Talk:Sibling

message: Should this trivia section really be here?? In what way does it contribute to any encyclopedic knowledge and understanding about siblings??? I would like to remove it. Lova Falk Lova Falk 11:13, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: As nobody has explained the importance of this section, I will be bold and remove it. Lova Falk Lova Falk 19:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sibling bands 

message: hi, i know the section isn't really needed but i wanted to contribute a tiny little thing, i added Kalmah there because there are siblings in the band, but i don't know too much about making links, or formatting, or anything, really, so.. i just hope my microscopic contribution helps someone >< ~moon  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.190.215.149 (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  one more sibling band 

message: I created a "Musicians" subcategory for this group. The reason being, over half of that section was musical groups, so it helps to make it more legible. This has also been alphabetized. Considering the sheer size of this "famous groups" category, I would like to propose exporting the section to famous sibling groups or something like that, and then we can simply link to it at the bottom in 'see also' This keeps this article a bit less cluttered. Y12J (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Sibling#Famous groups]]

message: The section marked Stepsibling had the definition for half sibling listed underneath it. I fixed this by paraphrasing the definition for stepsibling from wiktionary, and creating a new section for half sibling with the rest of the content. I'm assuming this was some accidental deletion in the history of the article, and I based my change on known dictionary definitions. 63.87.189.17 (talk) 18:08, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stepsibling vs Half Sibling 

message: I tried the "sister" link and it just linked right back to this article.  I assume the "brother" link does the same.  I think these links should be removed or reworked since links linking back to the same article are utterly useless. 64.30.108.142 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links 

message: We should cover their etymologies as well.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.36.165 (talk) 20:44, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Since brother and sister redirect here 

message: The word "sibling" is repeated over and over again in many titles in this article. I think this is unnecessary, seeing as how the context it pertains to is clear by the title of the article. I've been bold enough for the day, so I'd like to invite someone else to make the change, or else at least voice some feedback or support for this proposal before going forward. Basically I think the word 'sibling' should be ommitted from the section headings. It makes it unnecessarily long, and overdescriptive. Sibling#Types of siblings could simply be shortened to Sibling#Types for example. The same with its subheadings, they could be called Full/Half/3quarter/step/milk/god/foster/adoptive/cross/cousins. Same with changing Sibling#Sibling rivalry to Sibling#Rivalry and Sibling#Famous sibling groups to Sibling#Famous groups. Could someone share their views about this? Y12J (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Section titles

message: I was initially confused by the use of the word 'thoughtfulness' in the opening summary. To be, thoughtfulness means first a state of thinking, although of course it also means 'considerate' or similar, clearly the intent here.
However, it redirects to 'thought' which is not really anything to do with the concept. I've searched for synonyms but 'considerate' is an uncited article about a legal concept, and can't find anything else suitable..
Remove the link to 'thought' for now, but has anyone got any ideas? Bertcocaine (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  thoughtfulness 

message: For instance, the introduction cites a source that explains how the idea that you share 50% of your DNA in common with your siblings is a myth and that the actual number is 99.95%. However, this is used to support a statement that perpetuates that misunderstanding.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.20.253.71 (talk) 04:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the above comment was written, this point has been explained in the new section Consanguinity and genetics. The 50% is actually the consanguinity and refers only to the few genes which vary between humans, but the fraction of all genes shared is indeed 99+%. Dirac66 (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The sources cited in this article contradict the statements they're supposed to support. 

message: There are quite a few unsourced entries in the "Types" section, and some very poorly written ones. "Step", "Adoptive" and "In-Law" are fine, and likely "Foster" too, but IPs keep attempting to add "Skip" and I question we should even mention the other unsourced obscure entries currently in the article such as "God", "Milk", "Cross", "Pseudo", "Ex-step", "Dibling", "Blood", and "Spirit". Meters (talk) 06:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the entries I find questionable are relatively recent additions. Meters (talk) 06:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced "Types" 

message: My English is not perfect, sorry. I have a sibling, a full sibling, a twin sibling, an identical twin sibling: myself. Please correct the definition: Sibling(x, y) := ((Mother(x) = Mother(y)) or (Father(x) = Father(y))) AND (x not= y)! 31.46.157.21 (talk) 17:02, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Zoltán, after reading I think you are are saying that a person is not there own sibling. This is true a person can NOT be there own sibling. But, I do not think the definition has this confusion. It says "A sibling is a gender neutral word for a relative that shares at least one parent with the subject". A subject and their relative is not the same person in English as a relative can not be yourself.192.26.8.4 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I am a relative of myself (I am a native Hungarian). 31.46.157.47 (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: In English you are not a relative of yourself.192.26.8.4 (talk) 11:37, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

text: I also have siblings myself and its wonderful. We spend a lot of time together.alice@Girl 69 41.116.101.52 (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myself 

message: There are several sentences written about twins which do not have much to do with siblings. Shouldn't this be removed or moved to the article on twins?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.253.238.230 (talk) 14:36, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twins 

message: Siblings should be considered zeroth cousins 
You know if you share don’t share a parent in common, but a grandparent, great-grandparent, great-great-grandparent there cousins 
third cousin - shares a great-great-grandparent in common 
second cousin - shares a great-grandparent in common 
first cousin - shares a grandparent in common 
zeroth cousin (sibling) - shares a parent in common 
Why is the term sibling used when it should be zeroth cousin? 2603:6011:E00:FDE9:D907:396B:6163:1CC8 (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zeroth cousin