Template talk:Composition

What is this?

This doesn't appear useful, and is certainly a transition I've never encountered before. Could you explain the purpose of this? |→ Spaully^₪† 19:06, 24 May 2007 (GMT)

Yes, let me explain... The template is about the "scale" or the "composition" of each type of matter... It means: Organisms are made up of systems, systems are made up of organs, organs are made up of tissues, tissues are made up of cells, cells are made up of organelles, organelles are made up of molecules, molecules are made up of atoms, atoms are made up of particles, and particles are made up of quarks. We can divide matter, starting with an organism, until we reach quarks: The smallest division possible, the bit of matter that cannot be split... With the template, viewers can travel through the different divisions of matter easilly... ♠Tom@sBat 21:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This template is biased towards biology. While it may be useful when placed in an article about organisms, cells, or organelles, it seems arbitrary when you put it on an article about molecules and smaller entities. For example, one can wonder why the scale is not something like universe -> galaxy -> solar system -> planet -> ... -> quark. ;-) --Itub 10:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... We could broaden it... Maybe... Universe→Galaxy→Solar system→Planet→Continent→Country→State or Province→City, Village, or Town→Neighborhood→Residence→Familly→Organism→System→Organ→Tissue→Cell→Organelle→Molecule→Atom→Particle→Quark

Or something of the sort...

I included what I included in the template because thats how I recently learned it at school... ♠Tom@sBat 22:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Too arbitrary I think. Especially so on non-biology pages. Perhaps a biology specific version could be kept, something like 'levels of complexity in biology', starting with biomolecule and going up to biosphere or something like that? Richard001 10:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a bit arbitrary (I added it because I learnt it that way), and if we expand it it would get even more arbitrary. Considering you're proposal, what would go in between biomolecule and biosphere? ♠TomasBat 22:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Country→State or Province→City, Village, or Town→Neighborhood→Residence→Familly" part should be removed from what is proposed because it is too socio-political, and also, having star system instead of Solar system would be better to make it less anthropocentric. --193.198.16.211 (talk) 13:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

How about s/→/> ?

Instead of using an arrow, indicating "to", couldn't one use a ">" indicating that the preceeding particle is greater than the following? — Lasse Havelund (p · t · c) 18:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea... If no one objects we might as well change it... ♠TomasBat 19:11, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done[1] ♠TomasBat 16:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Complete hierarchy

Here would be a possible way to present the complete hierarchy of everything; yes, it is very arbitrary and biased at many points (and it wouldn't seem very logical to include this with the name "Into matter" since it goes beyond that into social concepts such as "Familly" and abstractish concepts such as "Absolute" and "Everything"). The point is that I couldn't think of another way of linking everything/presenting the hierarchy of everything, whilst involving as many "stopping points"/"hierarchy levels" as possible; perhaps this could serve as a seperate template and/or could be improved in some way. I believe that presenting a hierarchy of everything could be useful for giving people reading Wikipedia an idea on how vast "everything" is, and how insignificant stages of the hierarchy tend to get as we "zoom out".

So, here it is:

Everything > Plane of existence > Omniverse > Multiverse > Universe > Filament > Supercluster > Cluster > Galaxy > Star system > Planet > Continent > Country > State or Province > City, Village, or Town > Neighborhood > Residence > Familly  > Organism > Organ system > Organ > Tissue > Cell > Organelle > Molecule > Atom > Subatomic particle  (Composite particle . Elementary particle)

Any thoughts encouraged, ♠TomasBat 00:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)