The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digitata[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This, along with pubescens and many, many others (most articles currently in Category:Latin words found in species names that lack legitimate disambiguation entries), have been accumulating over the years as perfect examples of abuses of a disambiguation page. They are Latin terms used in species epithets and in terms of classification and taxonomy, have no meaning when used on their own. Species are never called solely by their species epithet without first naming the genus, thus in the same way you would not list every regional zoo on the Zoo (disambiguation) page even though locally they are called "the zoo," so these species should not be listed on disambiguation pages of the species epithet. NotWith (talk · contribs) (formerly Nono64 (talk · contribs)) has built up an army of these over the years and I find absolutely no redeeming value in the cross-linked dab pages. Disambiguation pages in Category:Latin words found in species names with no real entries other than these species partial title matches should just be deleted. Others should have the list of species removed. Over the years I've tried to engage NotWith/Nono64 in discussion on this matter but the editor almost never replies to any message. Depending on the discussion of this page here, I will compile a list of all similar partial title match disambiguation pages for deletion and submit a second discussion of the large lot to all be deleted, save the ones that have legitimate disambiguation terms. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: Dioica, Monoica, Chinense, Asiatica, etc. You get the point. Rkitko ^(talk) 17:31, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A nonbiologist might not know what term to look for--biological nomenclature confuses those not accustomed to it. They lead to & organize such pages as C. chinensis (disambiguation), which are certainly helpful to any reader who sees the name in the abbreviated form--as biologists often do when they think there is no ambiguity to specialists. DGG ( talk ) 17:40, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a specialist vs. nonspecialist thing. This is a misuse of disambiguation pages by including partial title matches. But to your point, species epithets are never used on their own, nor are abbreviations of the G. species form used without first spelling out the full genus first. No species is ever referred to by is species epithet alone, meaning that it should never be included on a disambiguation page of the species epithet title. Again, I cannot be emphatic about this enough, I am not bringing this AfD forward because I want to rid Wikipedia of something I think might be useful to nonspecialists (I doubt that assertion that it would be useful), but because of WP:PTM. That's the only reason. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:05, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no use in keeping articles such as this one for dab purposes; anyone trying to look up the abbreviated name is going to have a generic initial as well as a specific epithet, and can proceed directly to a dab page such as C. digitata. Unfortunately, too, I can see a problem arising from articles such as this one: if there's no article on a particular species, well-meaning editors might juxtapose the genus article and the specific-epithet dab page, producing the false appearance of a species-level article, e.g. Callirhoe digitata. Between WP:PTM and the potential for misleading Wikilinks, I think WP's better off without articles such as this one. Ammodramus (talk) 19:37, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If it isn't kept, it should be redirected to Digitata (band). --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:05, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lists of abreviations such as Digitatum_(disambiguation) should be moved to a set index article linked from this disambiguation page, but the disambiguation between the band, the lattin abreviation and the other disambiguation pages is valid and compliant with guidelines. Diego (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's statement that this lacks valid disambiguation entries is now untrue, after the cleanups by NotWith. Anyway, this looks like a valid disambiguation page to me — disambiguation pages are intended for people who know some part of the name of what they're looking for, but not the precise name, and that's what this does, whether or not all of its entries are for species. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I was unaware of the band entry, but my point still stands. This is exactly what the advice on partial title matches tells us to avoid. So if I don't know the exact name of my local zoo but know it has zoo in the title, I should be able to go to zoo (disambiguation) and expect to find it? Rkitko ^(talk) 11:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.