Talk:Coevolution

Latest comment: 2 years ago by Chiswick Chap in topic Non-evolutionarybiological uses of coevolution

Norgaard edit

I don't have the time to review this in detail, but just in passing it seems to me that this book is worth a mention in the "outside biology" section: it has been cited roughly 1500 times, and I have heard of it despite this not being my field. Vanamonde (talk) 11:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, I've popped it in. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:52, 29 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Non-evolutionarybiological uses of coevolution edit

I think that non-evolutionary uses of coevolution should have their own pages or something rather than cluttering up the coevolution page. I would think most people coming to the coevolution page are looking for information about evolution -- not relatively obscure uses of the term in architecture or "management and organization studies". beanstash (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your view; it would be totally apposite if the other uses were indeed "non-evolutionary". But they aren't: they're evolutionary but non-biological. It's entirely reasonable that coevolution in all its forms be described here; and even if a non-biological coevolution page were to be created, it would still have a section heading, descriptive paragraph, and "main" link here, with the same citations as now, and that page would only be feasible if you could find multiple reliable sources that discussed all of it as a topic, as opposed to the sources we have which are, naturally enough, about the individual forms. Best we keep it as it is, I think. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 15 October 2021 (UTC)Reply