Template talk:Branches of biology

Taxonomy

I think the subfield "taxonomy" should link to alpha taxonomy, not taxonomy. The article "taxonomy" is about classifying things (anything), not the biological meaning of classifying living organisms (which corresponds to the article "alpha taxonomy", as explained by both articles). I just wanted to make sure that everyone is ok with the change before doing it. Thanks, IronC hris | (talk) 11:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and then the footer template should be moved from taxonomy to alpha taxonomy. The "taxonomy" article isn't actually about biology (it is in the category classification systems, whereas "alpha taxonomy" is in the category scientific classification). IronC hris | (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going ahead with the change as there has been no opposition. Tell me if there's a problem. IronC hris | (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template format

I recently converted this template to the {{navbox generic}} format, after noting that it was the only one of 15 navboxes on the page Pathology which did not hide itself. One can definitely question the wisdom of placing 15 navboxes on a page (not my doing), but regardless of how many there are, it just looks bad to have some automatically showing (no matter how small they are) and some automatically hidden. Users who would maintain this as an unhidable box (and use somewhat insulting language in their edit summaries)[1] need to be willing to explain why this box is more worthy of eternal sunshine than all the other navboxes created with the standard template. Note that you can use a piped command with this template ("state=uncollapsed") on individual pages to prevent autocollapse.-Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 22:25, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proof

Hi! I am missing some kind of proof or reference in this template. How can be determined if certain field of biology is a major subfield. I think Astrobiology, Biochemistry or Bioinformatics has clearly interdisciplinary character. Are they -major- subfields? I don think so. I have also doubts about the Origin of life subfield. --Gbaor 21:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the Origin of life subfield should be changed to Abiogenesis, which is what it redirects to anyway, if it is to stay.

— Brandonrush (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Order?

I have noticed that almost all items in the box are sorted alphabetically, with only a couple of exceptions. Is there any specific reason why these exceptions have been made or is it just a mistake that ought to be corrected? Waltham, The Duke of 16:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No reason, should be fixed. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]