Portal talk:Biology/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Portal:Biology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Cool! Kudos to the creator(s). Pcb21| Pete 00:08, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Now someone is needed to actually maintain the portal, as I'm not very much into biology - I just translated the Polish wikiportal as an example :). Ausir 00:19, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Adding a biology Collaboration of the week would be a great idea. --mav 08:52, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- i agree, as well as making the page easier to edit. Onco p53 04:52, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
It's rather easy to edit - just edit the templates. Ausir 20:03, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)
A wider view
There are no links on this portal to Wildlife, Nature or Conservation topics. I think there should be. Andy Mabbett 6 July 2005 10:04 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to…) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Ausir 10:54, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
the "Categories" section is a conceptual mess
Under the section (is that the right term?) titled "Categories", I'm not happy with the hodge-podge of biology "subcategories" (I will call them disciplines) included. In particular, there are some disciplines that I would call "applied biology" (e.g. forestry) and others that are more purely "scientific" or "academic" (e.g. botany). There are also others included that I don't quite know how to characterize (e.g. bioethics), except to say they are not really disciplines of biology at all. Others I consider to just be too specific (e.g. extinction) and need to be subsumed under other, broader disciplines. I am therefore proposing the following:
Biology, like other "ologies" is a science, governed by the rules and customs of science. We should therefore limit the list of subdisciplines to those which are also legitimately considered as sciences, and exclude those that are not. OR, we need to make separate categories for academic vs applied fields (vs "related", "other" etc.), disciplines of biology. I favor academic vs. applied and delete everything else. I would edit the "Categories" section to make different groupings within it, but my editing skills aren't up to it. Help is needed.
In the absence of a response I will simply remove everything that can't legitimately be called a scientific discipline of biology, which is most of the list.
Jeeb 18:13, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
- No response, editing by removing categories.