Talk:Charles Darwin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Charles Darwin is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 19, 2007.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


I have restored these edits of Chhandama's per WP:DUPLINK. All of the expressions from which wikilinks were removed are still wikilinked on their first occurrence in the article, and apart from its first occurrence in the lead, "natural selection" is still wikilinked in the infobox and on its first occurrence in the body of the article as well. While I have no objection to further wikinks being included if there is a benefit to readers which clearly outweighs the cost of the redundancy, it seems to me that it's their inclusion, rather than their omission, for which a case needs to be made..
David Wilson (talk · cont) 23:07, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - linking "natural selection" five times is ridiculous. As it says in the MoS "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." There are also too many links in the lead section making it difficult to read, which is also mentioned in the MoS under WP:leadlink. We really don't need links to terms like "scientific theory" and "species" which are commonly understood terms. Richerman (talk) 09:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Agree that we should avoid multiple links to the same article, but I think it's useful to link to "scientific theory" and "species", as these have specific definitions which are probably not common knowledge. LK (talk) 05:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead sentence[edit]

Should the lead sentence identify him as a naturalist and a biologist? Aren't those two terms essentially referring to the same thing? LK (talk) 05:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Have linked the subsection natural history#Before 1900 to make it clearer that this was a broader discipline at the time, including geology, biology and astronomy. Darwin studied natural history, his Coral reefs combines geology and biology. He subsequently specialised more as a geologist, then with his barnacles established credibility as a biologist. . . dave souza, talk 10:22, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
In that case, isn't "biologist" redundant? Afterall, one wouldn't say, that a person was a writer and a novelist. LK (talk) 08:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
He self-identified both as a naturalist and more specifically, geologist and biologist; this formulation makes it clearer for modern readers. . . dave souza, talk 11:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
He self-identified as a naturalist, but I doubt he would say I am a naturalist, geologist and biologist; that would be redundant. How about "... was an English naturalist, who studied geology and biology, ..." LK (talk) 06:05, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
As Browne highlights in the intro to Charles Darwin: Voyaging, he wrote that he "was born a naturalist". I've just been reading her second volume (p. 86), where she notes that presentation copies of OtOOS were sent to "most of the major geologists, naturalists and biologists in the world", so the usage isn't really redundant.
The word "studied" is misleadingly understated, if we do want to amend the sentence, "eminent" or perhaps "major" would be a better description of his prominence in the fields of geology and biology. So, rewording is possible, but this is the first sentence in the lead and it should be kept concise. . . dave souza, talk 11:31, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, it just struck me as odd is all. LK (talk) 12:49, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2017[edit]

dates to be changed Animation Central (talk) 10:56, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

You have to be more specific with your request. Do you have any particular dates that you believe need to be changed? Why do you think those dates need to be changed? What reliable sources are you referring to that support your request that certain dates need to be changed?--Chewings72 (talk) 11:09, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Charles Darwin. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)