Talk:Paw Paw

Use of redirects

relocated from User Talk:JHunterJ

I'm sorry, but I just can't find anything in WP:MOSDAB that seems to support your edit summary "use the redirect matching the ambiguous title per WP:MOSDAB" when you reverted my edit to Pawpaw, replacing the link to Asimina with Pawpaw (genus). I do see that WP:MOSDAB says "In many cases, the title of the article alone will be sufficient and no additional description is necessary. In most cases the title of the target article will be an expansion or variation of the term being disambiguated". WP:MOSDAB does seem to discourage piped links and linking to redirects (Pawpaw (genus) is a redirect). While many articles can indeed be disambiguated via longer titles that expand on the ambiguous term, I do not believe that ambiguous common names for plants should be disambiguated via expanded titles. WP:FLORA prefers using the scientific name as a title for plant articles. Common names are often ambiguous for plants, scientific names rarely so (which is major reason why the WP:FLORA guideline was adopted). The place names discussed at Paw Paw are appropriately disambiguated with expanded titles. I can't even imagine how to dissambiguate John Smith without expanded titles. In contrast, the plant common name, Betony is readily disambiguated via scientific names. I hope you wouldn't argue for using expanded titles like Betony (Pedicularis) and Betony (Stachys) as redirects to the articles at the scientific names in the Betony disambiguation.

Your interpretation of WP:MOSDAB also led to your moving Spikenard (disambiguation) to List of plant species known as spikenard and Snakeroot (disambiguation) to List of plant species known as snakeroot, with the parenthetical disambig pages deleted. In both cases, unexpanded Spikenard and Snakeroot are the best titles for a disambiguating page. I don't understand why you object to these being disambiguations (admittedly, spikenard needs to have content about the species Nardostachys jatamansi split into an article with that scientific name before it became a disambig.) Internal wikipedia links to ambiguous senses of spikenard and snakeroot are never going to use the titles you moved the disambiguation articles to. Both snakeroot and spikenard should be disambiguating titlesPlantdrew (talk) 06:43, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

You've got two issues here:

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Disambiguation pages#Where redirecting may be appropriate: "Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section." That's the case with Pawpaw (genus). "Pawpaw" is the common name for a genus of plants, "pawpaw" is ambiguous", "(genus)" is a useful qualifier there, and the resulting redirect should be used on the disambiguation page. Or the redirect should be deleted. Or a different (better) "Pawpaw (qualifier)" redirect can be created.
• The non-disambiguation pages I moved to "List of" titles were not disambiguation pages but WP:SETINDEX articles. If you want to move them back to the disambiguation names, they should be made disambiguation pages (with disambiguation page formatting). Or they could be moved to the unqualified base name, if you would like to follow WP:RM.

-- JHunterJ (talk) 11:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Pawpaw (genus) is close to being nonsense. In the modern world, where English-speakers use "genus" (if at all) to refer to the taxonomic rank, "pawpaw" is not a genus (I looked it up on IPNI to be sure). If you want to argue for a more classical use of the term, then I'm not sure it is a useful disambiguation.

I support converting the articles from setindex to dab. I also support doing RMs to move them to their base names, although I haven't looked into them enough to know whether I would support the RMs.--Curtis Clark (talk) 16:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for or against the use of the term. The redirect exists, so if it's accurate it should be used and if it's not is should be moved or (re)deleted. I deleted it once when it was identified as incorrect, but that was reverted. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of MOS:DAB was that linking to redirects was generally discouraged, although appropriate in limited circumstances (as mentioned in JHunterJ's quote above). I'm not sure that Pawpaw (genus) qualifies as one of those circumstances. "Pawpaw" is a term in the lead section of Asimina, but "Pawpaw (genus)" is not. I hope I'm not shifting my goalposts too much, but "pawpaw" is not really a common name synonymous with the scientific name Asimina; "pawpaw" is a word appearing in the common names of species in the genus Asimina (particularly the common pawpaw, which usually is known simply as "pawpaw"). If the mere existence of the redirect Pawpaw (genus) mandates that it be linked here (or elsewhere), it should be deleted, although I'd be happy to leave it as an orphaned redirect to [[[Asimina]].

I've read up on the difference between DAB and SETINDEX article and have a somewhat better understanding of the distinction. List of plant species known as spikenard and List of plant species known as snakeroot should certainly be at the base names (following RM's from the articles currently at the base names). But I'm still not sure whether articles on Spikenard and Snakeroot should be DAB or SETINDEX articles. WP:SETINDEX says that "A disambiguation page is a list of different types of things that share the same (or similar) name". Should I interpret this to mean that Pawpaw (place) and Pawpaw (plant) are two different types of things, which should each be SETINDEXes linked from a DAB at Paw Paw? Are different species of plants with the same common name "different types of things" (DAB) or are can they be addressed on a SETINDEX page at the common name? Should John Smith link to a bunch of SETINDEX articles distinguished by parenthetical professionsPlantdrew (talk) 07:11, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Pawpaw (genus) qualifies: "Pawpaw (genus)" contains the disambiguated term and "pawpaw" is bolded in the Asimina lede; the qualifier is only there because we can't have multiple articles at the same title; the qualifier does not have to be (and should not be) mentioned in the lede. If "Pawpaw (genus)" is wrong or if there's a better qualifier, the redirect should be deleted (which I tried) or moved.

The disambiguation page should list all of the entries that could have had the ambiguous title "Pawpaw/Paw Paw", whether or not the entries are also on a set index article. There then may not be a need for set indexes List of places named Pawpaw and List of plants named pawpaw. Only if the set index article is needed as a list article (because of the usefulness of its non-dab formatting or other considerations) would the overlapping lists be useful. But the creation of set index articles shouldn't change the contents of the dab, except possibly to include a link to the set index in "See also" if the set index includes Wikipedia's only mention of some of the indexed topics. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Paw paw is not the name of the genus and the disambiguation page should not imply that it is. The mere existence of a redirect does not mean its use is appropriate on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 01:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The existence of the matching redirect does indeed mean that it is appropriate on the matching disambiguation page. But if the qualifier on the redirect is wrong. what would be a better qualifier for the redirect? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. That some might occasionally refer to the paw paw genus does not mean that is an accurate usage that should be promulgated on a disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 12:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What would be a better qualifier with accurate usage for the redirect? (The dab is a navigational page, not an informational page. It's exactly the reader who refers to the genus as "pawpaw" that that entry is there for.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:24, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Why does the entry need to use a redirect at all? The entry linking to the correct name for the genus accomplishes the navigational function. What benefit is there to promulgating incorrect usage on the disambiguation page? older ≠ wiser 13:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section. It may not be Latin, but that doesn't make it incorrect (and it is not marked incorrect), but if it is incorrect, let's correct it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Linking to a redirect can be helpful sometimes, but is not always and is not required. older ≠ wiser 13:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

"Sometimes" includes this case, however. Not linking to a redirect is also not always and is not required. You say the redirect is incorrect; let's correct it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I (and others) don't agree that it is helpful in this case. There is nothing to "correct" about the redirect, but the mere existence of such a redirect does not mean it is helpful for readers to use on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 14:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Others? No. If the redirect is incorrect, then there's something to correct. If there's nothing to correct, then the redirect would be useful for the reader seeking the genus by entering "pawpaw" in the search box. Its inclusion is not based on its "mere" existence, but on the disambiguation guidelines (it matches the ambiguous term, it is an alternative term for the topic). There is no reason for this to continue; your conclusion has no basis in guidelines or policies, and I'm just pointing out the same problems with it with each revolution. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, at least one other. There are numerous "incorrect" redirects that are not used on disambiguation pages. That doesn't necessarily mean there is anything to "fix" with regards to the existence of the redirect. There is no benefit to any one in promulgating incorrect usage on the disambiguation page. There is no basis in guidelines or policies for insisting that a redirect has to be used. older ≠ wiser 14:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Using the redirect would be helpful for the reasons given in the guidelines, and there's no reason not to use it, unless it's incorrect, in which case the solution would be to correct it and use the corrected one, or to delete it and not use it. There's no benefit is leaving the incorrect redirect incorrect and ignoring it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There is a reason not to use it -- it misleadingly implies that "paw paw" is the name of the genus. There is no benefit and no reason for the disambiguation page to promulgate such usage. If you want to initiate a discussion to delete the redirect, that is another matter, and I would not object if there is consensus for deletion. older ≠ wiser 14:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a reason to fix the redirect (if it's misleading -- the article lead also implies that "paw paw" is the common name of the genus, so I don't think it's misleading). -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:12, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, people might colloquially use paw paw to refer to the genus. And redirects may exist to help readers using such unlikely search terms. However, that does not mean such redirects should be used on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 15:25, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That's exactly what it means, since we also want to help those readers using such unlikely search terms. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The redirect helps readers using the search box. On the disambiguation page, there is no additional benefit to using the redirect -- they have already arrived at the disambiguation page and the entry for the correctly named genus allows them to navigate to the correct page. There is no benefit to using the redirect on the disambiguation page. older ≠ wiser 16:18, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That argument would apply to every use of "Title (qualifier)" redirects on "Title" disambiguation, and would be just as wrong there. But if there's a new consensus that agrees with that reasoning, the guidelines should be updated to reflect it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not necessarily. There are many redirects that are not used on disambiguation pages. There is nothing that requires a redirect to be used on a disambiguation page. The use of a redirect on a a disambiguation page is optional. WP:DABREDIR suggests situations Where redirecting may be appropriate:

1) A redirect should be used to link to a specific section of an article if the title of that section is more or less synonymous with the disambiguated topic. This indicates a higher possibility that the topic may eventually have its own article.

- This doesn't apply here as the redirect is not to a section.

2) Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article, meaning an alternative term which is already in the article's lead section.

- I suppose this one is the bone of contention. The language here seems to deliberately emphasize that the use of a redirect is optional in such a case. For this specific situation, I think the drawbacks of using the redirect (apparently obvious to all commenters so far other than you) outweigh the supposed benefits of using the redirect.

So apart from conformity with optional guidance, what benefit is there for readers to using a redirect that promulgates incorrect usage? older ≠ wiser 16:41, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Conformity with helpful guidance, to render the exact navigational aid that that guidance exists to render. So, apart from the claims here that "pawpaw" is incorrect as a common name for a genus (a claim the article itself also makes), what benefit is there for readers not to get the help rendered by conforming with the optional guidance? -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:50, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Optional guidance that may be helpful in some cases. Is there any impediment for a reader looking for the genus to link the correct actual name of the genus on the disambiguation page? How precisely is the reader benefited by using a redirect that misleadingly implies an incorrect name? older ≠ wiser 17:00, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There's no impediment to using the redirect, unless it's incorrect. If it's incorrect, the benefit to the encyclopedia lies with deleting it or correcting it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Deleting the redirect is a separate discussion from whether the redirect must be used on a disambiguation page. There is no good reason for using a misleading redirect. older ≠ wiser 20:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason to believe the redirect is misleading. "Paw paw" is the name a genus; a common name, not a scientific name, but a name nonetheless. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, everyone who has commented so far except for you has indicated it is incorrect or misleading. This may be semantics, but it is not the name of the genus. It is possible that some persons might refer to a genus of paw paw species, or even casually as the paw paw genus, but that does not mean the disambiguation page should promulgate such usage. older ≠ wiser 20:37, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

And yet the article itself says "Asimina is a genus of eight species ... collectively referred to as Pawpaw." It might be semantics, but it is a name of the genus. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If the name of a genus is whatever people happen to refer to it as, perhaps. But again I really do not think that that is a good reason to use the redirect instead of the correct genus name on the disambiguation page. There is absolutely no impediment whatsoever to readers in using the correct name of the genus on the disambiguation page entry. older ≠ wiser 21:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

While Pawpaw (genus) may have been a reasonable article title for Asimina, it was never a likely search term or link term. And since Wikipedia evolved in a different direction, there's no real use for it beyond the historical. Today, a redirect like that would never exist, but it does retain some value given the fact that links to that page probably exist in other page histories, so keeping it is probably a good thing. But as far as this page goes, we might as well forget that it exists. Guettarda (talk) 15:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

What do you base these claims of evolved in a different direction or that the redirect would never exist (even though it obviously does exist, and was re-created when deleted) on? -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Um, over 8.5 years of editing and extensive perusal of 2001-2002 articles. Back when the culture of Wikipedia avoided big words and technical terms - like Asimina - it would be entirely consistent with the culture to write an article about "the pawpaw genus" (especially since the name can be applied to several species of Asimina). Today, that approach is unthinkable, but even in 2004 traces of that way of thinking endured (back when there were arguments about whether we should require people to include sources in articles.) By 2006 that way of thinking had been washed away, and most people were probably embarrassed to admit they even considered discussing those things. Guettarda (talk) 15:42, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But, apparently, not embarrassed enough to get the redirect deleted or create a less-embarrassing redirect. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Pawpaw (genus) is misleading, false, and not likely to be used. If JHunterJ insists on this path, then it would have to be deleted, but we should never include it in any Wikipedia list or dab page that could seem to add an air of truth to it. However since Wikipedia is notpaper, I don't see why we can't keep such old redirects. There are redirects throughout Wikipedia for wrong spellings or incorrect usage that users might possibly search for (this is very helpful!), but it is not necessary to disambiguate-them-or-delete-them. There is the middle ground of leaving them but not disambiguating them on the slim chance that a user has the wrong idea but still needs to get to the article. There is just no rush or need to delete old redirects. If you think of a better one then just add it, you don't have to delete Pawpaw (genus). --Tom Hulse (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If I'm understanding Guettarda and Tom correctly, they are saying that Pawpaw (genus) doesn't have to be deleted, but that it should never be intentionally used. I was about to concur with that, but then I realized that, for someone who calls papayas paw paws, they would expect it to lead to Carica. For that reason alone, it should be deleted.--Curtis Clark (talk) 19:54, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

(ec) JHunterJ is not insisting on this path. JHunterJ tried to delete the redirect in the first place, when the claim that it was wrong was first made. JHunterJ has asked above what would be a better qualifier for the redirect title, given that the genus is ambiguous with the title. That same slim chance that supposedly is a reason for keeping the redirect is the same slim chance that is the reason for using the redirect on the disambiguation page; they serve exactly the same readers. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

You deleted the redirect with a rationale of G6, which seems far beyond the scope of application for G6 housekeeping. Using the redirect on a disambiguation page is not at all equivalent to the mere existence of a redirect. older ≠ wiser 20:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

In WP:MOSDAB "Subject to certain exceptions as listed below, piping or redirects should not be used in disambiguation pages", introduces "Linking to a redirect can also be helpful when the redirect contains the disambiguated term and could serve as an alternative name for the target article...". Linking to the redirect in this case doesn't seem to be worth excepting to the general preference to avoid linking to redirects. I'd favor deleting Pawpaw (genus) if it came to a vote, but am not concerned enough to bother nominating it for deletion. If people may also expect Pawpaw (genus) to get them to Carica, than redirect it here (Paw Paw), where the Carica sense can be disambiguated.

There are tons of plant common names that are ambiguous for a genus, and the various species within that genus. Sometimes, one species in the genus is the primary topic (leaving aside the WP:ENGVAR issue with papaya/pawpaw, Asimina triloba is more of a primary topic for pawpaw than Asimina. Sometimes the genus as a whole is the primary topic (Buttercup). Ambiguous common names are often going to be DABs/SETINDEXes for the plants to which they apply, but trying to use expanded common name titles (like Pawpaw (genus)) to disambiguate flies against the whole point of having plants with ambiguous common names titled by their scientific names in the first place (see WP:FLORA) Plantdrew (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I have redirected Pawpaw (genus) to this disambiguation page, as an {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:47, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"The pawpaw genus"

I have changed the entry "Asimina: the pawpaw genus, a genus of trees and shrubs native to eastern North America" to "Asimina: a genus of trees and shrubs native to eastern North America, sometimes called pawpaws".

The problem lay in that phrase "the pawpaw genus" which implies that "the pawpaw genus" is an accepted name for the genus Asimina. In fact, such a usage could be problematic outside North America, because much of the English-speaking world continues to use the word "pawpaw" in its original historical sense (= Carica papaya). Hence the phrase "the pawpaw genus" would be taken to mean the Caricas.

For this reason the phrase "the pawpaw genus" is best avoided. (For details, see the section on the word pawpaw's history in the article on Asimina triloba, and the Talk page there.)

Of course it might be argued that the new version is still too long, and could be improved by removing the words "sometimes called pawpaws". Marcasella (talk) 11:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcasella (talk • contribs) 11:23, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I've changed it back. Pawpaw is the common name for the Asimina genus, not merely "sometimes known as". That species in other genuses are also sometimes known as pawpaw or some variant does not affect how the N. American species are commonly known. older ≠ wiser 11:38, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Osita Iheme which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)