Talk:Cereus
 | Disambiguation | |||
| ||||
- 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: Move. A separate discussion on moving the article on the plant genus can be started at that article.--Cúchullain t/c 18:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
Cereus (disambiguation) → Cereus – Until recently there were two plant articles: an article about the genus Cereus at Cereus (genus), and an article about ceroid cacti (cacti with a columnar growth form) at "Cereus". However, this latter title was misleading; all reliable sources use "Cereus" as the genus name and either "ceroid cactus" or "ceriform cactus" for the more general group. No-one dissented for over a year from my comment at Talk:Ceroid cactus#Muddled article that the article was muddled and the name misleading. So I moved the article at "Cereus" to Ceroid cactus. Cereus is now a redirect to Ceroid cactus, although I think this is wrong. (My attempt to make it a redirect to Cereus (disambiguation) was reverted.)
I've been through all the article space links to Cereus; as of now there are none. The great majority should have been to Cereus (genus); a minority should have been to Ceroid cactus; there were a couple which should have been to other uses of the term.
I propose that this page, Cereus (disambiguation), should be moved to "Cereus". Although the major use of "Cereus" in Wikipedia is to for the plant genus, there are other uses, and I think the best link is to a disambiguation page. The alternative is to move Cereus (genus) to "Cereus". The present situation is the worst possible, since "ceroid cactus" is much less likely to be meant by "Cereus" and it encourages editors to make an incorrect wikilink. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support, on the grounds stated. Cheers! bd2412 T 14:39, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support Having the dab at the base title will ensure that incoming links get correctly disambiguated and the reader arrives at the article they want. As an aside from this proposed move, Cereus (genus) is problematic as there is also a Cnidarian genus, Cereus (anemone). Plantdrew (talk) 16:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, Cereus (genus) should be moved to Cereus (plant), but that can be handled separately. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
- cereus (plant) should point to the disambiguation page. cereus (genus) should be moved to cereus (plant genus), while "cereus (genus)" points to the disambiguation page. That is because ceroid cactus (the current target of "cereus") is also a plant article. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- However, we only use the minimum of disambiguation in Wikipedia; all that is needed is to disambiguate the sea anemone and the plant, for which just "plant" is ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- That is minimum disambiguation; "plant" is insufficient because the current "Cereus" is for ceroid cactus, which is also a plant. Considering the existing situation, and that the information at ceroid cactus still calls it "cereus", and this page still lists the ceroid cactus article, "plant genus" would be the necessary level of disambiguation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- The intention of disambiguation in Wikipedia is not to represent in full the meaning of the article title but rather to ensure that two article titles aren't exactly the same string of characters. So if "Cereus" leads to a disambiguation page, all that is needed is that the articles to which the reader is directed have different titles. "Cereus (anemone)", "Cereus (genus)" and "Ceroid cactus" work fine, but it is slightly more logical (although not strictly necessary) to use "Cereus (plant)" rather than "Cereus (genus)". Readers aren't going to type "Cereus (XXXX)", where XXXX is the disambiguating term, in the search box – they'll be directed to it by either the disambiguation page or by hatnotes. The fact that ceroid cacti are plants is irrelevant to disambiguation since the article title "Ceroid cacti" doesn't need disambiguating. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not presenting the full meaning. I am presenting minimal disambiguation. The title Cereus (plant) can refer to two articles on Wikipedia (Cereus, the cactus genus, and Ceroid cactus). The title Cereus (genus) can refer to two articles on Wikipedia (Cereus the cactus genus and Cereus the anemone). Neither form is sufficient WP:PRECISE to distinguish which of the two topics either of these title forms refers to. "Cereus (plant)" is ambiguous disambiguation. Or are ceroid cacti not plants? Or are they never called "cereus"? If they are never called "cereus", then the entry on the disambiguation page should move to the "see also" section, and the statement on the ceroid cactus article should be removed. If 'ceroid cacti' are called "cereus", then "(plant)" is ambiguous disambiguation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're still confusing the meaning of "disambiguation" generally and its meaning within Wikipedia. Read WP:Disambiguation. Applied to Wikipedia titles, disambiguation means "appending something in parentheses to a title that would otherwise be the same". Ceroid cactus doesn't need WP-disambiguation, so is irrelevant. The only WP-disambiguation needed is between Cereus (anemone) and Cereus (genus). It makes sense to change "genus" in the latter to "plant", because the difference between Cereus (anemone) and Cereus (genus) is that the first is a sea anemone and the second a plant, not that the first is a sea anemone and the second a genus. Only these two articles need disambiguating now. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, read WP:PRECISE. Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Your disambiguation schema fails to be precise enough to separate topics which have articles on Wikipedia. If multiple topics are covered by articles, then only the primary topic gets away without specifying how it differs from other topics found in articles. The topic of "ceroid cactus" is also known by the name "cereus", for which a plant genus "cereus" is a different topic. "cereus (plant)" can therefore refer to two different topics on Wikipedia, and thus is not precise enough to specify the plant genus. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- Well, we'll have to disagree on how disambiguation works in Wikipedia. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- No, read WP:PRECISE. Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. Your disambiguation schema fails to be precise enough to separate topics which have articles on Wikipedia. If multiple topics are covered by articles, then only the primary topic gets away without specifying how it differs from other topics found in articles. The topic of "ceroid cactus" is also known by the name "cereus", for which a plant genus "cereus" is a different topic. "cereus (plant)" can therefore refer to two different topics on Wikipedia, and thus is not precise enough to specify the plant genus. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- You're still confusing the meaning of "disambiguation" generally and its meaning within Wikipedia. Read WP:Disambiguation. Applied to Wikipedia titles, disambiguation means "appending something in parentheses to a title that would otherwise be the same". Ceroid cactus doesn't need WP-disambiguation, so is irrelevant. The only WP-disambiguation needed is between Cereus (anemone) and Cereus (genus). It makes sense to change "genus" in the latter to "plant", because the difference between Cereus (anemone) and Cereus (genus) is that the first is a sea anemone and the second a plant, not that the first is a sea anemone and the second a genus. Only these two articles need disambiguating now. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am not presenting the full meaning. I am presenting minimal disambiguation. The title Cereus (plant) can refer to two articles on Wikipedia (Cereus, the cactus genus, and Ceroid cactus). The title Cereus (genus) can refer to two articles on Wikipedia (Cereus the cactus genus and Cereus the anemone). Neither form is sufficient WP:PRECISE to distinguish which of the two topics either of these title forms refers to. "Cereus (plant)" is ambiguous disambiguation. Or are ceroid cacti not plants? Or are they never called "cereus"? If they are never called "cereus", then the entry on the disambiguation page should move to the "see also" section, and the statement on the ceroid cactus article should be removed. If 'ceroid cacti' are called "cereus", then "(plant)" is ambiguous disambiguation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
- The intention of disambiguation in Wikipedia is not to represent in full the meaning of the article title but rather to ensure that two article titles aren't exactly the same string of characters. So if "Cereus" leads to a disambiguation page, all that is needed is that the articles to which the reader is directed have different titles. "Cereus (anemone)", "Cereus (genus)" and "Ceroid cactus" work fine, but it is slightly more logical (although not strictly necessary) to use "Cereus (plant)" rather than "Cereus (genus)". Readers aren't going to type "Cereus (XXXX)", where XXXX is the disambiguating term, in the search box – they'll be directed to it by either the disambiguation page or by hatnotes. The fact that ceroid cacti are plants is irrelevant to disambiguation since the article title "Ceroid cacti" doesn't need disambiguating. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- That is minimum disambiguation; "plant" is insufficient because the current "Cereus" is for ceroid cactus, which is also a plant. Considering the existing situation, and that the information at ceroid cactus still calls it "cereus", and this page still lists the ceroid cactus article, "plant genus" would be the necessary level of disambiguation. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 12:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- However, we only use the minimum of disambiguation in Wikipedia; all that is needed is to disambiguate the sea anemone and the plant, for which just "plant" is ok. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Support this should be a multimove, as moving the plant should be done post-haste, moved to Cereus (plant genus). "(genus)" should redirect to the disambiguation page. Cereus (cactus) should also point to the disambiguation page. That ceroid cactus and cereus (genus) are both cacti articles means that "(plant)" should also point to the disambiguation page. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- See my comment above on Wikipedia policies on disambiguation; "plant genus" overkill. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- 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.