This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofplants andbotany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage oftaxonomy and thephylogenetictree of life on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tree of LifeWikipedia:WikiProject Tree of LifeTemplate:WikiProject Tree of Lifetaxonomic
It seems this should be a disambiguation page, with the botanical meaning redirecting toPhylum, and the zoological one redirecting to an article consisting of the paragraph from this one. A possible problem is that, currently a lot of taxoboxes are linking here - some of them have the links to "<Rank name> (biology)" hard coded.
It seems to me, from this article, like "Division (biology)" has the main meaning of "Phylum", and should redirect there. A hatnote can be added once "Division (zoology)" is established.Division should remove the link to this article, and link only to "Phylum" and "Division (zoology)"NisJørgensen (talk)12:07, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of arequested move.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider amove review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've long thought (taxonomy) should be the disambiguatory term for all the ranks. Division isn't linked very much, but the other are, so switching the links over would be a monumental task.Biological family was a redirect tofamily (biology) from 2002 till 2023, when I retargeted it to a dab page. The primary meaning of biological family is a group of people who are genetically related (as opposed to adoptive families or step families). I don't think "family (biology)" is as prone to confusion as "biological family", but it is a little ambiguous.Plantdrew (talk)16:10, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the others were moved, most of the links wouldn't need to be updated, as (biology) isn't an ambiguous qualifer in those cases and can be left as a redirect, and the qualifier is usually piped away. Only in some instances like hatnotes or see also sections where the disambiguator is shown would merit updating, but even those could be left alone until there was desire to update them. But whether to move the others should probably be decided in a subsequent RM.Mdewman6 (talk)23:17, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't move The fact that other classifications have (biology) in the name might make this one confusing if it isn't. It could cause some people to think that it's something different. Other users seem to agree because of you not mentioning this.CheeseyHead (talk)00:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're saying that other people only support the move because they aren't aware that the other taxonomic ranks use "(biology)"?Esculenta mentioned that fact a few days ago, and four people replied saying that the ranks should all be moved to "(taxonomy)". Two additional!votes were made after Esculenta's comment, so they were presumably aware of it. And speaking for myself, I already knew that the other ranks use "(biology)", and I supported the move anyway.jlwoodwa (talk)01:05, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
