This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles
Nuytsia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Should this be at Nuytsia (genus) so as not to confuse with Nuytsia (journal) - or do we assume that the plant should be at Nuytsia as the primary topic? Or do we leave it at the species page? Discuss away.....I don't have a strong preference, though the more I think about it the more I think it is the primary topic...so am leaning to having plant at NuytsiaCas Liber (talk·contribs) 11:56, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The naming was the genus first, then the journal - many west australian enthusiasts would give it the full name nuystia floribunda, without second thought, the nuytsia (genus) is not commonly found , as enthusiasts would like the latin name to curl their tongues around, also unless the enthusiast was a specialist - nuytsia journal is not as well known. Bleah to primary topics on wp en - it always creates conflict. satusuro12:10, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory web search, as an outsider to Western Australian botany, strongly suggests that the plant is the primary meaning of "Nuytsia", and the journal is secondary. (It is very rare for a journal to supersede its eponym; even the articles at Nature and Science are not about the journals.) Once that one fact is agreed, then everything else falls into place. The plant article would be at Nuytsia, with the date-of-description category on the {{R to monotypic taxon}} redirect at Nuytsia floribunda. The plant article would have a hatnote to the journal article at Nuytsia (journal). In the alternative case that the journal was primary, then it would move to Nuytsia, and the {{R from monotypic taxon}} redirect at Nuytsia (genus) would include the monotypic-genus category. In neither case is Nuytsia a disambiguation page, per WP:TWODABS. --Stemonitis (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, the thing is if you check Trove against Nuytsia - the newspaper items from 50 years ago - everyone liked calling it nuytsia floribunda before christmas tree... and even more recently the same... the description of the plant was mid 1800s , the journal is 1970s satusuro12:28, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The argument from that evidence looks good! noting also usage/trove - people just love using the full name nuytsia floribunda! satusuro12:44, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Monotypic taxon. There are at least three monotypic genera that have the articles at the genus level with redirects from the species. I've noticed that inconsistency in article names is common across wiki. I'd like to see all this done consistently but I know that is unrealistic. For the monotypic species, I think the article should be at the binomial name, not the genus name. HalfGigtalk16:11, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Halfgig, there are already rules to cover this situation, and they're pretty clear (start at WP:TOL). Where both titles are freely available to us, the articles go at the genus title, because the binomial is necessarily longer. (It's meant to make life easier for the reader.) I'm sure there are a few examples where the article and redirect are the 'wrong' way round; let me know which, and I'll fix them. The vast majority are the 'right' way round, so getting it consistent is not at all unrealistic. Things get more complex when there are issues of disambiguation, but even then there are established conventions to fall back on. As I said above, the issue here is only about which meaning of "Nuytsia" is the primary topic; after that, everything is straightforward, one way or the other. --Stemonitis (talk) 16:49, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So why is stinging nettle a redirect to Urtica dioica but cabbage and lettuce under their common names? There are countless examples of such inconsistencies. This makes no sense to me despite the fact that cabbage and lettuce are more well known than stinging nettle. HalfGigtalk17:31, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCFLORA (linked from WP:TOL) states that "Scientific names are to be used as article titles in all cases except when a plant has an agricultural, horticultural, economic or cultural use that makes it more prominent in some other field than in botany; e.g. rose, apple, watermelon. These exceptions are determined on a case-by-case basis through discussion towards consensus." Lettuce is one such case. Cabbage, on the other hand, is about the specific foodstuff derived from the plant, not the taxon itself (which is discussed at Brassica oleracea and covers a number of vegetables). NCFLORA states: "Note that it is often possible to distinguish between plant taxon and plant product, and in those cases it is not necessary to treat both in a single article. For example, it is acceptable to have separate articles on a grape (an edible fruit) and Vitis vinifera (the plant species that most commonly yields grapes). When a decision is made to treat them separately, the taxon article should use the scientific name." --Stemonitis (talk) 17:40, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Stemonitis. I don't see why there was a need for a disambiguation page to exist in the first place (unlike if there were additional topics, like say an animal genus). Yes it's not currently done all that consistently across the wiki, but I don't see why the rule shouldn't be applied in a case where we are specifically discussing where to put the article! Circéus (talk) 21:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
