Talk:Division (taxonomy)

Plants Low‑importance

	Plants portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Plants, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of plants and botany 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.PlantsWikipedia:WikiProject PlantsTemplate:WikiProject Plantsplant
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tree of Life Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 20 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Division (biology) to Division (taxonomy). The result of the discussion was moved.

Disambiguation?

It seems this should be a disambiguation page, with the botanical meaning redirecting to Phylum, 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]

Requested move 20 November 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested 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 a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Consensus to move. Editors may open up separate follow up RMs for the other articles with (biology) disambiguators in their name as mentioned during the discussion. (closed by non-admin page mover) Raladic (talk) 01:04, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Division (biology) → Division (taxonomy) – Poor qualifier given the existence of cell division; retarget Division (biology) to Division#Science as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 04:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – the article on cell division frequently refers to it as just division, so it does have a "legitimate claim" to the title Division (biology). Looking at the pageviews, Cell division gets over an order of magnitude more pageviews than Division (biology), so even if the abbreviated term for cell division is somewhat less common, it's enough to make this a WP:NOPRIMARY situation (i.e. WP:INCDAB). I agree that Division (taxonomy) is the best alternative disambiguator. jlwoodwa (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. More precise and less ambiguous. — Jts1882 | talk 10:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/query. Should the fact that the related articles family (biology), order (biology), class (biology), kingdom (biology), and domain (biology) all use the same biology qualifer influence this outcome? Esculenta (talk) 16:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think all of these would benefit from a rename to foo (taxonomy) for clarity's sake. Fritzmann (message me) 17:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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 to family (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]

I agree with Fritzmann, I think they should all be qualified with (taxonomy) instead. Averixus (talk) 21:34, 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]

I guess except in the case of family (biology), as you point out. That might better point to the dab page. Mdewman6 (talk) 23:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support per Jts1882. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 19:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support (taxonomy) is more precise. Plantdrew (talk) 16:11, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, agree with the other replies. Averixus (talk) 21:33, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per others. YorkshireExpat (talk) 16:13, 22 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]

@CheeseyHead: What do you mean by "other users seem to agree"? I don't see anyone above who's argued not to move for this reason. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean with my point of view. CheeseyHead (talk) 00:46, 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.