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
I don't think most or all of the entries presently on this page are actually in need of disambiguation - they do not share the same, similar, or confusing titles. I think they should just be moved to the list of examples in the Landrace article.
There is no need to add disambiguation links to a page whose name already clearly distinguishes itself from the generic term.
and
Do not add links that merely contain part of the page title, or links that include the page title in a longer proper name, where there is no significant risk of confusion. Only add links to articles that could use essentially the same title as the disambiguated term. Disambiguation pages are not search indices.
I think the entries on this page match both those cases...
Sometimes the Danish Landrace or American Landrace pig breeds are called simply "Landrace" for short. Wherever people repeatedly use a name, they will be tempted to shorten it. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:38, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point that for some people the generic term "landrace" has an implied specific meaning... but I'm still not sure that a disambiguation page is the best way to deal with that. The Landrace page already has a list of various landraces which the entries on the disambig page should be added to, to be complete. So the disambig it would at least be redundant. My other thought is that although the term does have some variation in meaning, it is perfectly clear from the main article what has happened. In fact, the varying usage in terminology should be mentioned in that article. So I just don't see the utility of the disambig page. Thoughts? Dhollm (talk) 22:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to serve its purpose just fine to me, especially expanded as it is now (several names overlap). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 13:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
