Talk:Geranium

message: 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|title=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)
thread_title:  Incorrect information - Medicinal Uses 

message: 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)
replies: text: Go ahead.  JoJan 17:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Move 

message: Move this discussion to :Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (flora) (see there for why) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 04:26, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal

message: 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)
thread_title: Counter proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: *It is certainly an argument against the proposed moves. Colchicum (talk) 21:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: A simple proposal

message: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Some remarks