Talk:Lama (disambiguation)

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Plants

This disambiguation page 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant articles

Untitled[edit]

Llama is not a Hip-Hop slang for a gun, it is actual model of arms. [1]. I'll add it to the list. Now the question is should we remove the hip-hop reference, or leave both? -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 23:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

Per request, this discussion is closed as not merged. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 12:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion 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.

I see that although it's proposed at Lama (name) that it be merged here, the appropriate template hasn't been put on this dab page.

Oppose: nothing in the name page ought to be merged in to a dab page, that's not what dab pages are for. Leave the name page as is, add sources, or take it to AfD for deletion as unsourced. PamD 15:20, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, as PamD said. AFD would be better if it can't be expanded. –anemone projectors– 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Requested move 16 July 2020[edit]

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: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lama (disambiguation) → Lama
Lama → Lama (title)

– Following on from the discussion at Talk:Lamas#Requested move 23 June 2020 where I noted that the genus also had a similar number of views and long-term significance I am starting this discussion. In the discussion I opposed making the plural a redirect due to the genus but it was noted that the genus apparently isn't pluralized which provides further evidence that the singular is ambiguous with the genus since a few of the readers are probably searching for the title with the plural but not the genus. The title got 4,821 views but the genus got 3,399 which clearly doesn't satisfy "much more likely than any other"[[2]]. Google results for "lama" are also split between the title and genus, Images returns more results for the genus than the title but Books does appear to return only the title. It should be clear that there is no primary topic by either criteria between the 2 principal topics and throwing in the others makes that even clearer. On Commons where the NC is to use plurals Commons:Category:Lamas is about the title while Commons:Category:Lama is about the genus. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose. The genus is important, but human experience is probably much more directly focused on the species, Llama, with the title, Lama, holding substantially more significance with respect to human events. BD2412 T 00:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose (also leaning). The genus name Lama follows llama about by necessity. I think that skews the stats here. Srnec (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is that skewing the stats? If someone is looking for llama wouldn't they search for that? Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I meant the Google hits. I meant that Lama glama follows llama around, but is not necessarily comparably recognizable to, say, Dalai Lama. Perhaps I don't understand what Google searches you performed or how you interpreted them, but I'm saying that a hit for L. glama is not relevant for assessing how often "lama" refers to the genus. Srnec (talk) 00:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are over 3,000 internal links to Lama as a religious role/title and 388 links to the genus. The view/search data is ambivalent and leans slightly towards the title being primary. Hat notes and dab links allow anyone searching to find what they are looking for with relative ease. I don't see evidence that justifies making such a change- either that the current arrangement is a problem, or that making the change will make the wiki easier to navigate for everyone. --Spasemunki (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A 4,821 v 3,399 difference doesn't seem ambivalent, as noted a topic usually has to be much more likely to be searched for or much more important and the 1st doesn't appear to be true and neither doesn't the 2nd. If the DAB is at the base name everyone can find the page they want with one click, the current situation means around half of the readers will have to load the article, then find the hatnote and only then can they click on the article they want. And while WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY does make reference to the incoming links and that might show long-term significance I'd point out that the higher link count actually says that even with far more links the title doesn't get many more views since the more links there are the more readers will land on an article by clicking on them. There is also the point that there might be incorrect links actually intended for the genus that currently link to the base name and thus also inflate views. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see any incorrect links when going through the 'what links here' page- just topics in Buddhist studies & Himalayan history or sociology and a few links to user pages. Automated tools have made incorrect DAB links less common. I think most people searching for 'lama' the animal are probably looking for 'llama' and finding the appropriate link at the top of the existing page. The existing link structure supports the conclusion that the status quo and the page view data is ambivalent. Going through the DAB page isn't going to be a navigation improvement for most readers. A change seems more likely to result in readers seeing a DAB page with a lot of irrelevant entries where now they would have seen either the right page, or a direct link to the right page. --Spasemunki (talk) 03:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.