Template talk:Evolution sidebar

Help with aligning box

After I added an upper right figure to History of evolutionary thought this template no longer appeared aligned flush with the right hand edge of the page. Does anyone have an idea how I can fix this? Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I found a fix. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

image

A good faith editor changed the image with a comment, "feel free to revert." I reverted. The image was the popular one recapitulating human ancestry in terms of shorter and less upright species. Aside from being homo-centric, this image suggests that evolution is unilineal and teleological - points that educated biology teachers have to waste endless amounts of time arguing against. It is a distorted image of evolution and one we should not be perpetuating. The prior image shows not only that hominids are a tiny piece of the family of all living things, it shows how the multiplication of species takes many different forms in many different directions. I can't imagine a better illustration (except maybe a very old bacterium sitting on a couch with a very large photo-album entitled "All My Children") Slrubenstein | Talk 13:02, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a good faith editor changed the current image to a smaller version of the same, and another editor changed it to the image you mention, with no edit summary. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh. Thank you for correcting me! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I made the second change. My view is that the current tree of life image is not appropriate for the evolution template. The text is unreadable at the scale it is shown in the template, and the image is not instantly recognizable as relating to evolution by a large percentage of readers. In contrast, the human evolution image is instantly recognizable by most people as connoting evolution, and this is the purpose of the image in the template. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Level of support...

Should the Level of support for evolution article be added as a link in the history section of the table? I feel like that data to show the controversy and level of support should be shown. Thoughts? Andrew Colvin | Talk 06:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image in template

What is the source for the image in the template? It seems like it could be OR, and also seems sort of 1) arbitrary with its arrows and lines as well as topics of inclusion 2) incomplete - where are mathematical models of evolution, like population genetics as an obvious example. de Bivort 13:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited with: Futuyma, D.J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Massachusetts. (dated 1998, published 1997) ISBN 0-87893-189-9

Population genetics is included in Evolutionary Genetics. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because something has a source doesn't mean we have to use it. The arrows and lines still seem utterly arbitrary. How about coalescent theory? Does that fit into Evolutionary Genetics? What about evolutionary graph theory? I still do not support the use of the image. de Bivort 01:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One diagram does not have to encompass the entire universe. It is just a diagram and there has to be a standard set for what will be included. Coalescent theory is part of population genetics, which is part of evolutionary genetics. Graph theory? That is part of probability and mathematical biology. This does not even belong in the diagram. The arrows show the relationships between disciplines. Did you even read the description? It explains it perfectly well. Moreover, a lot of the material on articles about evolutionary biology uses the same source that I used. If you do not want to use it, then you had better start challenging it. I do support the use of this image. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did challenge it and you ignored it. 1) Here's a link on evolutionary graph theory, which comes up when you google it: [1]. It says that the discipline, is in fact part of evolutionary biology. 2) You also ignored my concern that the arrows and lines are completely arbitrary. Why is systematics big and molecular evolution small? Why are history and causes a yin yang? Tell me what the worth of this figure beyond a list of terms - the burden to justify the inclusion of something falls to the person trying to include it, not the person worried it has no value. de Bivort 03:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did NOT ignore it! The arrows represent the relationship with other disciplines. How hard is that to understand? Paleobiology has a relationship to geology and not to evolutionary genetics. That is why there is an arrow connecting the two. They are not arbitrary. Secondly, you apparently have not read the description of the image. It tells you EXACTLY why some parts are larger than the others. The Yin Yang is not a Yin Yang. Notice the disciplines it touches and which ones it doesn’t? Paleobiology and systematics are part of the history of evolution and life on earth. Some of Evolutionary genetics shows history, but not much. Some ecology shows history, but most does not. Genetics, molecular, developmental, etc show the causes and/or processes of evolution. Notice the white part touching those disciplines? The issue at hand here is that even if I proved to you the worth of this diagram, you would not accept it because you have already decided to not accept it. I don’t know why I bother to try and discuss anything with people on Wikipedia because this is how it always is. I cannot convince you the worth or usefulness because you already made your decision when you added this section.

To help you with your ineptitude to reading the description, I will paste it here: “The structure of evolutionary biology and its relationship to other biological disciplines. The history and causes of evolution (center) are the subject of the various subdisciplines of evolutionary biology (inner ring), which grade into one another and, as shown by the arrows, are related both to one another and to other disciplines (outer ring). The areas of the segments in the diagram convey an impression of the historical contributions of the subdisciplines to the literature of evolutionary biology.”

I really should not have to argue the position because it is clearly explained in the description. The bolded parts of the description explain what you are questioning. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:20, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At the risk of incurring more capslock and bolding - I had read the caption before even starting this thread, but what you've repeated here only reiterates my concerns about the image. "Areas ... convey an impression of the historical contributions..." This is what is arbitrary. It may not be your arbitrary creation, but it is clearly someone's arbitrary creation. I didn't mean to get you all riled up. Hopefully someone else will weigh in. de Bivort 04:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with the image, why don’t you make another one that includes more information and less “arbitrary” features? This image is obviously beneficial, but clearly not beneficial enough for your standards. I can give you the PSD file to edit if you would like. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:31, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, this image is much better suited for the template than the previous image used. [2] A. Z. Colvin • Talk 04:33, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it probably is better than the previous image. However, I don't think any image is required. That said ... if alternatives were being considered it might be good to choose among images that (if they contain text) are legible at the size used in the template. Darwin's evolutionary tree comes to mind as an iconic, but unaesthetic one. de Bivort 05:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with User:Debivort while it might be found in a book it's someone's WP:OR . Not a common image of evolution . Darwin's tree would be better if an image simply must be used Gnevin (talk) 08:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This template has had an image since its creation, as have similar templates (ID, Creationism, etc) and a unifying theme to such templates. The removal of the image has been a slow edit war by one editor, now joined by a second, as can be seen from the history:

07 / 21 2010 21:19 - Gnevin - (as per WP:MOSICON ,decoration)
07 / 30 2010 02:02 - Azcolvin429 - (Undid revision 374743094 by Gnevin (talk) rv. ridiculous)
10 / 4 2010 14:51 - Gnevin - (WP:ICONDECORATION and more importantly WP:OR!)
10 / 5 2010 00:38 - Azcolvin429 - (rv. Discussed before. Perfectly suitable and relative and is not decorative. It is informative. NOT OR. Cite: Futuyma, D.J. 1998. Evolutionary Biology. 3rd ed. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, Mass.)
10 / 6 2010 14:51 - Gnevin - (Undid revision 388798333 by Azcolvin429 Per talk)
12 / 6 2010 23:04 - KillerChihuahua - (Seeing no consensus for this change; you do not have consensus nor even so far as I can tell much support for this change. Make your case on talk; attempt to persuade, do not war.)
12/ 07 00:10 2010 - Debivort (talk | contribs | block) (2,167 bytes) (RV - the image has been out for months. You talk about reversion without discussion, but do the same. Please explain on the talk page why the image should be restored. There's already a section for it)

The onus is on those desiring a change (removal of an image) to make their case and gain a change in consensus, not for those who made the change to suddenly have right-of-way. The argument that *any* image is "OR" is patently absurd, especially given that the image currently being used is from a textbook on the subject. This is a case of IDONTLIKEIT run amock. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree strongly with KillerChihuahua, and I am particularly concerned by what has emerged over the past few days as a sort of battleground mentality to some of the efforts to remove images, wholesale, from templates. As far as I can tell, the arguments for removal have been a combination of claiming OR, or claiming that the images are "icons" that are purely decorative, and both of these arguments strike me as seriously flawed. On the other hand, I think that it would be fine for us to consider alternative images (and please note that these images, although having iconic stature, are not icons, but are illustrations). Possibilities include Darwin's portrait, the title page of Origin of Species, and Huxley's hominid progression. And those are just some suggestions from me; there are plenty of other candidates. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about File:Tree of life by Haeckel.jpg - there is also a "cleaned up" version which is more black and white. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The French use this image (in French, this is the En version): File:PhylogeneticTree.png The Germans use this: File:CollapsedtreeLabels-simplified.svg KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 18:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am by no means whatsoever opposed to an image in the template. I am just opposed to this image being used. Call it IDONTLIKEIT if you want, but the image of dubious scientific value. And there are plenty of iconic images of evolution that aren't dubious. Specifically, I think the primate image, Haeckel's tree, the phylogenetic tree of life, or even (despite it being ugly) Darwin's attempt at a tree would all be great. I don't think Darwin's portrait is appropriate - it seems to focused on the person, and the cover image probably wouldn't look too attractive scaled down, imo. de Bivort 20:34, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I tend to agree regarding Darwin's image. Evolutionary theory has changed dramatically since his day; while I can see the argument that he is the father of evolution, I agree with de Bivort that he is a less than ideal choice. So lets strike that one from consideration, yes? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 20:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I really don't care much which image is used, just trying to find a way towards agreement. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I'm going to downvote Darwin's scribble - appropriate but I object on esthetic grounds. We are left with these choices currently under consideration:

Opinions? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 21:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First choice: Huxley, easily understood.

Second choice: Collpasedtree.

Third choice: Phylogenetic, a little complicated to make small.

Fourth choice: Haeckel, may not be easy to see or understand when small.

But no strong objections. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a scale of -10 to 10 (0 being total ambivalence. 10 being I really like the possibility of that image): Haeckel (9 - it's classy) / Huxley (8 - a little primate centric, but great anyways) / Collapsed (6) / Phylogenetic (5). de Bivort 21:57, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use the original image that was removed at the beginning of this thread? [3]

It would express more of a modern representation of the “tree of life”. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 00:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a policy or set of guidelines on what the purpose of the templates image is supposed to be? If it's primarily decorative, I would wholeheartedly support the one you are linking azcolvin (or frankly the one that started this controversy, since it looks attractive as an icon). If it is both decorative and meant to symbolize the content, then I don't think it should be the one that started the controversy. If it is supposed to be decorative, symbolize the content, and be encyclopedic at icon size, then maybe the one you are mentioning, since it is illegible at icon size. de Bivort 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons), such as it is. You might not find broad agreement there, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PhylogeneticTree and CollapsedTree are superior than the other two options in my opinion, because they emphasize that evolution is scientific and objective. While the other two may have some character, their antique appearance and the whole use of "man" instead of "human" just brings to mind how some people associate evolution with justifications for racism, sexism, etc. I think it's better to use an image that is more neutral.

I hope that an image is added soon, because I think these templates that have had their images removed look extremely boring. --Aronoel (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that bump! I agree with you that we really ought to add an image. Having (I have to admit) forgotten about this discussion, I actually could be perfectly content with any of the images discussed above. Shall we throw a dart at the wall, and pick one? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree! I went ahead and added CollapsedTree, I hope that's OK with everyone. --Aronoel (talk) 15:50, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New Template: Evolutionary Biology

Inviting for help with and work on a template for Evolutionary Biology instead of solely an evolution one. I feel that many articles using this template are not necessarily related to the process of evolution. Evolution can fit in a more broadened template covering all of evolutionary biology similar to this template. Help me with the new template and give your thoughts over HERE. A. Z. Colvin • Talk 03:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three domain hypothesis

The current figure (collapsed tree) is a depiction of the history of life according to the old Three Domain Hypothesis (Three-domain system). That tree shows eukaryotes and Archaea as sister domains but we now know that's false. The scientifically correct tree is that eukaryotes formed from a fusion of two lines, one WITHIN bacteria (proteobacteria) and the other WITHIN Archaea (Lokiarchaeota). The current consensus favors the ring of life view - the Three Domain Hypothesis has been refuted in favor of a two domain concept (see Eocyte hypothesis).

I suggest we remove the current figure. It has become embarrassing.

The best replacement, IMHO, would be Darwin's notebook image (see Inception of Darwin's theory). Genome42 (talk) 19:25, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]