Talk:Homogamy

Proposal to split the article into two
Added biological definition of homogamy. This could use linking and support from articles on dichogamy and hermaphrodism. --Ochotona (talk) 06:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This I find confusing; the use in biology seems quite unconnected to that in sociology. Perhaps it's a *small* set of meanings, but I'd prefer an ambiguity page for the word itself, or perhaps just a link to the wiktionary?  The only departure from the definitional here is a remark about one proposal (and is it still current? it's the first I'd ever heard...) to deliberately subvert traditional word use, and having little directly to do with either established meaning. 173.33.200.177 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The two sections of this definition seem redundant. 05:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The two sections of this article seem to me to be hardly related at all, and I'd favour the proposal to split. The biological meaning could be greatly expanded, but it would seem silly to have a lot of discussion and diagrams of the biology when the quite distinct sociology term is on the same page. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:28, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If the reason for the split is obvious, then I suggest that you go ahead and make the split. This discussion has been going on, very slowly, for 4 years now. I personally think that the split articles would be too small to be viable. If you agree with me on that, then the correct tag would be expand and not split. Op47 (talk) 22:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Turned into a disamb page per WP:Disambiguation. We don't have articles on unrelated information that share the same name. We don't have definitions of words per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. From the information I picked out that there were three subjects that related to Homogamy which a reader may be looking for, and I have provided a link to those - if the reader simply wants a definition of the word, there is a link to Wiktionary. If people wish to build on the Homogamy information in Wikipedia, the route is to go the most appropriate article and place the material (with cites to reliable sources) in that article. If there is a Homogamy related topic I have missed, that can be added as a link per the guidance at WP:Disambiguation, but the material should not be placed here.  SilkTork   ✔Tea time  16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that you should look more closely at what you have deleted and deal with it appropriately before destroying what others have built. You should not assume that other people have limitless time for restoring that material. This falls under the general heading of reaching consensus in wikipedia. Nadiatalent (talk) 20:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)