# Talk:Coevolution

I don't have the time to review this in detail, but just in passing it seems to me that this book is worth a mention in the "outside biology" section: it has been cited roughly 1500 times, and I have heard of it despite this not being my field. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I've popped it in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I think that non-evolutionary uses of coevolution should have their own pages or something rather than cluttering up the coevolution page. I would think most people coming to the coevolution page are looking for information about evolution -- not relatively obscure uses of the term in architecture or "management and organization studies". beanstash (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your view; it would be totally apposite if the other uses were indeed "non-evolutionary". But they aren't: they're evolutionary but non-biological. It's entirely reasonable that coevolution in all its forms be described here; and even if a non-biological coevolution page were to be created, it would still have a section heading, descriptive paragraph, and "main" link here, with the same citations as now, and that page would only be feasible if you could find multiple reliable sources that discussed all of it as a topic, as opposed to the sources we have which are, naturally enough, about the individual forms. Best we keep it as it is, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The sub-section 'In architecture' seems inappropriate; its examples are not of coevolution. Valeur's work for the Venice Biennale Danish pavilion, although entitled CO-EVOLUTION, does not include nor represent coevolutionary work, but rather a collaboration between Danish and Chinese architects, "sharing Danish building traditions with Chinese knowledge and technical skills". Similarly, the examples from Newcastle University School of Architecture are not of coevolution, but are about co-design or Participatory design in which architects work together with non-designer users or communities to create buildings/spaces.
However, in design research more broadly (including architectural design) since the 1990s there has been work drawing explicitly on the concept of coevolution to model the dynamic relationship between problem and solution over time within a design process. There is a brief sub-section on 'Co-evolution of problem and solution' within the Design thinking Wikipedia article.
I propose to re-title the 'In architecture' sub-section here as 'In design' and provide content to focus on this genuine use of the coevolution concept, and to edit the architecture content appropriately. Designergene (talk) 17:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Not sure that both items aren't equally misapplied; your reasoning seems correct, and it applies to the whole section. Let's cut it now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:40, 22 November 2025 (UTC)