Talk:Geranium

Incorrect information - Medicinal Uses

Geraniums extracts have not been shown by scientists from the Helmholtz Zentrum Munchen, Germany to represent a potential new class of anti-HIV-1 agents for the treatment of AIDS as stated. The reference in question (http://www.financialexpress.com/news/hiv-south-african-geranium-root-may-kill-hiv1/1222105?rhnews%7Ctitle=South African geranium root may kill HIV-1|publisher=The Financial Express|accessdate=2014-01-31}) actually clearly states the plant is actually Pelargonium sidoides, not a true Geranium — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.131.141.191 (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Move

I think it would be best to move this article from Geranium (genus) to Geranium, and put a link to Pelargonium at the top. In my opinion having a disambiguation page is troublesome when so many pages link to it. If no one objects, I'm moving it. --Vlmastra 16:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. JoJan 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following is a closed discussion 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 proposal was No consensus Parsecboy (talk) 16:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geranium → Cranesbill

So that Geranium can become disambiguation page (which is sorely needed); "cranesbills" is the unambiguous term for this genus — Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. See WP:NC (flora) for guidance. I do agree, though, that there needs to be a Geranium (disambiguation) to collect the various hatnotes. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:27, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. To quote:

However, the common name of a taxon should be used for the article title if it is the only prominent English common name for the taxon (spelling variations excepted); it is more common (i.e. more broadly used) than the scientific name; it is unambiguous as the name of the taxon; and it is widely attested in reliable secondary sources (without the scientific name) in reference to the entire taxon as commonly circumscribed.

Geranium is only called "hardy geranium" in North American horticultural circles, and even then only a few species. As internationally understood, the term "geranium" refers to Pelargonium. At present we have 100+ articles mislinking (along the lines of Rhodinol) due to the Geranium article being the cranesbills. By comparison, we have less than 50 articles where the link is correct!

The housekeeping will be immense (nearly 200 articles to fix). Making Geranium a dab page offers a quick fix, the rest can be sorted out by and by ("geranium" is rarely mentioned in the suspect cases with any kind of reference - see e.g. Plume moth -, so it will depend on researching the issue in each and every case). I have already prepared a dab page, which we'll need in any case. It is HUGE (plants, locations, ships, poems, etc). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a nutshell, nobody except biologists and North American gardeners would think of Geranium as "geraniums". So Geranium (disambiguation) would fix nothing, as the number of mislinks would still be larger than the number of correct links. Do a search for "geranium", you'll see. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 03:38, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The naming convention is still under discussion and the dust hasn't fully settled. I wasn't citing it as my reason, merely providing a link for those that may not have seen it. I don't disagree that there's a tricky situation here because of the Pelargonium issue, but I don't think just shoving this page over to its common name is the best approach. How about the many species that are simply called "cranesbill" without a modifier? Wouldn't that also warrant a dab page? Perhaps to be most precise, here, Geranium (genus) might be best. --Rkitko ^(talk) 03:42, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree that Geranium should be a disambiguation page. Then links to it can be disambiguated, as per Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. However, Geranium is more widely known than Cranesbill and in light of the history of this title I would move the article back to where it came from: Geranium (genus). --Una Smith (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"(genus)" is not a proper disambiguation. There is no animal or protist genus Geranium at present as per Nomenclator Zoologicus, but with a name meaning "crane-like", I would not count on it to stay this way. (Also, NZ is not 100% complete. The problem discussed at Platycryptus (spider) only came to be because Kriechbaumer's genus is not listed in NZ). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:08, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We could cross that bridge when we come to it. Or, how about Geranium (plant)? --Una Smith (talk) 04:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the usual dab. But why? We have Maple and not Acer, Pine and not Pinus, and so on. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the two segregate genera Pelargonium and Erodium; your intent is to limit the scope of the article to the genus Geranium absent those segregates. Yes? So the article is not about all plants that go by the name "geranium"; it is about that genus. --Una Smith (talk) 05:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I don't see what the problem is. What is a meaning of "geranium" that is not covered by the topic of this article? This a specific instance of the general case where a given page Name1 supposedly needs to be moved to Name2 (or to Name1 (disambiguator)) to make room for a dab page at Name1. Such a proposal is normally (always?) supported by the existence of a dab page at Name1 (disambiguation), accompanied by a compelling argument that there is no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for Name1. I see none of this being the case here. By the way, WP:NC (flora) has been in flux and is in dispute, and so cannot be used for guidance, but the general naming policy, guidelines and conventions provide more than enough guidance. --Born2cycle (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Born2cycle, Geranium already is a dab page of sorts: note the disambiguations in text of Pelargonium, [Erodium]], and Germanium. Also, Dysmorodrepanis mentions a much more extensive dab page in the works. Dysmorodrepanis, would you care to show us your draft dab page? --Una Smith (talk) 05:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Primarily because it would damage our categorization system, see Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora), and because the name Cranesbill is ambiguous, as it is often applied to Erodium. I could probably support turning this into a disambiguation page if the current article is moved to Geranium (xxxx) with some disambiguator, which I cannot figure out at the moment. Colchicum (talk) 06:02, 5 December 2008 (UTC) However, it is not easy to figure out. Geranium is a plant and Pelargonium is a plant, Geranium is a genus and Pelargonium is a genus, Geranium belongs to Geraniaceae and Pelargonium belongs to Geraniaceae. Colchicum (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There is no need for a disambiguation page when there are only two meanings; hatnotes will do. If most people understand "Geranium" as meaning Pelargonium, perhaps that is the primary meaning, in which case Geranium could move to Geranium (genus) or we could follow Andrewa's proposal below. Sam⁵ (talk) 14:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as proposed, but Support a change.

I can't see why "genus" is not a proper disambiguation. "Geranium" as used for Pelargonium is a common name, Geranium as used for the genus is a genus name. "Genus" therefore distinguishes the genus perfectly well. Similar cases: Aster/Aster (genus), Nautilus/Nautilus (genus), Gloxinia/Gloxinia (genus), Python/Python (genus).

"Geranium (plant)" is clearly no good for anything, as both Pelargonium and Geranium are plants.

I see nothing wrong with Geranium as a dab and Geranium (genus) for the genus. Cranesbill is not satisfactory for the genus: firstly, it's only a common name and I think a proper taxon name is better; secondly, it is neither universally used for Geranium nor universally limited to it. Richard New Forest (talk) 15:36, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Pelargonium is also a genus, therefore Geranium (genus) doesn't make much sense. Colchicum (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Geranium (genus) seems appropriate because "geranium" is also a common name and because there are several Wikipedia articles on ships named Geranium. I envision a dab page including a link to Geranium (ship), itself a dab page. --Una Smith (talk) 22:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Una is right: "Geranium (genus)" disambiguates it from other "geraniums", not from "Pelargonium" anything. "Pelargonium (genus)" would only be needed to dab from other "pelargoniums". Richard New Forest (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

I know discussion has just begun, but I think it is worth noting that 3 of 3 participants agree Geranium is an ambiguous title and merits being made a disambiguation page. The disagreement is not if to move the article now at Geranium, but merely where to move it. --Una Smith (talk) 03:46, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dysmorodrepanis, if you agree with this, you could simply revise the proposal. --Una Smith (talk) 03:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Special:WhatLinksHere/Geranium I count only 130 incoming links in mainspace. That is an easy disambiguation repair job. No problem. --Una Smith (talk) 03:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But while it is easy to fix in articles like Rembrandt Peale, it is more ambiguous in articles like Biedenharn Museum and Gardens. Things like List of companion plants (not wikified yet) are downright nasty: both genera might conceivably work, but who knows? If your cabbage harvest is at stake, you might want to be sure ;-)

OK, I "search"ed, not "what links here"'d; many of the articles are non-wikified. They'll be wikified, eventually. Why I think "Geranium" should be the dab and not "Geranium (disambiguation)" is because when someone who's unaware of this problem links the word "geranium", tests the link, and sees some page with a pic of a plant that looks similar enough to a Pelargonium, they are liable to keep it that way. When it links to a dab page, it is immediately obvious to the editor that there is something to be fixed. And with a dab page, figuring the "true" and the "hardy" geraniums prominently at the top, it'll be easy to fix, even for people who know nothing of the problem. Plus, afterwards they will' know of the problem, and possibly even be able to tell the genera apart. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:04, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the disambiguation page should be at Geranium. --Una Smith (talk) 04:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a very ugly case, see List of geranium diseases. I presume that many of them are not genus-specific, but each of them would need to be checked to be sure. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I read it, the concept of a primary topic applies if a primary topic exists. And per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC the burden of proof is on those who argue that a primary topic exists. Furthermore, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC gives some advice (not criteria) re how that proof may be established. --Una Smith (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

~~Move this discussion to Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) (see there for why) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

The discuz there is already too long-winded, no need to complicate it further. I have notified the Project crew that this case might be interesting, so they ought to ponder it for some time and then come here to solve it. (I only really needed to make an annotation on the "List of cranesbill species" page, but thought I might fix up the genus page while I'm at it. But I can put this on hold.) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:57, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal

The problem here is the article structure. What we need is a short article on Linnaeus original genus Geranium at the undisambiguated name. This is what the word Geranium refers to in common usage. Charles L’Héritier's two genera should have more detailed articles of course, as currently. Andrewa (talk) 10:49, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an acceptable alternative to have a DAB at Geranium. We could do this for either of two reasons:

There's no primary meaning of Geranium.
There is a primary meaning, but we've decided not to have an article on that particular topic (I guess in this case because it's not a currently accepted taxon used in the tree of life).

I don't think the first is true, or the second advisable. Andrewa (talk) 21:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A simple proposal

I see no need for a Geranium dab page. Per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, Geranium should be about the most common meaning of the term, which is what is technically (not commonly) known as Pelargonium, which should redirect to Geranium. A hat note on that page should redirect to what is technically (not commonly) known as Geranium, but as Cranesbill, so that article should be there. In other words:

move Geranium → Cranesbill (currently Cranesbill is a redirect to Geranium)
move Pelargonium → Geranium (making Pelargonium a redirect to Geranium).
Add hat note to new Geranium with a link to Cranesbill.

Simple. Clear. Consistent with naming policies, guidelines and conventions.

Support. As proposer of "A simple proposal". --Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the first proposal -- Cranesbill is ambiguous (see Erodium), and Oppose the second proposal - Geranium is also ambiguous. If we change anything, both Geranium and Cranesbill should become disambiguation pages. Colchicum (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merely being ambiguous is not an argument that a given name needs to be dab page. Please, please, please see WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is certainly an argument against the proposed moves. Colchicum (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose 1,2 and 3 below. Pelargoniums are perennials, but not all Geranium species are. The Genus Geranium has many commonly cultivated plants and they are called Geraniums or varations of that. The genus and its species are a significant one in horticulture and looking threw my books and catalogs- they are all listed under Geranium or Geranium., Pelargoniums are listed both under that name and geranium and its close to parity in usage. Hardyplants (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. Horticulture books? You mean the ones that are published 1000 at a time? That's hardly basis for arguing that the most common usage of geranium is not the primary topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your personal opinion is even less so. Have you any experience in reading secondary published sources about plants, writing articles about plants and the like, to begin with? If you are here just to push your abstract agenda without a clue about this particular subject, I must say that in my opinion this is very damaging to the encyclopedia. Colchicum (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have no experience reading secondary published sources about plants, writing articles about plants and the like, so I'm not biased to think uncommonly (and contrary to clear intentions of Wikipedia) as are those who have had such experiences. If I did have such specialized knowledge I would stay away from this area because of the clear bias I would have. For example, I'm a software engineer, so I generally avoid discussions about naming in that area since I would clearly have a specialized bias there, and would have a difficult time objectively representing what is commonly known and perceived with respect to the related terms and most common meanings. If you're specialized in this area, I suggest you remove yourself from this area (in particular the naming of articles in this area) for the same reason. Either that, or review WP:NC, WP:COMMONNAME, WP:D and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and then decide what is damaging to this particular encyclopedia. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not specialized in this area. I have never edited articles on Wikipedia that are within my field of expertise, which is very far from botany (though not because of any conflict of interest but rather because they seem to be beyond repair, guess why). As to plants, I am merely a former amateur gardener (well, I have read something, of course). However, you are not in a position to teach me what is good for the encyclopedia either. It is not unreasonable to expect that whoever reads an article does so because he is interested in it and is ready to put some efforts into it. Wikipedia is written not for apes. But this is all academic. We have both vernacular and scientific names in the lead and we have a system of redirects, so why do you care at all? Colchicum (talk) 22:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the same reasons you care; the difference is that you are trying to make this Wikipedia serve its base audience badly for the sake of a small minority who have alternatives. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "a simple proposal": it's not simple, it's not clear, and it's not consistent with naming policies, guidelines and conventions.

"Geranium" could only be for Pelargonium if that were the primary use. It is not: "Geranium" is also very widely used to mean the genus, and so that option is a non-starter. "Geranium" is also a widely-used common name for Pelargonium, so it won't do on its own for the genus either. "Geranium" unavoidably has two very strong meanings, and so really it has to be a dab. "Cranesbill" is not suitable for the Geranium genus, as it is also a common name for other things (it doesn't cover all Geraniums either). Therefore "cranesbill" really has to be a dab too. "Pelargonium" is an unambiguous name for that genus, and so is a good name for it. That leaves the genus as "Geranium (genus)" or something similar, and "Geranium" itself as a dab. That's simple, clear etc. Richard New Forest (talk) 17:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some remarks

General inappropriateness of "(genus)" dab - see for example Abronia, Anthrax (disambiguation), Erica (disambiguation), Hildebrandtia (animal), Iris, Lapidaria, Triodia (animal genus) etc. There is no animal genus Geranium at present, but since a genus name is only valid under its respective Code, of which there are 3, "(genus)" is not a proper disambiguation as long as a single non-plant genus in the world remains undescribed. So, to deprecate "(genus)" once and for all would be strongly advisable. The above list is just a brief selection, showing the absence of as well as the need for a SOP here.
Hatnote not enough for dab - there are some 6 "Geranium" toponyms, a number of ships, and a whole load of pop cultural entities (which incidentially take "geranium" to refer to Pelargonium, as far as can be told). Some may not exactly be dab-able ("Geranium City"), but most are if other disambiguation pages are taken as the measure, and even if the dab is restricted to "Geranium" with no further qualifiers there are still about 15(!) items to disambiguate between. Bear in mind that readers might not have English as first language, and that for readers not familiar with Wikipedia it is at present quite tough locate the following articles: 1227 Geranium, Geranium Township, Valley County, Nebraska, HMAS Geranium or The Geranium.
Searching Wikipedia brings up about zero uses for "cranesbill" other than for plants in the genus Geranium

I still maintain that the least troublesome way to solve this would be:

Geranium mv → Cranesbill, with hatnote dab to Erodium
Pelargonium remains
Erodium remains
Geranium becomes dab (see User:Dysmorodrepanis/Sandbox8)

Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this bullet list except for moving Geranium to Cranesbill. The argument for that move involves asserting that "geranium" aka "hardy geranium" is a vernacular name local to North America, but the converse assertion can be made that "cranesbill" (which by the way I think is more often written as "crane's bill") is a vernacular name local to the British Isles (or ?). We will have far more reliable sources defining the scope of the taxon, hence of the Wikipedia article, if we use the formal taxonomic name of this genus. And because taxonomic names may be unfamiliar to some readers here, it is worth mentioning that they are translingual. Geranium is the global name of this genus. --Una Smith (talk) 18:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the basics

When someone calls 1-800-FLOWERS (or any florist) and orders geraniums for delivery, or goes to Home Depot (or any gardening shop) and buys the seeds for geraniums, something is meant by the term geranium. Whatever that something is, that needs to be the topic of an article in Wikipedia named Geranium, for that something is clearly the the primary topic of the term geranium. Whether that's this article or some other article, I can't tell, for I know very little about flora. If there needs to be a hatnote to a Geranium (disambiguation) with links to other uses of the term, fine. But that dab page is still to be created, so far as I know. But just because the term has other meanings, particularly in the scientific world, does not mean the article on Geranium needs to be a dab page itself, or be about anything other than the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. --Born2cycle (talk) 17:17, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. You have to show first that that something is a single topic. Colchicum (talk) 17:29, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's a single topic, which Born2cycle has just described. (The argument that topics must be taxa ignores the vast sweeps of WP which have nothing to do with living creatures.) Dumping the uninformed lay reader at the article on the genus without a clear indication, early in the article, that this is not what his florist is talking about is misinforming him, a serious disservice - the likelihood that he won't discover it merely makes it worse. Whether the present headnote is sufficient is another question; I tend to doubt it. In part, some readers don't see headnotes; in part, because the situation seems to be more complex than a simple Pelargonium are also called "geraniums". Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:47, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The following are all references to the same something (to which they all refer as "geranium") that should be the topic of the WP article on Geranium:

These are simply the top google hits for a search on geranium. That said, this site explains that the difference between the "first geranium most gardeners encounter" ("not a geranium at all, but Pelargonium") and the "True or hardy or perennial geraniums [which] belong to the genus Geranium". If true, that should be explained in the intro of Geranium (to which Pelargonium should redirect), and there should be a link to the article about the "true" geranium, say, Geranium (perennial) (or maybe Geranium (hardy)). --Born2cycle (talk) 18:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelargonium should redirect to Geranium? Why? I have to ask because Pelargonium is a valid taxonomic name in current use. --Una Smith (talk) 22:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yes, but Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, so we shouldn't let the technical use of this term hijack it away from its common use if there is one and if we want an article on the subject. Having said that, I doubt that the common use of Pelargonium is sufficiently strong to justify this particular redirect. Perhaps Pelargonium should be a disambiguation? Andrewa (talk) 23:33, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pelargonium is unambiguous, unlike Geranium. Why in hell should it be a disambiguation? And it is not a technical use of the term, it is almost equally common (how do you know that it is not? Of course both are equally uncommon if you don't read anything about plants). Also see the general naming conventions: article naming should prefer what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature (WP:NC). Geranium is ambiguous. This is not "my incredibly weak argument", as Born2cycle put it, this is an official Wikipedia policy. Colchicum (talk) 23:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we should allow the fact that it's a general encyclopedia to overrun the ability of many contributors and readers to understand the difference between a common name and a scientific name? I'll say it plainly: The objections of Born2cycle above and at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora)#I call horse-puckey on current wording are reasons expert editors don't feel welcome and also why I always hear academicians laughing at Wikipedia. I think the policies and guidelines cited so far in the case for common names over scientific name article titles make sense in most non-flora cases - in fact that's what they were designed for. My common sense says the easiest approach to flora articles is to have them titled at the scientific names, making sure common names redirect. No fuss about the most commonest common name, no need for disambiguation except in the rare case where a taxon name has been used twice. I think the policies work generally, but not here - why are we trying to jam flora articles in a bunch of policies that so obviously don't work in this case? I'm not sure about you, but if I were just a regular user, I sure would expect to look up a common name of a plant in a paper-based international encyclopedia and be directed to the scientific name: "See under...". It has the advantage of accuracy and authority that scientific names carry with them - all of which is sacrificed for this notion that users would expect to see the plant article titled at a name most familiar to them? I'm sorry, but that logic is lost on me here and seems more appropriate for the Simple English Wikipedia. --Rkitko ^(talk) 01:23, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This challenges a fair bit of the ethos of Wikipedia. While consensus can change I'm skeptical that these changes are likely or necessary. I actually think they'd be a step backwards.

If there was space for it (that is, if it were a large and comprehensive paper-based international encyclopedia) I would actually expect to see an article under Geranium that described all those flowers commonly called geraniums, with references to more detailed articles on the various taxons. As Wikipedia is not paper, the space issue does not exist, and the references can be Wikilinks. It works rather well.

The claim that Wikipedia should be more expert-friendly is often repeated, but raises problems of its own, see Wikipedia talk:Expert editors and many, many other rejected proposals and discussions, some linked to it. Perhaps in the long run Citizendium will replace Wikipedia, but again I'm skeptical.

Me too, that's why I a) stay here and do not mv to Citizendium ("I was at Nupedia and saw it suck"), and b) why almost all of my work here consists of providing content from peer-reviewed or at least scholarly sources. This will make any expert or professional happy, while wikilinks will make information accessible to layfolks. And this, again IMHO, is the true beauty and ground-breakingness of Wikipedia, and I enjoy it immensely. We have made massive progress in the last 2 years; at the Birds project for example, we get quite little new content by now that is not sourced by publications for a scholarly or at least learned audience. Way to go. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 11:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I respect that you think the current policies so obviously don't work in this case, but I disagree. Andrewa (talk) 02:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I say: be biologically accurate, and describe all Geranium spp under pages Geranium ...., and all Pelargonium spp under pages Pelargonium ...., with a crosslink from page Geranium or Geranium (disambiguation) for cultivated Pelargonium species species that are persistently misnomered as "geraniums". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This is a special case of a discussion now under way at WT:Naming conventions (flora). For brader arguments, see there; there's a straw poll at the bottom of the page. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Homo

If we follow this specific example, Geranium should be a disambiguation page:

In botany

Pelargonium, a genus of flowering plants with many cultivated species called "geraniums"
Geranium (genus), a genus of flowering plants closely related to Pelargonium

Can we move on, or shall we change Homo?--Curtis Clark (talk) 17:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably a little more than a dab page here; it would be very useful to the reader to explain that Pelargonium was divided out of Geranium, the genus, and that was the origin of the confusion.

Homo has several other completely unrelated meanings; the chemical acronym (at least) is encyclopedic, so we would need a dab page for it anyway. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that Geranium doesn't need a dab, or are you proposing another solution?--Curtis Clark (talk) 03:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]