Talk:Dandelion (disambiguation)

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 result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dandelion (disambiguation) → Dandelion – As discussed at Taraxacum#Most sources agree that plant is not native to the Americas, there is a long and continuing history of confusion between the common dandelion, Taraxacum officinale and the genus Taraxacum. Dandelion currently redirects to Taraxacum, as is appropriate, but many readers, unaware that there is a multitude of dandelion species, insert changes at Taraxacum that apply only to Taraxacum officinale. I propose that this disambiguation page should be renamed to Dandelion, to prevent that confusion. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Sminthopsis84 (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Alternate if people are inserting things about Taraxacum officinale at Taraxacum, then doesn't that indicate that Taraxacum officinale is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the term, and thus dandelion should redirect to Taraxacum officinale or that Taraxacum officinale should be moved to dandelion ? -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE if my alternate proposal fails to gain traction, then the nominator's proposal is acceptable to me. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Oppose; in fact, Taraxacum or Taraxacum officinale should be moved to Dandelion. Red Slash 05:37, 22 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 Slash 22:50, 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"?

Peter coxhead (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 Slash 19:08, 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. bd2412 T 14:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. They are going to a page that often is not what they are looking for. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:15, 26 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]

Oppose I see no reason to get rid of a perfectly good disambig page because someone misunderstands the usage of the subject term. ArcAngel (talk) ) 02:26, 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]

Oppose. We optimise for readers, not editors. Srnec (talk) 03:16, 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]

I think that would be equivalent to the current situation, having it go to Taraxacum, since all the others are false dandelions. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 13:33, 19 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.