Talk:Spinifex (coastal grass)

Additions to Spinifex

I can easily add quite a lot of information in terms of the reproduction and adaptations of spinifex grass, however the information is off work sheets given out by my lecturers with no sources. Is it still worth worth adding although uncited? Viskadaik (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move 23 July 2022

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: moved to Spinifex (coastal grass). (closed by non-admin page mover) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

---

Spinifex (plant) → ? – Similarly to the recent nasturtium case, here we have a disambiguator that doesn't disambiguate much: plants in the genus Triodia are also commonly known as "spinifex". I think the most natural disambiguator would be "coastal grass" (the other spinifex is also a grass, but it grows inland). Disambiguation by subfamily ("Panicoideae") is probably not optimal as that name is hardly recognisable, while "genus" should – obviously, I'd have thought – be off the table because the other plant is also a genus. – Uanfala (talk) 10:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Spinifex (grass) any good? YorkshireExpat (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Both spinifexes are grasses. – Uanfala (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, in that case why is (genus) off the table? There is only one genus actually called Spinifex. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The scientific name of the other genus of spinifexes isn't Spinifex, but they constitute a genus and they are called spinifexes. To use "genus" as a disambiguator is to exploit an obscure technicality that won't make sense to the majority of readers. – Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

As the two genera are so closely related, you might as well do Spinifex (actual real Spinifex). The only thing separating the two that's less technical than the subfamily name is the fact that one has the common name Spinifex and the other has the generic name Spinifex. YorkshireExpat (talk) 11:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

A less technical thing separating the two is the fact that one of them grows on coasts and the other doesn't. Hence my initial proposal for the disambiguator "coastal grass". – Uanfala (talk) 11:53, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• I really do oppose making up disambiguators for specific cases if it can possibly be avoided. It makes it difficult for editors to construct wikilinks. When just "plant" doesn't work for a plant genus, because the genus name is also used as an English name for something else, I think we should agree to use a fixed disambiguator, like "plant genus". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:02, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  Sounds reasonable. YorkshireExpat (talk) 08:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

  I get that point, editor convenience in wikilinking could be a factor when all other things are equal, but I don't think it should trump other considerations. Before everything else, article titles should unambiguously identify their topics for the benefit of readers (there are many orders of magnitude more readers than editors). But even if we chose to ignore the readers completely, then we'd need to consider that articles with ambiguous names will attract wikilinks intended for the other topic, and tracking down and fixing those wastes a lot more labour than will arguably be saved by the initial convenience of the ambiguous name. – Uanfala (talk) 10:36, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

• Support "Spinifex (coastal grass)" to get the ball rolling. YorkshireExpat (talk) 17:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
• Support the coastal grass proposal. I oppose the alternate proposals of genus or plant genus -- given the goal is to address ambiguity between this topic and another genus of plants that are called spinifexes, those titles would fail to meet the main purpose of disambiguation. Consistency across disambiguation terms is definitely nice when we can, but that preference should not take priority if it means the title would fail in its most basic function of aiding reader navigation.--Yaksar (let's chat) 17:13, 27 July 2022 (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.