Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject 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 | Archive 5 |
Peer review notice
1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack is on Peer Review. Your comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack. Cirt (talk) 02:54, 2 January 2008 (UTC).
List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project
Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.
Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.
If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm thinking of adding this to the requested biology articles. We do have science education, but I think a more specific article could be useful as well. Thoughts? Richard001 (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Wildlife of... articles
There are a couple of issues I want to raise about these articles. Firstly, I think we should have a standardized name for them - wildlife, biota and biodiversity are all words that describe the different forms of life of a given place. Articles are currently using various words like this, so it's easy to think there isn't an article on something when there is. We also need to create redirects for the terms not used.
Secondly, for assessment purposes, which project do they fall under: biology or tree of life? Richard001 (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think this is a pretty pressing issue and I too am not sure if it falls here or somehow in Tree of Life, at any rate there isn't any standardisation as seemingly only Asian countries have "Wildlife of.." articles, mostly poor ones. There's also the problem outlined below about regions not ending with borders, that's agreeable but you can still talk about wildlife in a particular place. At any rate I am looking for a place to discuss this further. KimiNewt (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Does this chap have real notability? Or has he just made a minor contribution to botany, but is not really notable? --Dweller (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Look at the quality of the editor who created it: [1]. Well, maybe that's not a good argument... But we need to see some evidence of notability or it should certainly be deleted. Richard001 (talk) 03:49, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Temperature in ecology
I think we need an article that discusses the relationship between heat and temperature and life. I don't know if there is even a word for this, so I'm not really sure what to call it. Thermoregulation is a more narrow topic, which is a subset of what I'm talking about, though it may touch on some of the other aspects as background.
Similarly I have proposed an article on water and life elsewhere, though again I don't think there is a word for it (hydrobiology comes closest). Richard001 (talk) 09:14, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
- This might actually entail inserting multiple small sections across a whole series of articles as it's such a broad topic. Geographic variability in temperature (climate, strictly speaking) influences (for instance) the land area in which particular habitats can exist (including anomalies where mountain elevation acts in lieu of higher latitudes), creates the need for seasonal migration patterns and the ways in which historical climate change leaves plant or animal traces behind in soil deposits and the fossil record. I haven't checked yet but the existing ecology and geography articles should be covering things like these already. I can't think of a suitable title either but my initial position is that you're going to get severely bogged down in referencing everything you wanted to say, or else take the risk of it being pulled for being WP:OR. EatYerGreens (talk) 04:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
FYI, I have nominated the article 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack for consideration at WP:FAC. Your comments at the FAC discussion page would be appreciated. Cirt (talk) 09:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Genetics FAC
I've nominated Genetics as a featured article candidate. I invite anyone interested to review, make comments, and make suggestions here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Genetics Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me, based on the content being added, that Megaselia scalaris could easily be redirected to Phoridae, but the author insists on creating and editing the article anyway, ignoring my note. Perhaps an editor with more experience with biological articles could help determine whether my redirect was appropriate or not. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 21:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
- Redirect a species to a family? Richard001 (talk) 10:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
Sex is one of the core topics, and it's considered to be within the Biology category. (The article is also extremely popular for some reason.) It was a mess and I've rewritten it entirely, the focus being "biological sex" (this was defined to be the topic of the article before I got to it). If anyone here would like to look at it, suggest topics that need to be added, modifications, or otherwise help, it would be much appreciated! Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 00:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- Looks very good I like it --Stylus881 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
New Project:WikiProject Human Genetic History
I saw Wikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic History on my travels, which was started in March. Just thought I'd mention it here for those who have missed its appearance. Richard001 (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Infanticide
The article Infanticide has been massively rewritten. Lots of references have been added. How can the "Start" tag posted in the talk page be removed? Can I just remove the tag?:
Infanticide is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia. Start. This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
My emphasis. —Cesar Tort 01:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
- I've removed this myself. I added before the animals project was up and before I started the more general article on infanticide. You can remove any assessment by simply deleting the |class=start part (to |class=), though deleting a rating isn't really the best idea. Ideally we want a reassessment of the article. It still has a long way to go to become a featured article, but it's also a lot better than it used to be. A B-class would probably be appropriate now, though I haven't even read through it since you started editing. Richard001 (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Binomial name italicisation in article titles
Can anyone whip up a template along the lines of {{lowercase}} and other title-transforming utilities to allow articles titled with a binomial species name to have their headings italicised, as Wikipedia is careful to do with occurences of binomial names in the text of articles themselves? I raised this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (technical restrictions) in December but no one did anything. Is this technically possible? If a template could be created I should think it would be quite easy to request a bot to go through all the many thousands of affected articles to insert the template. 79.68.179.124 (talk) 12:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
- Probably more suited to Wikipedia:Template requests. Richard001 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Good article icon
A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Parasitic worm
I'm looking for some additional input on the article parasitic worm. If someone could please read through the article and associated debate on the talk page and give me their two cents that would be awesome. thanks! Plcoffey 03:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Biology requests - think we need to split this baby up
It was suggested at the village pump that the biology requests page be broken up into some smaller pages. It's difficult to split biology up as there are many overlapping areas, but I'm sure we can make it better than it is now. Any ideas? Richard001 (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up
|
Vancouver Meetup Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details. |
Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Liposome
This article currently lacks a template at the top, to state that it is part of wikiproject Biology (and is it?) so I would appreciate the help of a member. I'd probably screw up the tag if I attempted this myself.
Secondly, attempts are being made to make the article easier for the layperson to understand (especially the introductory paragraph) in accordance with the WP:MEDMOS guidelines and it turned out I wasn't at all adept at this. So I would appreciate assistance from anyone with the skills to make the article transition smoothly from simple terms to the more complex sections, yet keep it factually accurate. Referencing and verification need improving and, finally, we could do with some input from layperson visitors. EatYerGreens (talk) 04:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I've nominated this article as a FA, comments and reviews would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaea. Thank you Tim Vickers (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 09:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
- The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
- The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
- A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Proposed merge
Should Deposit feeder and Saprotroph be merged into Detritivore? I feel they cover very much the same ground. Comments welcome. Anxietycello (talk) 02:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Redirects on "G. species" disambiguation pages
Please see this discussion so that we can come to a conclusion about redirects used on "G. species" disambiguation pages.
Thank you, Neelix (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Added Template to WikiProject Biology main page
I am not currently a member of WikiProject Biology so I am perhaps overstepping,
but per standard practice of other WikiProjects and following discussion above on this page
I have boldly added the WikiProject Biology template {{WikiProject Biology|class=|importance=}} to the project's main page.
Of course, if there is any reason why this is inappropriate, Project members should undo.
Thanks -- Writtenonsand (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Check image?
Hi everybody. I was wondering if the image on the right is in fact a slime mould, and if it is what kind it is. Thanks Tim Vickers (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
- You might have more luck at WT:TOL. Richard001 (talk) 07:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Articles flagged for cleanup
Currently, 295 articles are assigned to this project, of which 119, or 40.3%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:
- {{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription|banner=WikiProject Biology}}
If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Template:Nobel icon proposed for deletion
A TfD has been convened, as to whether to prohibit all the little gold icons in Nobel prizewinners' infoboxes. Jheald (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Proposed rename
There is an ongoing discussion about renaming homosexuality and bisexuality in animals to homosexual behavior in animals. Please feel free to offer your comments! — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 14:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Biology
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
- I've revamped Paleontology. If we can get it up to at least B-class we should nominate it for Wikipedia v 0.7. -- Philcha (talk) 09:40, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
List of biologists
A discussion has been going on my talk page between me and User:Viriditas about the inclusion of red links in the List of biologists. As we can come to no agreement, Viriditas has asked to put this discussion here and ask for your input about this question. JoJan (talk) 09:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Why did you remove the addition of a red link to this list? Viriditas (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- This list refers to an existing biography of a biologist and therefore should only contain blue links. This doesn't mean that Lynn J. Rothschild doesn't deserve to be entered into this list. But first you have to establish the notability (Wikipedia:Notability) from independent, reliable sources. This can only be done if you write first a biography of the person in question. I hope this answers your question. JoJan (talk) 08:21, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. This list refers to at least 19 red links, and there is no list of notable people on Wikipedia that should only include blue links. I don't know where you are getting this from. And just to point you in the right direction, the correct guideline is WP:PROF which contradicts your assertions above. Dr. Rothschild meets criterion 1, 2, 3, and possibly others. Viriditas (talk) 08:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Second answer : you refer to red link. If you read this guideline you will see the following text : "However when considering adding red links to lists, disambiguation pages or templates, editors are encouraged to write the article first (the bolding is by me). This is a normal consideration. Otherwise, lists would become dumping places full of red links and would become unmanageable. JoJan (talk) 08:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, that recommendation was added unilaterally by User:UnitedStatesian on March 14, 2008.[2] without any discussion. Furthermore, if you read the rest of the article, you'll see that adding red links to lists is perfectly acceptable. I think it should be removed from the guideline as there was no consensus for its inclusion and it contradicts the very idea of adding red links in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I created this list originally and I try to keep it manageable. But if you want to insist on keeping this red link, it's fine to me. But keep in mind what the guidelines of RED LINK say about this : "Do create red links to articles you intend to create " (bolding by me) and "Keep in mind there are various notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subjects, including people (WP:BIO). ". A red link to a name does not establish the notability. Therefore, you have to create now a biography about this biologist, establishing the notability, even if this biography is just a stub. But you're an experienced editor and you can do better than that. I hope this ends the discussion. JoJan (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let me ask you a simple question: did you add the 18 red links in the article before I added the 19th? Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- No. But as far as I'm concerned, they have to go too. They have been there too long without a biography being created. JoJan (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Ok, then if that is your position, I request that you take your proposal to the Biology WikiProject, as I am completely against it. For what it is worth, I do intend to create the article on Dr. Rothschild. Viriditas (talk) 09:01, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- No. But as far as I'm concerned, they have to go too. They have been there too long without a biography being created. JoJan (talk) 08:59, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- Let me ask you a simple question: did you add the 18 red links in the article before I added the 19th? Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- I created this list originally and I try to keep it manageable. But if you want to insist on keeping this red link, it's fine to me. But keep in mind what the guidelines of RED LINK say about this : "Do create red links to articles you intend to create " (bolding by me) and "Keep in mind there are various notability guidelines (WP:NOTABILITY), which exist for a number of subjects, including people (WP:BIO). ". A red link to a name does not establish the notability. Therefore, you have to create now a biography about this biologist, establishing the notability, even if this biography is just a stub. But you're an experienced editor and you can do better than that. I hope this ends the discussion. JoJan (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
- No, that recommendation was added unilaterally by User:UnitedStatesian on March 14, 2008.[2] without any discussion. Furthermore, if you read the rest of the article, you'll see that adding red links to lists is perfectly acceptable. I think it should be removed from the guideline as there was no consensus for its inclusion and it contradicts the very idea of adding red links in the first place. Viriditas (talk) 08:40, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Brain at FAC
A heads up, Brain is at FAC. Would be great to get this one over the line. Needs some work on evolutionary stuff maybe (?). Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Template
I think it might be a good idea to modify template:WikiProject Biology to allow subprojects to be included within it. Many articles fit under several subprojects, and these could be grouped together in a similar way to {{WikiProject Philosophy}}. Ideally they could retain a subproject-specific importance rating. Richard001 (talk) 04:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
Also, it might be a good idea to create a template:biology (reassigning the redirect), with links the some of the most important topics in biology. Does anyone want to suggest some links? Maybe looking through some biology textbooks and picking out say 20-50 of the subjects they emphasize the most would be a good way to do this? It would be a bit subjective, but it would be nice to have a template covering the whole field of biology, rather than just field-specific templates. Richard001 (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Chirality (biology)
Chirality (biology) was prodded. 70.55.86.100 (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC)