Talk:Rhodanthe

Requested move 26 October 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: no consensus. While their were more support votes, they were rather lacking. (closed by non-admin page mover) – LuniZunie_(talk) 16:50, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

---

Rhodanthe → Rhodanthe (genus) – At the very least, there is no primary topic between the plant genus and the mythological figure either by pageviews or longterm significance, and it should be disambiguated. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:28, 26 October 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPath^talk 07:07, 6 December 2025 (UTC)

• Support the mythology has 282 views compared with only 212[] for the genus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

  Cumulative views clearly show the genus as the primary topic. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:26, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I should also offer a correction that it would be moved to Rhodanthe (plant) per WP:CONSISTENT, even though I don't think this disambiguation scheme is correct and (genus) would be the proper disambiguator, but that may need to be discussed elsewhere. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  I agree that (genus) seems a better way of disambiguating at this level. I suspect (plant) is used because of the few places where there is both a genus of plants and one of some type of animal with the same name. I think a discussion of the advantages and drawbacks of using (genus) in all but the identically named taxa would be good to have. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 16:48, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Disambiguating genera by adding a word that describes the type of organism is a very well established practice across the tree of life, e.g. Cispius (spider), Phalacrus (beetle), Alena (snakefly), Camera (wasp), Thompsonia (crustacean), Chanda (fish), Furia (fungus). Modifying this practice would be hugely disruptive. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Using the type of organism is a far more informative disambiguator than the taxonomic rank. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 22:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose genera of living creatures will always have more long-term significance than mythological figures. In terms of usage, they are very close, but cumulative views put this genus on top, so this move generally fails WP:PTOPIC. Compare this to Euphoria / euphoria, where the genus naturally has more long-term significance but is not primary due to the emotion's much higher usage. I also note that we have articles on several subtopic of the genus Rhodanthe (R. maglesii, R. floribunda). Meanwhile, Rhodanthe is a hoax of yet another obscure classical figure of zero relevance to the modern person. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)

  That seems like a pure opinion. I don't think there's a policy that says that living creatures always become the primary topic. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 17 November 2025 (UTC)

• Weak oppose It's a balanced decision but I don't think this mythological figure is of sufficent importance to warrant the change. Peter coxhead (talk) 19:56, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, WikiProject Australian biota, and WikiProject Plants have been notified of this discussion. TarnishedPath^talk 15:01, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

• Support, no PRIMARYTOPIC. DAB should be at basename.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

  On what basis? As I say in my comment, the genus is likely the primary topic on both counts. Cremastra (talk · contribs) 15:16, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

• I don't know what "cumulative views" means or where in policy it comes from. If it means anything like totaling up those other pages' views and counting them toward this page like they were this page's views, I see no basis for doing so, no matter what way the pages are related. Adumbrativus (talk) 06:16, 3 December 2025 (UTC)
• Support. Over the last year, the mythical Rhodanthe has received roughly 350 more pageviews than the plant. With respect to LTS, I'm not sure either topic clearly outstrips the other. Similarly to Adumbrativus, I don't know what "cumulative views" are, but the concept doesn't originate from any policy or guideline as far as I can tell. – Michael Aurel (talk) 15:24, 3 December 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.