This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Requested move 16 July 2014
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The problem in this case, I think, is that people believe that all "dandelions" are Taraxacum officinale, but actually they aren't. PRIMARYTOPIC only works where there is sufficient precision, i.e. where a word or term is used in more than one way, but in context, that way is precise.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
06:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
This is a classic case where non-botanists think that an English name has a clear meaning, i.e. that "dandelion" refers to a particular scientific taxon, but actually it doesn't, so "Dandelion" as a title fails the precision criterion of
WP:AT.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
12:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I disagree; I think this is a classic case where botanists think an English word does not have a clear meaning merely because it does not refer to a particular scientific taxon.
Shrub does not refer to any specific taxon but no one would think for a moment that it was unclear. It's a word with a level of precision that is not scientific.
Red Slash22:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Sure, in normal English usage it has a meaning, but my point was that this meaning does NOT correspond to a particular scientific taxon. There are a number of ways of dealing with this difference:
Write an article about the popular meaning of "dandelion", not about any particular taxon. We have sometimes done this in Wikipedia, but it has usually led to problems, because editors add taxon-related information inappropriately. Also there's not much to say, other than to point to the taxa which are fuzzily covered by the popular usage. Would you have an article about the popular use of "daisy"?
Have a set index article or disambiguation page which lists the different meanings of the popular word "dandelion", as has been done for say
Nettle or
Daisy.
Decide to force one particular meaning on the popular use of the word and name a taxon article by that word. This is done all the time, not just for plants, but I think it's not helpful to readers and isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia – we report, we don't decide. It can also cause endless arguments (consider
Monkey, which editors keep wanting to include apes and humans, because the scientific taxon does). Since you seem to agree that "dandelion" doesn't refer to a specific taxon, why would you want a taxon article titled "dandelion"?
AHH this is all so complicated! You've hit the nail on the head. I would make this a conceptdab, like
shrub, but I understand the current dilemma very well and there doesn't seem to be a great answer. (Surely, when people type in
monkey, they should get an article on monkeys (as they currently do)!) Looking at my previous comment, I don't think it was very civil; I apologize and appreciate your gracious response.
Red Slash19:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose, the current setup is likely to be the most helpful in getting the most readers to the page they are looking for.
bd2412T14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I doubt the confused reader knows what he is looking for. He is probably unaware that "dandelion" can be used in both a broad and narrow sense. What is certain is that a disambiguation page is not what most readers are looking for.
Srnec (
talk)
18:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Nothing would be got rid of. The "perfectly good disambig page" would become more prominent, because it would be where a reader would get to when they enter "dandelion".
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It is the readers who are currently confused, and we see evidence of that when some of them decide to add something to the page that doesn't belong there, or to make statements on the talk page such as "Most sources agree that plant is not native to the Americas". The suggested change is to help readers find the page they want.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
You think the readers who are confused will be less confused by being asked to decide if the plant they are looking for is the genus or the species? The ledes of both articles ought to explain the distinction and the usage of the term "dandelion" clearly.
Srnec (
talk)
18:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Any additional comments:
The problem for me is that
Dandelion (disambiguation)is a straightforward disambiguation page, since it lists topics other than plants. The general approach we've been following lately where the English name of a plant is ambiguous is to have a set index article (SIA) at something like "List of plants known as ...". Would it help to have an SIA at
List of plants known as dandelion and then have
Dandelion redirect to that?
Peter coxhead (
talk)
20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all
disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the
project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the
discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles
Requested move 16 July 2014
The following discussion is an archived 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
The problem in this case, I think, is that people believe that all "dandelions" are Taraxacum officinale, but actually they aren't. PRIMARYTOPIC only works where there is sufficient precision, i.e. where a word or term is used in more than one way, but in context, that way is precise.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
06:04, 17 July 2014 (UTC)reply
This is a classic case where non-botanists think that an English name has a clear meaning, i.e. that "dandelion" refers to a particular scientific taxon, but actually it doesn't, so "Dandelion" as a title fails the precision criterion of
WP:AT.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
12:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I disagree; I think this is a classic case where botanists think an English word does not have a clear meaning merely because it does not refer to a particular scientific taxon.
Shrub does not refer to any specific taxon but no one would think for a moment that it was unclear. It's a word with a level of precision that is not scientific.
Red Slash22:50, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Sure, in normal English usage it has a meaning, but my point was that this meaning does NOT correspond to a particular scientific taxon. There are a number of ways of dealing with this difference:
Write an article about the popular meaning of "dandelion", not about any particular taxon. We have sometimes done this in Wikipedia, but it has usually led to problems, because editors add taxon-related information inappropriately. Also there's not much to say, other than to point to the taxa which are fuzzily covered by the popular usage. Would you have an article about the popular use of "daisy"?
Have a set index article or disambiguation page which lists the different meanings of the popular word "dandelion", as has been done for say
Nettle or
Daisy.
Decide to force one particular meaning on the popular use of the word and name a taxon article by that word. This is done all the time, not just for plants, but I think it's not helpful to readers and isn't in the spirit of Wikipedia – we report, we don't decide. It can also cause endless arguments (consider
Monkey, which editors keep wanting to include apes and humans, because the scientific taxon does). Since you seem to agree that "dandelion" doesn't refer to a specific taxon, why would you want a taxon article titled "dandelion"?
AHH this is all so complicated! You've hit the nail on the head. I would make this a conceptdab, like
shrub, but I understand the current dilemma very well and there doesn't seem to be a great answer. (Surely, when people type in
monkey, they should get an article on monkeys (as they currently do)!) Looking at my previous comment, I don't think it was very civil; I apologize and appreciate your gracious response.
Red Slash19:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose, the current setup is likely to be the most helpful in getting the most readers to the page they are looking for.
bd2412T14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)reply
I doubt the confused reader knows what he is looking for. He is probably unaware that "dandelion" can be used in both a broad and narrow sense. What is certain is that a disambiguation page is not what most readers are looking for.
Srnec (
talk)
18:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Nothing would be got rid of. The "perfectly good disambig page" would become more prominent, because it would be where a reader would get to when they enter "dandelion".
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
It is the readers who are currently confused, and we see evidence of that when some of them decide to add something to the page that doesn't belong there, or to make statements on the talk page such as "Most sources agree that plant is not native to the Americas". The suggested change is to help readers find the page they want.
Sminthopsis84 (
talk)
13:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
You think the readers who are confused will be less confused by being asked to decide if the plant they are looking for is the genus or the species? The ledes of both articles ought to explain the distinction and the usage of the term "dandelion" clearly.
Srnec (
talk)
18:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)reply
Discussion
Any additional comments:
The problem for me is that
Dandelion (disambiguation)is a straightforward disambiguation page, since it lists topics other than plants. The general approach we've been following lately where the English name of a plant is ambiguous is to have a set index article (SIA) at something like "List of plants known as ...". Would it help to have an SIA at
List of plants known as dandelion and then have
Dandelion redirect to that?
Peter coxhead (
talk)
20:08, 16 July 2014 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.