Talk:Anax

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 September 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): AshOrchid2254. Peer reviewers: Sappho Cornelia Catula, AFineDouglasFir.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 12:04, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 19 June 2025

The following is a closed 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Not moved - consensus is against the dragonfly being the primary topic. No strong consensus on whether to create a DAB at the current title, but with multiple relists and nearly a full month of discussion I'll close this and if an editor wishes to propose a move to allow for a DAB instead they can do so. (closed by non-admin page mover) CoconutOctopus talk 22:15, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

---

• Anax → Anax (Greek)Anax (Greek)
• Anax (dragonfly) → Anax

– The Greek word is certainly not the primary topic. The dragonfly genus likely is. Cremastra (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 06:29, 27 June 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Tenshi! (Talk page) 14:26, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I was surprised to find this article without a disambiguation, so I searched on various search engines, Google things, and the Internet Archive to determine whether the Greek word is the primary topic for "Anax". Here's what I found, of the first 20 search results with the search term "Anax" (in quotation marks).

Google Scholar

• Dragonfly: 16 (80%)
• Greek word: 1 (5%)
• Other: 3 (15%)

Google Books

• Dragonfly: 9 (45%)
• Fiction: 5 (25%)
• Greek word: 2 (10%)
• Something computery: 2 (10%)
• Abbreviation of Anaxagoras: 2 (10%)

Google Search

• Companies and products: 11 (55%)
• Greek word: 2 (10%) – this article and the wiktionary entry.
• Game something: 5 (25%)
• Dragonfly: 1 (5%)
• Anax (mythology): 1 (5%)

Internet Archive full text search

• Fiction: 10 (50%)
• Dragonfly: 8 (40%)
• Abbreviation of Anaxagoras: 1 (5%)
• Other: 1 (5%)

1. Anax (dragonfly) (42.5%)
2. Fictional characters named "Anax" (various) (18.8%)
3. Companies and products named "Anax" (various) (13.8%)
4. Greek word "Anax" (6.25%)
5. Other (18.8%)

Summing these up (80 results), we arrive at:

• Dragonfly: 34 (42.5%)
• Fictional characters: 15 (18.8%)
• Companies & products: 11 (13.8%)
• Greek word: 5 (6.3%)
• Other/unidentified: 15 (18.8%)

Of the notable topics (Anax (dragonfly), Anax (Greek), Anax (mythology), and Anaxagoras), the dragonfly genus clearly predominates: if we remove the minor topics we don't have articles on, we're left with 43 results, 34 of which (79%) refer to the dragonfly genus. Therefore, the Greek word is clearly not the WP:PTOPIC of this title, and, given the available topics, Anax predominates and thus should occupy the base page name, rather than have a disambiguation page. Cremastra (talk) 03:20, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Comment: This is an extremely odd methodology: adding together two pages of various Google search results and averaging them to create a pie chart! The results do not seem to tell us much about what Wikipedia should do, as we appear to have only these two pages under the title Anax without natural disambiguation (as is the case with individual species of dragonfly). The search results imply that a great many other topics are more important than the current one (or at least more likely to be searched for), but partial title matches aren't actually relevant to this proposal, and no other exact matches seem notable enough—at least under this title—to be listed in the encyclopedia at all!

However, if we actually read the guidelines under WP:PTOPIC, we'll note two main criteria typically used to determine whether there is a primary topic. These aren't necessarily exclusive, but they both point rather unambiguously against the proposed move:

1. A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
2. A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.

By long-term significance, the concept of anax as "king" would be primary—it's the source of meaning for all other uses, and has more than three thousand years' worth of usage, from the earliest period of the classical world through to modern scholarship, compared with a little over two centuries for the dragonfly genus—which of course is named after it, and is of interest primarily to entomology. I see this a lot with Roman gentes; half the names of Roman families have been borrowed by entomologists for various genera of insects or spiders, presumably because they ran out of other things to call them, and if not in entomology then for some genus of fish, amphibians, plants, etc.

For usage, the easiest measure of significance is to look at page views. Over the last ninety days, the dragonfly genus gets an average of about 15 page views, compared with about 77 for this article. That suggests that five times as many readers are looking for this topic as the genus of dragonflies, and that would seem to be decisively against the proposed title swap. We know that most of these readers weren't actually looking for the dragonflies because they didn't click the hatnote or navigate there through some other means; if they had then there'd be more than 15 daily views for that topic.

But for the sake of thoroughness, let's look at the WikiNav clickstream for Anax. Of the incoming streams, the ones that are identified are all Greek historical topics; of outgoing streams the dragonfly genus is eighth or ninth on the list over the last two months, following a number of Greek historical topics. Flipping the stream to Anax (dragonfly) doesn't really tell me as much; the takeaway for me is that 5% of incoming views come from here—that is, less than one per day.

So I don't think there's a very strong case for the proposed primary topic swap; if there is a primary topic for Anax, it is most likely this article, and not the genus of dragonflies. P Aculeius (talk) 12:58, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Comment: not opposing or supporting a move, but if this article does need to be disambiguated it should be "Anax (word)" or "Anax (title)" ―Howard • 🌽³³ 13:03, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. I oppose making the dragonfly primary. P Aculeius has said enough so I won't say more. I do not necessarily oppose making a dab page primary, but agree with Howardcorn33 that the proper disambiguator would be 'word' or 'title'. Another option is to use wanax (i.e., natural disambiguation) for the title article. Srnec (talk) 20:26, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome and WikiProject Greece have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

• dabify make the base name a disambiguation page -- 65.93.183.249 (talk) 05:55, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

  For clarity, I oppose a dab page taking over the base name as a result of this RM. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

• Support first, oppose second, no clear PRIMARYTOPIC.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:31, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose Greek word has greater longterm and educational significance, so it should obviously be the primary topic over an obscure dragonfly genus. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but Anax is not obscure at all, containing some of the best known dragonfly species, such as Anax imperator. Please base your comments on evidence presented rather than assertions about which subject you think is more important. Cremastra (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  This That article is solely about the genus itself, and while the species under that genus are in fact well-known, the genus doesn't inherit a single smidgen of that notability. It's therefore unclear whether this that page should even exist at all. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:03, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Whether which page should exist? Surely you aren't talking about Anax? Cremastra (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  I am referring to Anax (dragonfly). It appears to be overspecific and List of dragonflies already exists for it to be merged into. If not, please state how it passes WP:GNG and does not WP:OVERLAP with it. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:07, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm I'm sorry, but the assertion that any genus page should be deleted or merged is ludicrous and completely out of keeping with how things are done at WP:TOL. It is standard practice to have genus pages for genera with notable species, and since all species are presumed notable, it is standard practice to have all genus pages exist. Merging Anax (dragonfly) would be inconsistent with every single other significant genus on this project. Look at Scolopendra, Macrobdella, or, heck, Cremastra. Cremastra (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  WP:NSPECIES is only about just that - species. The idea that all genuses are notable just because all species are has no basis in logic, given that list articles can encompass multiple genera of creatures. If it is standard practice, maybe it should be codified somewhere or otherwise discussed. Cremastra is also a substub with nothing to satisfy WP:INDISCRIMINATE. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  I repeat that it is standard practice that genera have articles. Some are more detailed, some are primarily for navigation through the taxonomic hierarchy. They don't inherit notability from their species, they contain it. This is the de facto consensus on this website.

  Here's an analogy: let's pretend WP:NPLACE doesn't exist and we have a world with fictional geography. There is one administrative division – in and of itself rarely discussed – that is part of a notable provinces and contains many notable cities. Our article for the administrative division is essential for up-and-down navigation, and the division is indeed notable, for it contains several notable subtopics. Do a quick search for Anax on Google Scholar, and you get many articles about dragonflies of this genus, of various species. These articles all contribute to GNG notability, because they discuss subtopics of this article. In any case, a living organism certainly has more long-term significance than an ancient human word. Cremastra (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  @Zxcvbnm I suggest you ask at WT:TOL why we have articles for genera, and link to this discussion as context. Editors more clever and patient than I can explain it to you better. Cremastra (talk) 22:09, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  I can fully understand your explanation, it just doesn't make sense. In your hypothetical fictional world, we wouldn't need an article for each administrative division to enable navigation, we could make a "List of provinces of Foo" and that would have sections with each division. That is precisely what already exists at List of dragonflies (which may be better named "List of dragonfly species").

  So, I take issue with the idea that an article for each genus is somehow necessary for readers not to get lost. Being dismissive at anyone who would dare contest this idea isn't helping either. I am not a biologist by any stretch of the imagination, but Wikipedia should not be solely limited to experts in certain fields, especially when it can actually hinder understanding how the average Joe reader might come across things and be confused. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:21, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  Sorry about the hostility of my early comments. Having articles about genera is not limiting things to experts. It's useful for navigation because of our taxobox system: in the infobox we have links further up the taxonomic hierarchy. Getting rid of genus pages would needlessly punch holes in that and make it difficult to get around: for example, if I'm interested in looking at crabs of the family Gecarcinidae, I find we have articles on each of the genera, each of which gives me in addition to a list of species some information about this genus, Cremastra (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  While it is understandable the navigation will not work as well, you have yet to offer an argument as to how the genus pages do not blatantly violate WP:GNG with regards to significant coverage, or how they would fall under another subject specific guideline (WP:NSPECIES does not include genera). If no argument can be given, I will likely nominate the dragonfly genus page for deletion regardless of the results of this move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 23:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

  You are welcome to nominate the genus for deletion; in fact, I think that is the best course since we're getting off topic for an RM and that will give the question more visibility. I will present a more complete argument there. Cremastra (talk) 23:46, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.