Talk:Biological interaction/Archive 1

Table

What do you all think of the table? Helpful? Confusing? Theanthrope 17:06, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

It's a nice table. Axl 18:45, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

In general I like the table. I'm a little confused by some of the +/-, 0/+, entries in the first 2 columns. Perhaps column headings would clear this up. Jmeppley 18:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merge

About half of the pages linked to are borderline stubs. Neutralism, Mutualism, and commensalism seem to me to be about the right length for a sub-heading, not an entire article. The ecological sense of competition is just a small blurb in the main article. Would any one object to these articles being merged into this one as sub-sections. Sections on symbiosis, predation, and parasitism could link to the existing articles. We could perhaps make the table a floating thing on the right anded have it focus on +/-/0 designations and link to sections. Jmeppley 18:50, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree the table needs to be clearer. + means benefit, - means detriment and 0 means no effect. the first column is the either the active/aggressive organism or the larger of the two, and the second column is the passive organism or the smaller. Slashes indicate more than one outcome of the interaction, such as in symbiosis or competition.

The proposed merge seems fine to me but each heading should have at least a paragraph. Don't just put links to the existing larger articles or it will seem unbalanced. Theanthrope 01:40, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

As I play around with this, I'm seeing that there is more content to be added to most of these pages. If these articles continue to grow, they'll eventually need to be split again. I'm torn on this. On one hand, I think biological interaction could be a great page with all the types described and examples of how they sometimes switch types and some good pictures and the table. And with the current amount of content (even with some additions) only a couple pages are more than two paragraphs. On the other hand, it's nice to have a page for each concept and each of these classes of interactions could have its own list of examples and pictures. So I guess I'm undecided between the classic, big encyclopedia entry or the hypertext-enabled network of related, smaller pages. Is there a wikipedia-wide style guide for these types of decisions? Well, for now I'll try to add some content and continue to play around with the merge offline. Jmeppley 15:56, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, there is! The perfect solution for this is Wikipedia:Summary style which I've been trying to promote. It allows for a good overview article, with prominent links to more specialized articles. This way you keep a summary of each of the sub-articles in the primary article, so it can be read in relative isolation. Think of it as the difference between Macropaedia and Micropaedia articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica. --Lexor|Talk 12:07, Jan 21, 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't bother merging the smaller ones that have potential, for very small ones like synnecrosis a merge seems best at least for now. Richard001 19:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple that I think don't warrant separate articles, and will merge them in a while if nobody objects. Richard001 22:39, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to comment that when I learned about amensalism I was taught that allelopathy (as in the walnut example) was sort of borderline case because you can make the argument that the walnut tree benefits indirectly due to reduced competition. A more clear example might be large mammals trampling grasses and smaller plants near a watering hole. The plants are harmed and the mammals are not affected.

That's a good point, and should be addressed.

I agree too, the symbiotic relations should be addressed together to provide a good comparison between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.7.191.49 (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think amensalism has more potential than neutralism, though the article needs a lot of work to justify not merging it. I've gone ahead with the merge from neutralism now. Richard001 01:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synnecrosis needs an article, or at least a section of its own on this page. Both synnecrosis and the link in the template at the bottom link to a non-existant anchor on this page. 81.107.24.31 (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]