Talk:Sycamore (disambiguation)

Merger from Sycamore
Endorse merging

I absolutely agree. This is even more relevant in respect with us non-native speakers. Duncan MacCall (talk) 00:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the there should be a merger of the two articles. Frankly there isn't any information that couldn't be transfered to Sycamore (disambiguation) that is on Sycamore. Ratattuta (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole point of a disambiguation page is that it lists all things a term can refer to in any field. I think it is worst than useless to have separate page that only lists the botanic meaning of the term. Bastion Monk (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Oppose merging Sycamore into this page. The primary meaning is the tree, and it merits its own page. Auntof6 (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Re the proposal to merge Sycamore with this, I disagree as that page has useful information to compare the various Sycamore trees which would be lost if it was merged into Sycamore (disambiguation), and having disambiged scores of pages that linked to Sycamore, they almost all referred to a tree or the wood from a tree. For the ones that I couldn't disambig linking to Sycamore is more relevant than to here. WereSpielChequers (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sycamore (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page, so if all the information in Sycamore was added to it sooner or later some of it would be trimmed out. Also if Sycamore remains as a separate article there is the possibility to expand it so that more links can be disambiguated.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I just did the merge. What tree is sycamore? The fig? The maple? The plane tree? No primary topic, merged. Plantdrew (talk) 05:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I just undid the merge. Not just because it is contentious, but the merge form of the page which did retain all the information in Sycamore is not a valid option - someone would quickly come by and strip out the bits that are not suitable on a disambiguation page citing MOS.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  06:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Reverted to unmerged. I'm having second thoughts. The split between Sycamore and this article looked strange to me at first, but seems like a good model to follow for some other plant common names. I could see having an article on the plant common name as the primary topic of Daisy and Cedar, with splits for Daisy (disambiguation) and Cedar (disambiguation) for non-plant meanings. Cowslip/Cowslip (vernacular name) is a case where plant/DAB meanings are split, but the plant is not the primary topic (not sure I agree with the DAB being at the base title for the Cowslip example, but DAB article may be well placed at the base title in some other cases). Plantdrew (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2013 (UTC)