the species). Other governemnt bodies that leave out the "River" part of the name include the Murray Darling Basin Commission, the commonwealth's Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) and probaby most significantly the NSW Fisheries Freshwater Fishing Handbook (which is basically the fishing bible which covers legal size and bag limits). Essentially all the significant government bodies (such as New South Wales fisheries, Murray Darling Basin Commission and the Department of Environment and Heritage do not refer to this species as Murray River crayfish and I counter that if you walked into any fishing shop you would also not hear them reffered to as Murray River crayfish (as reflected by the posting at this fishing website - fishvictoria.com. In addition to these sites a google search for "Murray Crayfish" returns 515 hits compared to 245 for "Murray River Crayfish". So for the reason that nearly all governemnt and acedemic literature (of which I have provided samples here) referes to this species as Murray crayfish (and sometimes Murray crays but never Murray River crayfish), as well as Murray crayfish returning more google hits I think that this page should be titled Murray crayfish.--Zig c 12:56, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: It's a shame I didn't notice this debate (if we can call it that) before, because I might have had something to say. However, if "Murray crayfish" really is the commoner name, then fine. I just didn't want the name changed willy-nilly, and at least it's properly capitalised now. Incidentally, there's a policy at Wikipedia that where there are numerous or competing common names, the scientific name should take precedence, but I don't think we need invoke that here. --Stemonitis 07:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

text: The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was move. —Nightstallion (?) 08:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of Article 

message: :Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
*Support as discussed --Zig c 05:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Voting