Talk:Phylum (biology)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request.
 * ''See

Aren't there phyla in the plant kingdom too? Chewyman 06:49, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, the kingdom Plantae is divided into "divisions", as are Fungi. Only animals are classified into phyla. (I'm not sure about protists, actually - there seems to be some variation.) --Stemonitis 11:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, I found out later than in botany, either "Phylum" or "Division" is allowed, officially, but in practice, no botanists ever use the term "Phylum". --Stemonitis 11:43, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2005
I suggest that Phylum be moved to Phylum (disambiguation) and that this article be moved to Phylum. The biological sense is by far the dominant meaning for phlyum. The current Phylum page is a disambiguation between the biological meaning and a nonexistent Phylum (linguistics). Alternatively, the current Phylum page could just be deleted instead of being moved to Phylum (disambiguation). &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 08:09, 2 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments

Decision
Done. Ryan Norton T 11:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, that's great. I looked this up last night and came to oppose now, but it had already been moved. Did you even bother to contact any wikilinguists about this? I do not support this move. Both terms are well-defined and important. One should not have precedence over the other.
 * Peter Isotalo 12:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Whom are you asking? No, I just listed the request on WP:RM and placed prominent notices with edit summaries on Talk:Phylum and Talk:Phylum (biology), as is standard practice. Perhaps the wikilinguists would be interested in writing an article on Phylum (linguistics) before we consider primary disambiguation. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 19:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't quite see how that matters, since both terms are generally accepted ones and equally important in their fields. But now we have a linguistics phylum. Do you think you could reinstate this as a proper dab page now?
 * Peter Isotalo 22:01, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Requested move 17 October 2005
I requested this change on October 2, 2005. I feel the biological sense is the dominant meaning for phlyum. No one commented on the proposal, and after two weeks, an administrator moved the pages. A few hours later, another user left a message on the talk page saying he disagreed with the move that had just been done, and now moved them back. I don't wish to move-war over this, and I'd like to see more support for this one way or the other. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 03:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~ 


 * Support proposed move by Knowledge Seeker, with one minor change.
 * Phylum (biology)→Phylum;
 * Phylum (linguistics) can remain where it is;
 * the new Phylum, containing the biology article, can have a direct link to Phylum (linguistics), using the sentence "This article concerns the biologic use of the word Phylum. For information on its use in linguistics, see Phylum (linguistics)";
 * there is no need to create Phylum (disambiguation) for two applications of a word, only three or more—hence, it may be deleted after the move.
 * The word phylum is chiefly used in the biologic sense. Its use as a linguistic term is a very recent development, occuring nearly a hundred years after Francis Bell wrote in his translation of Gegenbaur's Elements of comparative anatomy of having "arranged the chief phyla first of all in the form of a genealogical tree." The linguistic sense may also, I think, be fairly said to have been borrowed from the biomedical. Phylum (biology)→Phylum is a move that I believe will allow the majority of users looking up this word to get to where they want with one click, instead of two. Readers looking for the less common use of the word can get to where they want in two clicks, which will also be exactly the same number of clicks they'd need in Peter's scheme. I see this solution as having the admirable effect of not unduly inconveniencing readers interested in either term, and at the same time allowing most interested readers to get to where they want in the quickest way possible. Finally, I would be remiss if I didn't add that Peter's thoughts always have my respect, and if I happen to disagree with him on this occassion, that does not lessen my regard for his opinions. With apologies to Ryan for not sticking to a "one sentence explanation", enceph  alon  09:36, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I prefer Encephalon's version. &mdash; Knowledge Seeker &#2470; 20:26, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Support. Encephalon's version. Because reversal took place without a consensus or even a WP:RM request. Philip Baird Shearer 14:46, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Add any additional comments
 * Hi again, folks. Is there a procedure for what happens now? Do we wait longer or do the deed? encephalon  19:54, 28 October 2005 (UTC)