Talk:Twin

Template:Vital article

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]

Suggestion for improvement

This article is sorely lacking in content post-birth of twins. Here is an entire book on the subject. Calliopejen1 (talk) 08:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

When cousins are two of a kind

No mention of identical first cousins (dispersed between continents)? They laugh alike; they walk alike; at times they even talk alike. TheScotch (talk) 15:07, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

HI

Image pertinence

@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. QuestFour (talk) 17:54, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@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. --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. 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 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. --KnightMove (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

I have inserted an image of Lisa 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. QuestFour (talk) 08:50, 19 October 2021 (UTC)