Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics/Archive 1

I'm just curious

I'm just curious: why is robot locomotion included in this project's scope? MeegsC | Talk 12:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

A lot of robot locomotion is based on what's been discovered via biomechanics, plus several of the more well-funded labs use robots to test biomechanical hypotheses. Robert Full's lab at UC Berkeley is particularly famous for their interface of robotics and biology. Mokele (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Bird flight

Hi there! I notice this project has recently put an "A" rating on the bird flight article. Given the lack of references, the scanty lead, and the incomplete coverage, I don't think it should be ranked this high. "A" articles are supposed to be be better than "GA"—and this article wouldn't come close to passing a GA review! MeegsC | Talk 10:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I was basically grading on a curve. A or B means "actually has something decent", and C mean "doesn't make me want to tear my eyes out". Anything less means I'm just going to re-write it entirely. Mokele (talk) 16:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Soft tissue

Please, take a look in the soft tissue article and avail if it is in the scope of this project. Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

•  Done Yes, definitely, thanks for bringing it to my notice. Mokele (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't agree with the importance level you gave, I think that soft tissue biomechanics is either high or top level. Most of animal's internal organs has this mechanical behavior. Since bone is rated as top level, I don't see a reason to soft tissue have a lesser importance. --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Mokele (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Statistics table and section rearrangement

I've added the article statistics table of the project and rearranged the section layout of the main page. I think it's better now. ;-) Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 18:49, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Mokele (talk) 15:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Organismal Biomechanics articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Organismal Biomechanics articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 23:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Animal mating footage debate

FYI

 – This is a pointer to a relevant discussion on another talk page.

The alleged issue of whether is can be encyclopedic to include a video (or even a still image) of animal mating behavior has been raised at Talk:Cat#Mating behavior video vs. still photo. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Biophysics - merger?

Greetings from WikiProject Biophysics! I want to make sure that you know about us. We were recently formed by a group that includes the incoming president of the Biophysical Society. We're also wondering if you might like to form some kind of merger with us. Wikiprojects tend to be most effective if they cover several hundred articles. If we combined your 250 or so articles and our approximately 800, that would make a pretty decent size.

If you were to join us as a task force, you would keep your structure and your project page. Little would change except that you would be renamed as a task force and your articles would be tagged with banners saying something like "WikiProject Biophysics/Organismal Biomechanics task force". It would mainly mean that there would be more eyes on your articles, which is surely a good thing. Also, one of your contributors, HCA (talk), pointed out that biophysics and biomechanics people don't always interact much, which seems a pity.

This is just a suggestion – and if you don't like it, no problem! I just hope our groups can find some way of working together. RockMagnetist (talk) 00:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Expert attention needed at Fin and flipper locomotion please

I think you're probably the right people to ask to look over this new article. If not, could you punt it to the right folks? Thanks! //roux   02:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I'll definitely put it on the to-do list. It and another by what seems like the same user could probably mostly be merged with existing articles on the subject. Thanks for pointing it out to us! Mokele (talk) 03:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Looks like he's creating separate accounts for separate articles. No idea why, but oh well. Looked to me like most of it belonged at aquatic locomotion, but I know less than nothing about the subject. //roux   03:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I noticed one other from the edit history, but do you know of any way of tracking down all of these accounts, if they're from the same person? Mokele (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Merge of tetanic contraction and tetanized state

Just to notify, I've merged the tetanized state to tetanic contraction. A merge warning was on since late 2009 and they were indeed the same thing. Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 02:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hill's muscle model

I've improved Hill's model article. Please, could anyone review it? Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

• Still needing a peer review. --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

List of articles

I've substituted the list of articles in the main page to a section named How can you help?. It has links to category lists containing all the project's articles. I think this kind of presentations is cleaner and more practical, since article quality lists may change all the time. Another good tool to overview the project is the statistical table of articles by quality and importance. See if you like the changes, folks! --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I was getting a bit tired of manually adding things to those lists. Mokele (talk) 22:02, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I've also added a Requested articles subpage. --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 22:59, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Peer review policy

Could we institutionalize a peer review policy for our project? I think every article candidate for new importance and quality status should be reviewed by a third person, in order to have a neutral and fair rate. We should avoid to evaluate the self-made article improvements. A peer review system shall improve the quality of this project's articles.

I think either we could either elect one official article reviewer to do this job or agree that anyone here should try do this when demanded in the project's page. We could also make a dedicated page to article revision, the same way other projects already do. What do you think? --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

An official peer-review system would be nice, but I'm not sure how feasible it is given the limited number of folks here. At the moment, I'm bogged down in a tremendous amount of RL academic stuff, but I can try to take a look at some articles in mid-November. Mokele (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I've created an subpage to guide the assessment of the project's articles. I've used the assessment directions of project medicine as template. Do you agree to use this subpage? --Rudolf Hellmuth (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:24, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Reassessment

Hi

Can you please reassess the article Passive dynamics ? It clearly is not at a level deserving of a Robotics B class and was originally assessed by it's creator, something which is against Project Robotics assessment policy and led me to downgrading it to start. It may well be worthy of a C, but as we do not use that class I could only reduce it to a Start.

Thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Center of pressure

Wikipedia's existing Center of pressure article, which discusses the concept of pressure fields in static and dynamic fluid mechanics, has recently been amended to include a section on 'Center of Pressure in Biomechanics', which is clearly an entirely different topic. It is inappropriate to have a single article discussion two different subjects, and accordingly, I propose to delete the section entirely. Whether the 'Biomechanics' CoP topic merits its own article is not for me to say, but I'd suggest that if it does, one should be created, with an appropriate name - we may need a disambiguation page at some point, but first, we need an article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:09, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Why is it different? For force applied over an area, it makes just as much sense to talk about the CoP of a human foot during locomotion or a box resting on the ground as fluid over an aerofoil or of a damn. I suggest instead that the page be expanded to incorporate both. After all, does the source of the pressure field matter that much? HCA (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a single source that suggests that the term 'center of pressure', as used in fluid mechanics, is also applicable to "the CoP of a human foot during locomotion or a box resting on the ground"? Unless you can, it is WP:SYNTHESIS to incorporate the discussion of one topic into another. Frankly though, I don't see why there is any need for a 'biological' CoP article at all, if the physics are no different from "a box resting on the ground" - which seems to be what you are suggesting. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Looking into this further, we already have an article on Balance (ability), and any discussion of 'Center of Pressure in Biomechanics' clearly belongs there - see also the Center of balance disambiguation page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a very common term in biomechanics, particularly when inverse dynamics are involved: see here. When an organism applies force to a substrate, it does so over an area (usually a foot), via a field of pressure, in both static and dynamic systems. The center of pressure, along with the total force vector, are used for further useful calculations (torque at various joints, etc). The current lead of the article is 100% consistent with this - CoP applies to any pressure field, of which fluid forces are one. Just as fluid produces pressure on a dam, so does dirt behind a retaining wall.

Balance is only one application - the center of pressure does not need to align with the center of balance, and usually doesn't (except perhaps on average) in movement like walking, jumping, running, etc.

If it would work better by splitting it into "Center of Pressure (Fluids)" and "Center of Pressure (biomechanics)", then we can. I was just suggesting that the differences between the two are more matters of convention than substance. HCA (talk) 02:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think that logically, there is a "Center of Pressure (Fluid mechanics)" topic, which the existing article covers, and possibly a "Center of Pressure (Solid mechanics)" topic which will need a new one - of which "Center of Pressure (biomechanics)" would be a subtopic. If there is no "Center of Pressure" concept in solid mechanics generally, the use of the same term in fluid mechanics and biomechanics is coincidental - which takes us back to the point I made originally: that we can't cover two different concepts in the same article. It isn't for us to debate whether they are somehow 'really' about the same thing: we have a very specific concept from fluid mechanics (which explicitly applies to both static and dynamic systems, and has a whole sub-discipline of physics devoted to the latter - still trying to generate clear 'laws' for one of the few remaining areas of 'classical physics' that still lacks them), and bringing in a topic which logically seems to be a subset of a topic from solid mechanics, without discussing the more general application of the CoP concept in solid mechanics would seem most strange. Ultimately, it comes down to whether there is a clear single 'CoP concept' in mechanics generally - in which case maybe the existing article needs to be renamed "Center of pressure (fluid mechanics)", and maybe we need a new article on this topic generally, or there isn't, in which case all we need is a disambiguation page. I think that part of the problem here is that our existing CoP article is a bit of a mess - but that is no reason to make it even more confusing. Maybe we need to ask for advice from Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics here, to get some clarity about this. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Further input from WP:physics seems like a good idea - the use of center of pressure for solids on a surface seems obvious enough that I'm sure someone must've thought of it, even if the same terminology isn't used. I'm not sure what to use for a name, though - CoP (solid mechanics) would require input from someone with more expertise on the topic, CoP (biomechanics) is ambiguous since the fluids term is used in flight or swimming biomechanics. Maybe CoP (terrestrial locomotion)? HCA (talk) 14:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The definition of the "biomechanical" centre of pressure in the article is WRONG. The biomechanical centre of pressure is not defined by the centre of gravity projected downwards to the surface instead it is defined by the pressure distribution of the ground reaction forces. The centre of pressure only aligns with the projection of the centre of gravity (called the line of gravity) when the object in question is motionless or during periods when the direction of motion (parallel to the surface) changes. Whenever, the line of gravity differs from the ground reaction force vector, which is located at the centre of pressure, the body must have a change in angular impulse. In other words, it must start rotating. Note, that this only applies when all of the points of contact with the environment are included in the ground reaction force and its centre of pressure. That means you may need to have multiple force platforms (one for each foot or one that records both feet) and even some special instruments if the the person uses a cane or handrails etc. Dger (talk) 16:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Good catch, I hadn't actually bothered to check the contents of it yet. I've fixed it, or at least substantially improved it. HCA (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The new wording is much better. Good job. Dger (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

With regards to the issue as to whether this topic belongs in our CoP article, I've now requested help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Center of pressure. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Before I forget, I have reason to believe the inclusion was done as part of a school project - there have been several edits by newly registered users to Balance (ability) in a relatively short timeframe, which I often see when a page or group of pages have been assigned as part of a class. I only mention it so we can be careful not to bite the newbies. HCA (talk) 18:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Having had no reply from WikiProject Physics, and finding no evidence for any source indicating that the term 'center of pressure' as used in biomechanics is in any meaningful way related to the term as used in fluid mechanics, I am going to remove the 'biomechanics' section as inappropriate, and as synthesis. The article lede makes it abundantly clear that the article is discussing fluid mechanics, and the definition of the term as used in the biomechanics section contradicts the lede in several ways. From what I have been able to determine via Google scholar, the term 'center of pressure' is used only within fluid mechanics, and in biomechanics - there is no general usage of the term outside these fields. On this basis it is clearly inappropriate to incorporate the two different concepts into a single article. If there is sufficient material to justify an article on 'center of pressure in biomechanics' (which I'd think from Google scholar results there probably is), it needs to be covered in a separate article. If and when one is created, we will need to disambiguate the articles: probably the simplest solution would be to name the existing one as Center of pressure (fluid mechanics), and the new one as Center of pressure (biomechanics). AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: I have now renamed the existing article as Center of pressure (fluid mechanics) - I'll copy the biomechanics material to a new article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Note 2: I have now created the Center of pressure (biomechanics) article from the existing material - I suggest that someone from this project checks that this is correct. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for handling the move. I've moved it again to Center_of_pressure_(terrestrial_locomotion), since technically the fluid definition can apply to biomechanics too, as in flight or swimming. HCA (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point - I should probably disambiguate the redirects - fortunately it is usually obvious enough which topic is being linked. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 18:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Parentage

The information in Parentage looks like it was copied from WikiProject Animals. Does it really make sense to have WikiProject Tree of Life as the parent? I would think it should be either biophysics or biology (the former already being a child of the latter). Also, Category:WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics should be a subcat of any projects that are listed as parents, and not directly a subcat of WikiProject Science. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Weigh in needed at WP:Anatomy -RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles.

Hi, throwing this out there for anyone concerned. There is a discussion at WP:MED & WP:Anatomy concerning the way articles should be made up. So as not to exclude you I am posting here. CFCF (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived a few threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 19:17, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:20, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Article title

This debate over whether we should have separate articles on biomimicry and another on biomimetics rather than just having one article on both (using either term) does not appear to have ended and needs to be nipped in the bud. At least one SPA insists on recreating biomimetics over and over again, and several editors have expressed concern about the title of biomimicry on that page. Therefore, it seems that an RfC or move discussion is needed. Any thoughts? Viriditas (talk) 23:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

This article has an issue

I raised this issue here because Tendon is under the scope of this project. I came to that article as part of the GOCE's May backlog elimination drive. However, the Healing section took me into something more complex. While I tried to copyedit that section, I noticed that the terms there may be too technical or jargon such that it becomes difficult to understand. Is it appropriate to continue copyediting, add the {{Technical}} tag, or just remove those things that makes it puzzling? Thanks in advance, Japanese Rail Fan ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Public log)} 10:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I see that one possible copyvio has been flagged. Much of the article looks like it has been copied from technical articles. That's a much more serious issue than being too technical. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:24, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Jumping (horse) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Jumping (horse) to be moved to Horse jumping. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 01:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Myocyte listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Myocyte to be moved to Muscle fibre. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 00:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Fish locomotion listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Fish locomotion to be moved to Fish movement. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics/Archive 1 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 18:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)