![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Rclaw2O!.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignmentbyPrimeBOT (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just restored this entry and also Class (biology) and Order (biology) to make them seperate pages instead of redirects to Scientific classification.
There are dozens, probably some hundreds of articles scattered around the place that link to them, and almost every link is obviously intended to go to the exact destination, rather than to a general-purpose scientific classification page. A great many pages have something more-or-less like this:
(OK, it's a silly example, but you can see non-silly examples everywhere in the biology pages.) Tannin 00:40 Apr 20, 2003 (UTC)
The problem is that these pages have no content, really. They're all essentially duplications of part of the scientific classification article, and of each other. Moreover, they're almost certainly going to stay that way, since there is not much to say about orders except that they lie below classes and above families.
In short, when someone links to both family (biology) and order (biology), they are inevitably linking the same content twice. I don't believe people genuinely intended to point to separate articles, but were just wikiing and disambiguating technical terms. In any case, if they have to point to the same thing, they may as well both point to scientific classification. Here I think the linking articles are the problem, and we shouldn't come up with a cheap solution just because there are a lot of them. Redirects were designed for exactly this, to allow links to point to the correct place before they can all be corrected.
There is plenty of room to include some extra detail on each one, in particular a simple and direct definition of the term. These pages need to be as technically correct as we can make them, but they also need to be as accesible to the non-specialist as we can manage. Improving the "order" and "family" pages is on my "to-do" list. (But not tonight - it's way past my bedtime!) Tannin
Oh. I see. I guess this means I have to take time out from the other things I had planned and do it next up. Tannin
I don't think there's any hurry, unless you have an amazingly strong opinion on this, in which case I won't revert any changes you make, even if it's just to restore the old pages. I simply don't think any genuine content is possible, and whoever made the pages redirects originally seems to have agreed. Honestly, other than the dictionary definition of "rank in a scientific classification", what would you consider putting here?
"Next only to species and genus, the family is the most important rank in taxonomy." So it's the third most important? In what way? AndrewWTaylor 23:15, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Darwin says there are no real ranks, strict continuity broken only by our classification and by the separation Natural Selection automatically creates. It follows from that, that no rank can be less or more important than another, except at the edges of this chain. Life is one such edge. The other is not species though.
It would be nice if for the purpose of clarity, it is well explained that the main drawing at the top right - describing the ranks of taxonomy - in fact represents a tree of the history of decent of life, and that if it were detailed this one extra level, it would have constituted a schematic of all individuals of all life on earth.
This tree is "missing" the leaves. In the picture they would have been represented as a top funnel titled: individual (of the particular species).
The individual is the physical foundation of this tree and the evolution-implied taxonomy.
It is the most important (and least understood) "rank",
side by side only to to life itself,
especially for never having been classified as a rank in taxonomy.
--Ohadaloni 00:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is a natural and positive process, and I don't see why you are trying to combat it.
By having many copies of information interacting with each other with seemingly random links creating chaos, the wikipedia becomes an evolutionary ecosystem for its pages.
The URLs can be viewed as synapse-like connections that help readers associate the information.
It is good to have many such nearly empty pages or with dup content and/or references and redirect pages.
In this way, I, and most others, can get to the relevant information much quicker, mostly because our search begins with the snippets of our own knowledge, and we might just know the term for which there is a nearly empty page.
It is best never to remove a page for dup of content. Just make sure the content is truly an excat dup and replace with a redirect.
If it is not an exact dup, let the bee brain wikis like me continue to trash it.
If the intentions are on the non-vandal side, things will take care of themselves. It will take much more time, but the results will be much more accurate and knowledge will be saved rather than lost. Wikipedia does not need to be completed any time soon.
This happens to be a subject very dear to me and I can see the drop in my knowledge acquisition speed very clearly with your description of elimination of some of these pages. (not that it is significant or anything in this case, it just happens to be a example providing much clarity and accuracy of this estimate of mine).
I can deal with chaos much better if it is contained in the wikipedia, as compared with the chaos at google and the external links google provides that point outward from the google servers to much less reliable servers (that would be the rest of the internet - wikipedia excluded for the purpose of this discussion).
Almost quoting Darwin in this context:
The wikipedia only needs to be better than everyone else, no more!
--Ohadaloni 07:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Subfamily is a redirect to the accompanying article, but the term is not mentioned, in violation of WP policy on relationships between Rdrs and their targets. There should be a section on the Subfamily concept, or on both Subfamilies and Superfamilies. IMO it would in fact be valuable to have a list of lks to examples (whether articles or mentions of these two intermediate levels), which are bound to be of some value in getting a grip on what kinds of odd situation call for their use.
--Jerzy•t 20:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
test this.too Lss dhruvil (talk) 07:28, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that "family" has two distinct meanings: (1) a taxonomic rank; (2) a taxonomic unit, a taxon, in that rank. The articles Class and Order do likewise. I'm afraid the intended distinction will be lost on most readers, causing more confusion than enlightenment. Compare the Genus article, which simply states: "a genus (plural: genera) is a low-level taxonomic rank (ataxon)". We also do not write: "In corporate governance, CEO is: (1) the highest rank within an organization; (2) a corporate officer holding that rank." Making this type-token distinction explicitly is not helpful.
What about this:
--Lambiam 09:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've redirected Subfamily (biology) to Subfamily, as all the incoming links are apparently referring to a subfamily, not a family, and there are informative nomenclatural distinctions between the two ranks. A disambiguation page is probably not necessary at this time, as a simple hatnote to Protein subfamily is sufficient. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 August 2022 and 9 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sweeneyj2019 (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by Allieplaton (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect Family(biology) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 May 11 § Family(biology) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pakistan my jaan 03465803322.Sajid Ali 206.84.148.85 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]