Template talk:Evolutionary biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Evolutionary biology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy). If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biology
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Palaeontology (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Palaeontology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of palaeontology-related topics and create a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

New template[edit]

Please help add, remove, or discuss aspects of the template. I tried my best to incorporate all parts of evolutionary biology including specifics on evolutions processes. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 02:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Changed picture back[edit]

I believe the picture of the evolution of horses does not accurately represent evolutionary biology, so I changed it back. The successive evolution of horses paints an inaccurate picture of evolution as evolution is not successive; one organism does not change into another. The "tree of life" picture is a much more accurate representation, as it illustrates a major tenet of evolution: that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor. I think most of you will agree with me on this. Cadiomals (talk) 18:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

This template got messed up[edit]

For some reason now it's appearing on the left side of articles, and it is also not permitting text to flow next to it. Can't figure this out on my own. Any help?Blue Danube (talk) 09:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Transitional fossil[edit]

I don't see transitional fossil in the template. Should it be on it? If so where would it go? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Move "History of theory" down[edit]

I think it should be moved down. Anyone else agree? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposal to merge Evolutionary Biology and Paleontology templates:[edit]


This is a preview I'm working on. There is a lot of overlap between Paleontology and evolutionary biology. I think we should expand the Natural History section, while adding a Paleontology section. The Natural history section should be about the actual history of life on earth. The Paleontology section is more about the field, its history and how they do their work. The alternative is that Paleontology gets their own template since I don't thin it has one now but it would include much of what's already on the evolution template. Some articles would be relevant to both Evolutionary biology and paleontology and would then get two templates. This might mean that What do you guys think?

Note: I am not an actual scientist so I do not know what topics are truly relevant to Paleontology. Feel free to add or remove any from this preview.

Problems:

  • When you start adding "Evolution of" articles, where do you end? Why not include the evolution of flatfish? Why would humans tetrapods, etc be so special? Should it include the ones people would be most interested in, or include none and let them find it via evolutionary history of life on earth?
  • I want to make a similar template for Geology. But that might lead to some articles having both a Geology and the evo/paleo template too. Might look cluttered.

In addition, I think the text on the image should be larger. I can't read it as a thumbnail. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. See no reason to have such a template. Numerous other topics besides paleontology are very closely link to evolutionary biology. Instead, consider creating a separate template for paleontology. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - These are two clearly distinct topics. We need to make sure we draw a line somewhere, otherwise we will end up adding any article or topic that that has anything remotely to do with evolution. In the Evolutionary Biology template we need to make sure only the basic topics of evolution are covered. We can include a link in the "natural history" section to the general Paleontology article but that's it. Cadiomals (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose - The template shows a radial phylogenetic tree of extant organisms - many that a lay person could never identify. This style of phylogenetic tree is not exactly the best kind to represent evolution, let alone palaeontology.Thompsma (talk) 17:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
The radial "tree of life" image is a more than adequate illustration for this template. It's not really meant for close observation, it's just meant to be there. I think it's good because it illustrates a major tenet of evolution: That all living organisms are connected via a common ancestor. To add anything else (for example, that classic image of successive human evolution) may misrepresent evolution. A good alternative image, however, could be the same thing except not a radial format. It still works, though. Cadiomals (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Meh...it might boil down to a matter or preference, but from my perspective with a keen interest in phylogenetic systematics this radial style of tree does not clearly illustrate - "That all living organisms are connected via a common ancestor." Although it has lines connecting some of the major representative lineages, it is a highly stylized image, not very artistic, and not the best way to represent the tree of life, taxonomically speaking - IMO.Thompsma (talk) 17:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Support – I see nothing wrong with adding paleontology to the evolutionary biology template, but I'm not sure if you need to include "paleontology" into the title. I feel that such a template is useful for the very broad topic of evolutionary biology, and paleontology is too often overlooked, even in the world of academics. – Maky « talk » 17:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Oppose with Suggestion How about special merged templates for overlapping articles, but separate templates for everything else? Paleontology is just as broad if not a broader topic than Evolutionary biology in its own right, and merging the two is not exactly ergonomic in terms of navigation. The main concern here is clutter, not that the fields themselves are that closely related.-- OBSIDIANSOUL 18:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles to add to template:[edit]

The following articles use this template, but are not included on it. We should add as man of these as we can. Possibly create a new category or two:

  • Other: Text on the image needs to be bigger. Can't read it right now.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The template is for top level articles. It does not need to include every article related to the topic. There are likely thousands such articles. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 10:52, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
None of those articles need to be added to the template and would only fill it up with too many overly specific topics. We have to make sure that this Evolutionary Biology template has links to basic, general, and most important topics only. More specific articles can contain the Evo Bio template but that doesn't mean they actually have to be included in it. None of the articles you listed above deserve to be in the template because they are too specific. For example, allopatric and sympatric speciation do not need to be linked when there is already a general Speciation link. And if we are going to add links to the Evolution of mammals and Evolution of reptiles, why not add links to the evolution of gymnosperms, bryophytes, cetaceans, and labyrinthodonts? What's to stop us? A line has to be drawn somewhere. Cadiomals (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

The image should be openable[edit]

The link on the image File:CollapsedtreeLabels-simplified.svg leads to the page Evolutionary biology (instead of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CollapsedtreeLabels-simplified.svg). It seems to me that it is unusual that clicking on an image does not open it. Is there a valid reason for that? Otherwise, could someone change it? Thanks, --Jacques de Selliers (talk) 07:46, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this was quite unexpected. It was annoying to have to click all the links underneath the image to find the article that might possibly describe the image. 75.31.89.154 (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree and have removed the link, which is already present in the image caption. – 29611670.x (talk) 20:27, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Shortening the caption wording[edit]

The current caption is:

Diagrammatic representation of the divergence of modern taxonomic groups from their common ancestor.

In the interests of minimalism, what do people think about changing it to

Diagram of the divergence of modern taxonomic groups from their common ancestor

or

Phylogeny of the divergence of modern organisms from their common ancestor

or even

Divergence of modern taxonomic groups from their common ancestor  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evolution and evolvability (talkcontribs) 11:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 

Alfred Russel Wallace[edit]

Shouldn't Alfred Russel Wallace appear under the history section? Micromesistius (talk) 08:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)