Talk:Taxonomy (biology)

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).

Template:Vital article

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biology GA‑class High‑importance

	Biology portal Taxonomy (biology) is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Tree of Life GA‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetic tree of life 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.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Science GA‑class High‑importance

	Science portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Science 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.ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject ScienceTemplate:WikiProject Sciencescience articles
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 15 April 2013, it was proposed that this article be moved to Taxonomy. The result of the discussion was page not moved.

Archives

1

Article quality

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)[reply]

@Chiswick Chap: This article also cites phys.org and Encyclopedia Brittanica in several places, so it would be worthwhile to find more reliable sources. Jarble (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Go right ahead. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deciding on and using a classification

Given that this article has Biological classification as a redirect, it should really deal with some of the practical issues, the most basic of which is "How do I know which family, order, class, etc. an organism belongs to?" It needs more on how classification is a subjective issue, but that consensus can build up around a particular system. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virus classification

I was informed by User:Kevmin that virus classification is covered on pages related to biological taxonomy, yet this page does not mention viruses or the International Committee on Taxonomy of Viruses at all. Should these be mentioned here other than a link in the See also section? 9³ (talk) 07:30, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Intro

The very first part of the article needs to explain and show the current most widely used system of classification. When I clicked on the "taxonomy" link I expected that it will be explained to me - it wasn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viciouspiggy (talk • contribs) 17:23, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.galaxyconsulting.net/blog/taxonomy. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Sam Sailor 08:40, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

taxify = to namegive (to assign/give a [new] name to) a taxon

Requesting to add this article to portal Evolutionari biology and palaeontology, along with biology, geology and science.

Taxonomy and evolution are deeply interconnected; and taxonomic similarity/dissimilarities are result of evolution.

I did that edit but it was immediately reverted.

So I request other users to consider whether we should add this article to these portals RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following command line was reverted. {{Portal bar|Biology|Evolutionary biology|Geology|Paleontology|Science}} it gives

In my views it should be there.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting to add the following template of classification of organisms

Here is a detailed template of Classification of living world.

it gives

I added this chart to the article but it was summarily reverted. I think this template is a good resource , as a bird's eye view of the whole living world classification (including viruses and endosymbiont organelles), it should be kept here in my views. RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 20:46, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Taxonomy (general)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Taxonomy (general)—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please follow the (Discuss) link at the top of the article to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Section mentioning problems with species identification

I think it would be fascinating to note some major difficulties or any unresolved issues currently facing scientists. Someone else mentioned viruses and that is a good start. But there are edge cases everyone regarding what gets its own species name. Gabefair (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merger Systematics into Taxonomy (biology)

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)[reply]

The merging of the articles "Systematics" and "Taxonomy (biology)" was proposed many times in the last 10 years; you can see the (very long) archive of this talk page and the (very long) talk page of "Systematics". 79.32.196.252 00:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)