Talk:Botanical specimen

A confusing link

A link to biological specimen was added to the first sentence of the lead paragraph on 8 March 2025. I don't understand the relevance of that link to the current article. Surely it doesn't belong in the opening sentence. I would prefer to delete that link, or at least move it to the body of the article where one or more citations can be provided. Tom Scavo (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Peter G Werner: can you comment? Tom Scavo (talk) 14:24, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you don't understand the relevance. Botanical specimens are, by definition, a subset of biological specimens. Albeit, the Wikipedia article on biological specimens seems to emphasize medical specimens. But that's an issue with the breadth of that article, not the concept itself. Peter G Werner (talk) 15:21, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

@Peter G Werner: The article biological specimen is itself irrelevant, not the concept. By linking to that article, the impact of the current article is diminished. It would be better if that link were relegated to the "see also" section. Tom Scavo (talk) 22:16, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

I really don't know what you mean by "the impact of the current article is diminished". Botanical specimens are a subset of biological specimens, and linking to the article on the higher-level concept seems warranted. Much the way that the article on botany notes that it "is the branch of natural science and biology studying plants".

The currently incomplete state of the biological specimen article doesn't seem to be a good argument against linking to it.

If it's not in the lede, then it should definitely be somewhere in the article, but I'm having a really hard time understanding what your issue is with having it in the lede. As far as I'm concerned, putting it in the lede follows the precedent of other articles on scientific subjects. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2025 (UTC)