Talk:Glossary of scientific names

Why this article?????
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)
 * Should actually be merged with List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names content wise. But this presentation is far preferable for me.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:43, 15 February 2016 (UTC).