![]() | Taxonomy (biology) has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 14, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | On 15 April 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Taxonomy. The result of the discussion was page not moved. |
![]() | The contents of the Biological classification page were merged into Taxonomy (biology). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This article has recently passed a GA review with very few questions asked. I've had a look through it and have removed some extremely flaky sources - we obviously can't use Rhymezone (a list of Wikipedia articles that mention a topic, apparently) as a reliable source, and we shouldn't be relying on discussion forums either on a serious topic. I'm not sure why we're citing EB, certainly no better than Wikipedia, instead of going to reliable review papers of which there are many in taxonomy. I've marked up some of the most glaring cases and added some citation needed tags; no doubt more could be done in that direction.
On the more technical question of whether the use of primary sources is appropriate I will not venture an opinion: if we are simply stating that Woese introduced a new idea in 1990 or whatever, that is essentially fine; further, if we use the summary sections of such papers for basic background information, that's fine too. What would not be ok would be to use Wikipedia's voice to say Woese was correct and to cite that to his paper. I have not noticed any such usage here but a far more careful look would be required to answer that question. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I propose merging Systematics into Taxonomy (biology). I think the content in Systematics can easily be explained in the context of Taxonomy (biology), and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. -- Heanor ( talk) 20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
even more confusing, given that there's considerable confusion in sources. A major issue would be whether one article would enable WP:NPOV to be upheld, since there has to be due treatment of all positions on the relationship between the relevant concepts. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
creating an article about a subject that is already treated in an article is not permitted-- Heanor ( talk) 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
before closing, I did as I wrote what I said earlier have a small after thought, but it would require some substantive changes to the taxonomy page. You could merge them and have Systematics as a sub heading under taxonomy and bring it and others in as various methods utilized in the science of taxonomy. I think this would make for a better discussion on the topic as all the various controversies could be discussed in one place. However this would be a significant amount of work. Perhaps a team of editors could dedicate some time to do this properly, those familiar with the topics and the literature on the issues. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update outdated paragraph on PhyloCode in Modern system of classification section (originally written on March 31, 2015) to match more up-to-date information on the implementation of PhyloCode available in the History section of the PhyloCode Wikipedia page.
Edit: I did some digging, and the information in the PhyloCode article is also out of date. I was also unaware that verbatim specifications of the edits needed were necessary; it was my first time making an edit request, and I was unaware of the exact requirements. I'll update the PhyloCode page and return with a properly formatted request. DidSomebodySayChaos ( talk) 08:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
answered=yes
with answered=no
in the template to reactivate the request.
Tollens (
talk)
09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | Taxonomy (biology) has been listed as one of the
Natural sciences good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 14, 2017. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
![]() | On 15 April 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Taxonomy. The result of the discussion was page not moved. |
![]() | The contents of the Biological classification page were merged into Taxonomy (biology). For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
This article has recently passed a GA review with very few questions asked. I've had a look through it and have removed some extremely flaky sources - we obviously can't use Rhymezone (a list of Wikipedia articles that mention a topic, apparently) as a reliable source, and we shouldn't be relying on discussion forums either on a serious topic. I'm not sure why we're citing EB, certainly no better than Wikipedia, instead of going to reliable review papers of which there are many in taxonomy. I've marked up some of the most glaring cases and added some citation needed tags; no doubt more could be done in that direction.
On the more technical question of whether the use of primary sources is appropriate I will not venture an opinion: if we are simply stating that Woese introduced a new idea in 1990 or whatever, that is essentially fine; further, if we use the summary sections of such papers for basic background information, that's fine too. What would not be ok would be to use Wikipedia's voice to say Woese was correct and to cite that to his paper. I have not noticed any such usage here but a far more careful look would be required to answer that question. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 07:43, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
I propose merging Systematics into Taxonomy (biology). I think the content in Systematics can easily be explained in the context of Taxonomy (biology), and a merger would not cause any article-size or weighting problems. -- Heanor ( talk) 20:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
even more confusing, given that there's considerable confusion in sources. A major issue would be whether one article would enable WP:NPOV to be upheld, since there has to be due treatment of all positions on the relationship between the relevant concepts. Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
creating an article about a subject that is already treated in an article is not permitted-- Heanor ( talk) 14:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
before closing, I did as I wrote what I said earlier have a small after thought, but it would require some substantive changes to the taxonomy page. You could merge them and have Systematics as a sub heading under taxonomy and bring it and others in as various methods utilized in the science of taxonomy. I think this would make for a better discussion on the topic as all the various controversies could be discussed in one place. However this would be a significant amount of work. Perhaps a team of editors could dedicate some time to do this properly, those familiar with the topics and the literature on the issues. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please update outdated paragraph on PhyloCode in Modern system of classification section (originally written on March 31, 2015) to match more up-to-date information on the implementation of PhyloCode available in the History section of the PhyloCode Wikipedia page.
Edit: I did some digging, and the information in the PhyloCode article is also out of date. I was also unaware that verbatim specifications of the edits needed were necessary; it was my first time making an edit request, and I was unaware of the exact requirements. I'll update the PhyloCode page and return with a properly formatted request. DidSomebodySayChaos ( talk) 08:07, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
answered=yes
with answered=no
in the template to reactivate the request.
Tollens (
talk)
09:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)