Talk:Family (biology)

message: 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)
thread_title:  multiple redirects dup content and references revisited 

message: 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)
replies: text: I have to agree.  The subfamily is not listed on the graph of the different hierarchies.  Since it is not mentioned in the article either, it it very confusing.  I am confused.  I got redirected here from a link on subfamily of cows.  There is no info about subfamily in this article.  I unfortunately do not have enough Life Science knowledge to expand the section...--169.232.119.242 (talk) 06:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subfamily (and for that matter, Superfamily) 

message: 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 (a taxon)". 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:
:In biological classification, a family (, plural familiae) is a taxon (taxonomic group of organisms) with a taxonomic rank in the taxonomic hierarchy below order and above genus. Examples are Fabaceae (the legume family) and Canidae (the family that includes, among others, the wolves, foxes, and the domestic dog).
 --Lambiam 09:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the distinction between "taxonomic rank" and "taxon" necessary and desirable? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Subfamily (biology)]] no longer links here, nor should it. 

message: — Assignment last updated by Allieplaton (talk) 15:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Molecular Genetics

message: 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  until a consensus is reached.  Steel1943 (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Family(biology)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: Pakistan my jaan
03465803322.Sajid Ali 206.84.148.85 (talk) 19:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  03465803322.Sajid Ali