Talk:Twin: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 16:32, 11 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Twin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 3 months

Biology Mid‑importance

	Biology portal Twin is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject BiologyTemplate:WikiProject BiologyBiology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: MCB Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as High-importance).

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships

Genealogy Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Genealogy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Genealogy 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.GenealogyWikipedia:WikiProject GenealogyTemplate:WikiProject GenealogyGenealogy
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article was the subject of an educational assignment that ended on 20 May 2022. Further details are available here.

Quaternary mention?

I not only didn't see any mention of non-communal "quaternary marriages" mentioned in this article, I couldn't find a single mention anywhere on wikipedia. Could quaternary marriages be mentioned or even have its own article? I learned about it earlier today in the letter section of Popular Science and this was basically the only worthwhile web reference I could find outside of discussion about group marriages: [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.115.130 (talk) 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citation 19 is a dead link

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.9.109.234 (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have flagged the URL with |url-status=usurped. — Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: BIO 378 Developmental Biology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 January 2022 and 20 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Uketbriana (article contribs). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uketbriana (talk • contribs) 03:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Types and Zygosity section

I removed table added in 2016 by Gatorgirl7563. It contained no information not already found in article. Tables should help the reader correlate related facts, however out of 77 cells, 66 were "X" (which was not defined). 2 columns were completely "X", so served no purpose. I am assuming that Gatorgirl7563 thought that it would be expanded and clarified by other editors over time, but at only 14% filled in, took up a lot of space without adding clarification to the article. There were previous discussions on talk page to remove or improve. If someone wanted to create a comprehensive table that correlates all aspects of the different types of twinning, I would support that, but it should add information to the article by showing how their attributes compare and contrast. • Bobsd • (talk) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neshebra Danielle Wright

Macula pinna 2600:1005:B194:EB8F:18A9:2FF:2551:BABC (talk) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Talk header|search=yes}}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=
-{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Life|class=B}}
-{{WikiProject banner shell|1=
+{{WikiProject Biology|importance =mid}}
-{{WikiProject Biology|class =B|importance =mid}}
+{{WikiProject Molecular Biology|importance =mid|MCB=yes|MCB-importance=High}}
-{{WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology|class=B|importance=High}}
+{{WikiProject Family and relationships}}
-{{WikiProject Family and relationships|class=|importance=}}
+{{WikiProject Genealogy|importance =mid}}
+}}
-}}{{User:MiszaBot/config
+{{User:MiszaBot/config
 |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}}
 |maxarchivesize = 125K
@@ Line 13: / Line 14: @@
 |archive = Talk:Twin/Archive %(counter)d
 }}
+{{Educational assignment|date=2022-05-20|link=Wikipedia:Wiki Ed/Goucher College/BIO 378 Developmental Biology (SP22)}}
 == Quaternary mention? ==
-I not only didn't see any mention of non-communal "quaternary marriages" mentioned in this article, I couldn't find a single mention anywhere on wikipedia.  Could quaternary marriages be mentioned or even have its own article?  I learned about it earlier today in the letter section of Popular Science and this was basically the only worthwhile web reference I could find outside of discussion about group marriages: [http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2005/fall/double/index.html]
+I not only didn't see any mention of non-communal "quaternary marriages" mentioned in this article, I couldn't find a single mention anywhere on wikipedia.  Could quaternary marriages be mentioned or even have its own article?  I learned about it earlier today in the letter section of Popular Science and this was basically the only worthwhile web reference I could find outside of discussion about group marriages: [http://www.bu.edu/alumni/bostonia/2005/fall/double/index.html] <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/4.254.115.130|4.254.115.130]] ([[User talk:4.254.115.130#top|talk]]) 03:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)</small>
 == Citation 19 is a dead link ==
+<!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/82.9.109.234|82.9.109.234]] ([[User talk:82.9.109.234#top|talk]]) 16:06, 14 March 2015 (UTC)</small>
+:{{done}} I have {{diff|Twin|prev|1248321584|flagged}} the URL with {{para|url-status|usurped}}. <span title="Signature of Dan Leonard">— <span style="text-shadow: 2px 2px 8px lightskyblue, -2px -2px 8px forestgreen;font-weight:bold;">[[User:Dan Leonard|Dan Leonard]]</span> ([[User talk:Dan Leonard|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Dan Leonard|contribs]])</span> 21:45, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
-== Image pertinence  ==
-{{yo|KnightMove}} I have replaced the image of the Olsen twins with that of child-age fraternal, look-alike twin sisters, as the latter fulfills the variety criterion of [[MOS:PERTINENCE]]. With that provided, the further addition of the Olsen twins image, apart from the visual-to-text ratio being at its utmost, would simply be superfluous as instanced in the MOS and will not be adding to anything provided in the article whether it be in text or illustration. [[User:QuestFour|QuestFour]] ([[User talk:QuestFour|talk]]) 17:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
-:{{yo|QuestFour}} The variety is fulfilled by the illustration of the exception - that fraternal twins look alike to a degree to be used interchangeably, even well beyond baby age. Two images portraying two different special cases, that'*s as illustration should be. While I agree that the fraternal twin babies you've added look very similar and can hardly be distinguished from each other - and from identical twins -, babies in general look more similar to each other than adults so, and the image overall does not serve well as an illustration. --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] ([[User talk:KnightMove|talk]]) 11:33, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
-::The MOS presents the variety gauge in the form mentioned above and instructs to "depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities"; the point regarding age and similarity in looks in twins is solely impressionistic and is not representative of what is provided in the article. As can be shown in the article's revision history, various image of twin actors, actresses and celebrities, including the Olsens, have been added to the article throughout its lifespan but subsequently removed due to similar circumstances. Therefore, the current image does satisfy all of the conditions stated in the MOS. [[User:QuestFour|QuestFour]] ([[User talk:QuestFour|talk]]) 18:39, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::The rule you quote is certainly not to be understood as "all persons on different images included must be different in age, gender, AND ethnicity each." In this case, your image of the babies napping would also be against the rule, as the babies apparently have the same ethnicity and nationality as the Kelly brothers. The Olsen twins differ in gender and heavily in age from the Kelly brothers, which would certainly suffice... if it even were necessary.
-:::The rule is to be read in context of the general guideline "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context, not primarily decorative. They are often an important [[multimedia learning|illustrative aid]] to understanding." This exactly is fulfilled with adding look-alike fraternal twins, not to make the reader to superficially conclude "identical twins look alike, fraternal twins don't". So your implicit assumption I would add the image just as a decoration with just another famous twin couple is not correct.
-:::I will call [[WP:Third opinion]]. --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] ([[User talk:KnightMove|talk]]) 08:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
-::::I have inserted an image of Lisa-Kaindé and Naomi Diaz of the duo [[Ibeyi]], along with a similar caption to what was inserted prior. The image fulfills the conditions stated in the MOS and above and has the twins in a front-facing position. It is also a high quality portrait akin to the images provided in the article. [[User:QuestFour|QuestFour]] ([[User talk:QuestFour|talk]]) 08:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
-:::::As no third opinion is coming in, so be it, I accept this as a compromise. --[[User:KnightMove|KnightMove]] ([[User talk:KnightMove|talk]]) 05:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
-== Do identical twins have identical wisdom teeth? ==
-This question is a little outside my bailiwick, and as far as I can tell, the answer isn't anywhere on Wikipedia. I poked around Google Scholar a bit, but what I found didn't answer the question directly. If anyone knows the answer / has a good source relating to this, please let me know and/or add it to this article, or perhaps the [[Wisdom teeth]] article, or perhaps both. Thanks in advance for any help! [[User:JoePhin|<span style="color: green">Joe</span>]] ([[User talk:JoePhin|talk]]) 03:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 ==Wiki Education assignment: BIO 378 Developmental Biology==
+{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Goucher_College/BIO_378_Developmental_Biology_(SP22) | assignments = [[User:Uketbriana|Uketbriana]] | start_date = 2022-01-31 | end_date = 2022-05-20 }} <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Uketbriana|Uketbriana]] ([[User talk:Uketbriana#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Uketbriana|contribs]]) 03:31, 3 March 2022 (UTC)</small>
-== Terminology for individuals ==
+== Types and Zygosity section ==
+I removed table added in 2016 by Gatorgirl7563.  It contained no information not already found in article. Tables should help the reader correlate related facts, however out of 77 cells, 66 were "X" (which was not defined). 2 columns were completely "X", so served no purpose.   I am assuming that Gatorgirl7563 thought that it would be expanded and clarified by other editors over time, but at only 14% filled in, took up a lot of space without adding clarification to the article.  There were previous discussions on talk page to remove or improve.
-Regarding this passage from the opening of the article: "In contrast, a [[fetus]] that develops alone in the womb (the much more common case, in humans) is called a ''singleton'', and the general term for one offspring of a [[multiple birth]] is a ''multiple''. Unrelated [[Look-alike|look-alikes]] whose resemblance parallels that of twins are referred to as [[Doppelgänger|doppelgängers]]."
+If someone wanted to create a comprehensive table that correlates all aspects of the different types of twinning, I would support that, but it should add information to the article by showing how their attributes compare and contrast.  <span style="border-radius:9em;background:#88ff00">[[User:Bobsd|<span style="color: blue">&nbsp;• Bobsd •&nbsp;</span>]] </span>([[User talk:Bobsd|talk]]) 17:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
+== Neshebra Danielle Wright ==
-* Singleton: there was one post to talk years back that brought into question use of this term.  However, it appears in the scientific literature, such as in {{PMID|10442325}}, a clinical paper that has in the Abstract (Study design section) "...data on all women with singleton and twin gestations complicated by PROM...."  This type of usage suggests the use of "singleton" for a child of a singleton pregnancy, just like below for "twin" for a child of a twin pregnancy.
-* Multiple: I've been trying to find use of this term.  The more common approach than using "multiple" is to refer using a derivative of the common multiplicity term.  So, in the case of twins, an individual is referred to as a "twin" ([[iarchive:dorlandspocketme0000dorl/|Dorlands, 28th edition 2009]], pg. 877), "triplet" for a triplet birth (pg. 869), "quadruplet" for one person from a quadruple pregnancy (pg. 705), "quintuplet" (pg. 705), "sextuplet" (pg. 758), "septuplet" (pg. 756) <nowiki>&</nowiki>mdash; which is as far as the dictionary goes.  The text has terms for multiple pregnancies (multigravida and multipara), but these terms refer to multiple different pregnancies and not to a multi-birth pregnancy.  Also, the current citation to a MedLinePlus article only alludes to the use of the term multiple and doesn't actually define it.
-* Dopplegangers: the supporting citation related to a "generalized user modeling system" which has this name.  I would suggest dropping this particular sentence altogether.
+Macula pinna [[Special:Contributions/2600:1005:B194:EB8F:18A9:2FF:2551:BABC|2600:1005:B194:EB8F:18A9:2FF:2551:BABC]] ([[User talk:2600:1005:B194:EB8F:18A9:2FF:2551:BABC|talk]]) 16:32, 11 December 2024 (UTC)
-I can do the rewrite and re-citationing of the passage, but wanted to see if the concept passed muster here first. --User:Ceyockey (<small>''[[User talk:Ceyockey|talk to me]]''</small>) 23:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)