Talk:Rhodanthe

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Plants Low‑importance 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Australia: Biota Low‑importance Australia portal Rhodanthe 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. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Australian biota (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^What's this? at the National Library of Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Missing encyclopedic articles The subject of this article has been identified by the Missing Encyclopedic Articles project as being a high priority for expansion.

Requested move 26 October 2025

It has been proposed in this section that Rhodanthe be renamed and moved to Rhodanthe (genus). A bot will list this discussion on the requested moves current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{subst:requested move}}. Do not use {{requested move/dated}} directly. Links: current log • target log • direct move

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)[reply]

• Support the mythology has 282 views compared with only 212[[1]] for the genus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

  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)[reply]

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

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

• 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)[reply]
• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

  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)[reply]