Talk:Grey oak

DAB with exclusively items in one class/type

This is the first time I've tried using this more specific template...so..As this DAB has entries, all of which "exclusively of items in one of the more specific classes" (per MOSDAB), my understanding is that {disambig} should not be used but a more specific one - {Species Latin name disambiguation} seemed to match. I had the same query myself - is that just for disambiguating a Latin term, so I saw Horse mussel - it is was in use for disambiguating an English term with Latin titled entries - like this page, but has now been removed. My bigger question is when to use these specific DAB types (and why don't we have a species DAB subtype), and when to use set index? I don't understand the division (as worded in MOSDAB), but ask here before asking/proposing clarification on the MOSDAB talk. Widefox; talk 09:13, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from my discussion on Talk:Grey oak - I just saw you fixed the Latin class DAB (Horse mussel) - good, at least I understand it now! Can you help me? My understanding is that if there's a specific class of disambig, then use that, else use the main {disambig}. right? OK, so why don't we have a species class, and how do I go about creating one? This is such an obvious class, I'm assuming there's a flaw in my logic - as someone else would have done this already, right? OK, now, where do these "class" DABs stop and set-index start - as ship names for instance are set-index. Can you disambiguate? Widefox; talk 09:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, {{disambiguation}} is always appropriate and in many respects is the only template needed. For reasons that I don't completely fathom, some editors and projects want special disambiguation templates for things of interest to them (which for most purposes could be met equally well by using a category with {{disambiguation}}). So OTOH, I don't really support creating new templates to identify specialized uses, unless there is some need to do so that cannot be satisfied by adding a category to the main template. Having so many specialized templates only makes things more confusing than necessary. But, there's little that can be done to keep them from proliferating. There is Template:Biology disambiguation and a number of branches below that such as Template:Taxonomy disambiguation

There also already is Template:Plant common name, which identifies set indices. But this has an unfortunate drawback in that such pages are not included in the reports of disambiguation pages with incoming links that require disambiguation. I seem recall something similar for animals, though I can't find it at the moment.

I might note that there is also Template:Common name for, which is a hatonte that can be placed on a primary topic for a common name.

BTW, you might try contacting user:Nono64 who has done work in the past on disambiguation of species-related pages. older ≠ wiser 12:09, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the full reply - good to hear your opinion. I don't see the point of anything other than {{disambiguation}} either, navigation doesn't need flavours or sub projects but "just" compliance with best practice, which is better served with one simple, clear standard rather than proliferation and fragmentation IMHO. I suppose coordinating maintenance by projects is a good enough reason for tolerating the complexity, as long as it doesn't encourage ownership and over-inclusion when compliance should be top.

set-index usage - I agree, in fact its carte blanche... What benefit justifies that fundamental drawback undermining disambiguation maintenance? The guidance that set-indexes may or may not comply with MOSDAB means...quite naturally when deregulated, editors/projects will err on the verbose and deviate from MOSDAB when there is no reason IMHO. OK, that still leaves my question - when to set-index instead of a DAB template, and when to create both?! Widefox; talk 10:00, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this new addition Category:Plant common names seems logical but again seems on the edge of MOSDAB with categories deemed not necessary, so:

proposal: create disambig template with Plant common names Widefox; talk 18:23, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm taking the DAB project banner off and replacing it with Plants project. I previously replaced the DAB template with a SIA template without seeing this talk page and feel compelled to respond to some of the points above. The loss of dab maintenance with a SIA is unfortunate. My understanding of MOSDAB is that this article is already kind of borderline; MOSDAB wants the titles of blue link articles to do most of the work in disambiguating AND the titles of blue link articles should ideally incorporate the term being disambiguated. Since this article is "exclusively of items in one of the more specific classes", Grey oak (plant) doesn't work. Links like Grey oak (Casuarina glauca) would be better for MOSDAB, but this approach involves creating a bunch of essentially useless strangely titled redirects, and the reader still has no more guidance then they do with a bare scientific name.

If an article on a plant common name is a SIA and not restrained by MOSDAB, I can include several phrases that help the reader find the article on the plant they're looking for. Native range, salient features like flower color or habitat, notable uses, or maybe even a photo gallery (see Blue lily) can all help the reader find the plant they want, but are really getting out of what MOSDAB allows. There are some DABs which cover a term applied to several plants as well as non-plant topics. Dealing with these is a little tricky when trying to stay with in MOSDAB. Sycamore and Sycamore (disambiguation) is one case where the plants can be split off into a SIA.

I've been working a lot on plant common names since the comments above, and have been converting DABs to SIAs. The contents of Category:Plant common names have changed quite a bit since September 2012. Most of the articles in that category are now SIAs exclusively about a common name for several plants, but a significant fraction are DABs for a term applied to several plants as well as non-plant topics (these are mostly included in the Plant common name category via the |plants parameter in the DAB template). I've edited {{Plant common name}} to add Category:Set indices on plant common names as well as Category:Plant common names to articles using the Plant common name template. There was a recent request at Template_talk:Disambiguation#Edit_request_-_use_disambiguation-specific_category_names to modify the DAB template to add a new category (Category:Plant common name disambiguation pages) for DABs using the |plants parameter. This seems like a good idea; the Plant common name SIA and DAB categories could then be made children of Category:Plant common names (which would then directly contain only manually categorized articles). Plantdrew (talk) 04:10, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since the discussion above, my understanding of the SIAs and DABs and their relationship has improved, mainly due to getting the misleading SIA guideline fixed. It would be valid as either a DAB or an SIA, and agree that it may be served better as an SIA. Widefox; talk 08:48, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]