Talk:Biodiversity information

I do not agree that this article should be merged with 'Biodiversity'. Biodiversity (short for Biological Diversity) refers to the diversity of genes, organisms, species, populations, communities, ecosystems and landscapes on Planet Earth.

The information that we collect and analyse and publish, about this biodiversity, is biodiversity information. Biodiversity information has consistent structure and characteristics. In its simplist form, biodiversity information consists of records of specimens of organisms (animals, plants, fungi, algae, bacteria) that were observed or captured and subsequently preserved. These observations or preserved specimens (of a particular species) were made / captured at (a) particular locality/ies, on (a) particular date/s, by (a) particular person/people. They are specimen/observation records. The specimens themselves (specimens of biodiversity) are usually subsequently arranged in drawers or on shelves in natural history museums, and the information described above (the specimen information or biodiversity information) is recorded on the labels attached to the specimens. Nowadays, this biodiversity information is usually completely digitised in the museum's specimen database. The people who manipulate this biodiversity information (capture it, analyse it, report it) are practising biodiversity informatics.

Would we merge the article on geoinformation with the article on GIS? Absolutely not. 'Geoinformation' needs to be defined as the information that is used by the practitioner of GIS. So biodiversity information needs to be defined as the information that is used by the practitioner of biodiversity informatics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.231.129.51 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 13 October 2007

informa-what
the information given here is ambiguous, to say the least. just like the information about something is not identical with the something itself (good point, but a bit aloof), informatics is about processing information and not identical with it. so: isn't the lemma really a misnomer? as it stands, i am all against keeping it as a separate lemma. -- Kku (talk) 10:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but there is nothing aloof about a good point. If it was a good point to make that Biodiversity Informatics (an activity, or verb) is what you do when you work with Biodiversity Information (an 'object' or 'thing', or a noun), then it was a good point. So the distinction is valid. Period. Unless we want to conflate other distinct concepts in Wikipedia for fear of them being 'aloof'. What about 'Computing' and 'Computer', or 'Online' and 'Internet'? As for the 'lemma' being a 'misnomer', have you read the article on 'Mixed metaphor'? - Willem2007 (talk) 15:30, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

4.235.105.105 (talk) 20:38, 25 November 2007 (UTC) Needs to point out the root words for example what "bio" means and "diversity"<-- i did understand becuase i know the actual definition but needs to be explained without repeting the word itself.

'Bio' does not need to be defined because Biodiversity is already defined in its own article, and the concept in question is 'Biodiversity information', not 'Bioinformation'. - Willem2007 (talk) 15:35, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge
Merge into Biodiversity Informatics, I would say. Makes more sense than defining wat 'information' is inside a specific field. Classical geographer (talk) 10:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I am biting the bullet and merging this page into Biodiversity Informatics as proposed. Neither page is particularly well developed at this time, the term "Biodiversity Informatics" has achieved reasonable traction in the external community, and the latter field is defined e.g. by the journal of the same name as: "the creation, integration, analysis, and understanding of information regarding biological diversity", which I would suggest for all practical reasons renders a separate entry for "Biological Information" superfluous. Also this page says almost nothing at the present time (6 lines only plus a small number of references, one of which uses the wording "Biological Informatics" while the other uses "Biodiversity Informatics") so I think it will most likely not be missed?? I will also put some effort into developing the "Biodiversity Informatics" page further, and think it is wiser to concentrate relevant resources into one wikipedia page rather than two... Hope this does not upset anyone (too much).Tony1212 (talk) 04:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)