This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Tree of Life, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of taxonomy and the phylogenetictree 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 articles
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Glossaries, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.GlossariesWikipedia:WikiProject GlossariesTemplate:WikiProject GlossariesGlossaries articles
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Could someone please explain why this article (effectively a glossary) is not united with Glossary of scientific naming? Names and naming might be distinct concepts, and as such deserve distinct articles, but an article that is a glossary should be united with as many other glossaries as serve the same field(s). Remember that in general n glossaries increase search effort by Order (N) (or a great deal worse), whereas a glossary n times as large only increases search by Order (log(n)). That is elementary! A glossary that no one knows about is useless; I only found this one by accident. I see that it is in WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology; that is fine, but then it should not have such an open name; what gave anyone the idea, either that M&CB is the only field of science that uses the concept of scientific names, or that it uses them in a unique way?
I propose that someone form a project to unite as many glossaries as practical into as few as practical. If anyone is interested,I am willing to discuss the means and rationale. A separate topic is the separation of overview topics that deal with the description of various fields covered in and broad-topic glossary. JonRichfield (talk) 12:21, 25 November 2014 (UTC)Reply
