Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology

Archives

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 1

[edit] Embryo/Fetus/prenatal development etc

Currently, the state of articles dealing with developmental biology is a mess. We have some articles dealing strictly with humans (human embryogenesis, Prenatal development, Human fertilization, timeline of prenatal development), then we have articles that cover just mammals Mammalian embryogenesis, and articles that are more inclusive (fetus, embryo, embryogenesis. We also have Template:Embryology, which claims to be about humans, but most of the links are ambiguously about humans. Anyway, I figure we need some sort of centralized discussion to give some sort of outline or hierarchy to these articles. This discussion began at Talk:Timeline of prenatal development, with a proposal to (re-)create fetal development to be what embryogenesis is to the embryo article (only for the fetus instead). Anyway, any thoughts, ideas, proposals, or general comments would be great. How should we organize these articles? Do any existing articles need to be merged? What articles need to be created? and how should we deal with the human/obstetrics aspects in relation to the developmental biology aspect. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding titles of articles, I think the title "prenatal development" is better than the title "fetal development", because the latter would be confusing to many readers; usually medical texts use the term "fetal development" to include development of both an embryo and fetus, even though the fetal stage comes after the embryonic stage, which makes the term "fetal development" confusing.[1] Right now, "fetal development" redirects to "prenatal development" which makes good sense.

Regarding organization of our articles, I pretty much agree with the following comment from another editor:

"I'd suggest developing Zygote, Embryo, and Fetus to include more detailed information on these stages, and then using fetal [i.e. prenatal] development as a top-tier hub to summarize those sub-articles (in this case, placing all the 'eggs' in one basket would be a good thing)."

My only caveat is that I think zygote should not be treated separately from embryo (our article on embryo says that an embryo exists from the moment of fertilization).

If the timeline in fetus becomes too bulky, then the timeline could be split up into articles about various aspects of the fetus's development, with summaries in the fetus article. There is already an article on fetal movement, and there could eventually be articles on the fetal brain, et cetera. I do not think we need an article other than fetus devoted to the whole timeline of all aspects of a fetus's development, except that prenatal development can summarize the developmental info for both an embryo and fetus.

As far as splitting up articles to separate human and non-human articles, perhaps a better approach would be, for example, to keep the human info at fetus with the non-human info at the end of that article (as it is now), and then when there is a lot of non-human fetus info it can be split off (i.e. so there would then be a "fetus" article and a "non-human fetus" article but no "human fetus" article). Likewise, there would eventually be an "embryo" article and a "non-human embryo" article, but no "human embryo" article.Ferrylodge 15:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be 'human embyro' and 'embryo'? I tried to organize a discussion about this human/non-human naming issue but nothing much came of it. There seems to be an underlying assumption that everything will be about humans, and we generally tend to write articles in this way much to the detriment of broader information. Regardless of the naming politics, I think all articles should from the outset make it very clear what the scope of the article is. I find nothing more annoying than an article that opens with a broad biological definition of a subject and then proceeds to talk about nothing but humans, as if there is no need to justify or even point out that this approach has been taken. Richard001 23:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mikael Häggström's proposition

Since most readers are humans, and therefore very likely want to know about human development, I agree with Ferrylodge that human articles have higher priority, and should come first. Yet, I also agree with Richard001 that it's confusing with articles not really saying what they should. Therefore, prenatal development should remain a top-tier hub to summarize the human sub-articles, but those sub-articles should remain the human ones, but, in turn, linking to the general articles. The general articles, however, can begin with the human version, i.e. a link to the main article and a short summary, and subsequently tell how this works differently in different animals. Therefore, people getting directly to those, instead of linking from prenatal development, still get to the human part first. Regarding the non-human or non-mammal sections in existing articles, they may remain as summaries, with links to the main, more general, articles.

However, just because the top-tier hub prenatal development should start with the human point of view, this doesn't exclude that a parallel top-tier hub should exist for the general one, and linked to that prenatal development. I suggest one such article should also be created, i.e. a general one.

Furthermore, regarding different articles of fetus and fetal development, I think they should be different articles, just as there is one for embryo and embryogenesis. The section of the cirkulatory system of the fetus, e.g. tells a lot of how it works, but not really its development. I'm aware of that fetal development and prenatal development often are used as the same thing, but with a clear note early in fetal development that it only is a part of the whole thing, it shouldn't be too confusing.

Human fetal development would probably be much a top-tier hub, in turn, for the development of each organ individually. This doesn't exclude, however, the small list of links to those individual organs which exists in the higher article prenatal development as well.

All in all, this proposition hopefully avoids confusion as much as possibly can be done, once and for all:

[edit] Human

I propose the following organization of prenatal development and its hierarchy of links:

• Fertilization:
• Human fertilization
  • Fertilization (starting with link and summary of the human one)
• Embryogenesis:
• Human embryogenesis
  • Embryo
    • Embryology
  • Mammalian embryogenesis (starting from the human perspective as it does now)
    • embryogenesis (should also start from the human point of view)
• Fetal development:
• Human fetal development (stating clearly that it is only a part of the whole prenatal development)
  • Human fetus
    • Fetal pain
    • Fetal rights (etc.)
  • Fetal development (also starting with link and summary of the human one)
    • Fetus (starting with human)
  • Organogenesis
  • Development of circulatory system
    • circulatory system (same for the others)
  • Development of digestive system
  • Development of endocrine system
  • Development of integumentary system
  • Development of lymphatic system
  • Development of muscular system
    • Fetal movement (for example)
    • muscular system
  • Development of nervous system
  • Development of the urinary and reproductive system
    • Development of the reproductive system
      • Development of the gonads
        • Gonads
      • Reproductive system
      • Development of the suspensory ligament of the ovary (I made this article rather as an example)
        • Suspensory ligament of the ovary
  • Development of respiratory system
• The same links as above to each organ system, as it is now, but without any deeper summary.

[edit] General

Furthermore, just as prenatal development is the presentation to human development, it should link to a parallel article for all animals. That links can either be at top of, or in summary of prenatal development. The name of this article, however, I'm not sure, but it must be something better than mammalian embryogenesis, as it is now, because that article is only a subarticle to this one. So, the hierarchy of that article would so far be:

Animal offspring / progeny / ... development/ prenatal development (non-human):

• Fertilization:
• Fertilization (i.e. the general one)
  • Human fertilization
• Embryogenesis:
• Embryogenesis
  • Mammalian embryogenesis
    • Human embryogenesis
• Further development:
  • Fetal development (in mammals e.g.)
    • Human fetal development

Mikael Häggström 09:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An outline

Perhaps an outline may be helpful, to structure present and future articles on this subject.

I. Prenatal development

A. Fertilization

B. Embryo

i. Embryogenesis

ii. Organogenesis

iii. Embryology

a. History of embryology

b. Embryologists

c. Recent research in embryology

C. Fetus

i. Fetal movement

ii. Fetal pain

iii. Fetal brain

iv. Fetal circulatory system

v. Fetal digestive system

vi. Fetal lymphatic system

vii. Fetal nervous system

viii. Fetal reproductive system

ix. Fetal respiratory system

x. Fetology

a. History of fetology

b. Fetologists

c. Recent research in fetology

II. Prenatal development (non-humans)

A. Fertilization (non-humans)

B. Embryo (non-humans)

C. Fetus (non-humans)

If there is consensus about this general structure, then we can discuss filling in further items. Not all of these items would need to be created as articles right away, but an outline like this could serve as a useful roadmap. I don't think that we need any separate "timeline" articles, since a timeline can be adequately included as part of any of these articles. Also, I again recommend against using the term "fetal development" since it is an awkward term that very often covers embryonic development too.[2] If we must have a separate article about development of the fetus, then it could be called something like "development of fetus", but (just like timelines) I don't think that we need any separate "development" articles since development can be adequately included as part of any of these articles described in the outline.Ferrylodge 14:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, assume any further item could be added to my proposed outline, if there is consensus about it. So, we have two alternatives now, which, as far as I see, are incompatible with each other. Therefore, it seems all we need now is that everybody to say which one they prefer. However, I'm new to such procedures here in Wikipedia - where are the ballot boxes? Furthermore, are there any other participants, or suggestions of changes in the existing ones? Mikael Häggström 12:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I had to try some of my ideas to see that some of them are not optimal yet. Actually, I find the order of articles good enough for now. More amount of text is required before any further split of articles should be made, and personally I won't be able to contribute very much to that until next vacation. So until then, I'd say there are other parts of Wikipedia that requires cleanup. Mikael Häggström 06:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd suggest following change to your outline above: x. fetal musculosceletal system xi fetology ... I tried to link from a medicine article (Hip dysplasia (human) to fetal development and found a big gaping hole in the entire area. 71.236.23.111 (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject?

Isn't it appropriate to start a new Wikiproject? It's very hard to organise and deploy ourselves effectively through this talk page alone. Would also bring more attention to the very difficult task of finally sorting out these confusing, often wrong articles Snellios (talk) 13:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I've proposed a project here. Please hop on board if you think it's a good idea! Snellios (talk) 22:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invertebrate paleontology

The article Invertebrate paleontology may benefit from additional contributions. Thanks! -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 20:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] allowing unconverted metrics in scientific articles

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:13, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics/Dysgenics in the Human article

I'm not very happy with this addition. Could I ask for some second opinions at Talk:Human#f5f1ff_.22Dysgenics.22_Section? Thanks Tim Vickers 02:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Exosome complex up for FA

The article above has been up for FA already for some time, but has not attracted a lot of remarks. Any comments and suggestions on the article are welcome and will be addressed. The FAC discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exosome complex. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Selection of articles for kids on elementary schools

I am preparing sets of wikipedia articles for the OLPC project. For example this will be selection of some 1000 articles for biology on elementary school Wikislice biology - we could work together. I need help to improve this selection. There will be bundles for all major school subjects List of planned selections (physics, chemistry, mathematics, geography etc.). The selection will on the 100$ laptop and all kids will use it at school. I can easily assemble the content bundle for the OLPC laptop but I need help to assemble the selection of keywords and organize these keywords into logical hierarchy. I am not a biology expert.

If you are interested in cooperation please contact me at User_talk:Arael2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.229.220.105 (talk) 14:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

• 24 September 2007 - expires 29 September
  • Selective adaptation --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 10:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this section you've created could be updated outmatically based on category? Richard001 23:59, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly, but I am not sufficiently skilled to establish the automation. There are at least two fully automated solutions in place, one based on categorization and the other based on banner template; see this page for information I've collected on them. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biology collaboration

Most of the subprojects I work with are too small and inactive to have their own collaborations, but maybe we could set one up (weekly/monthly) for biology as a whole, something we could all work on together. It might help build a stronger link between the somewhat disconnected daughter projects. Mutualism is one example I had in mind, a very important concept in ecology, but the article is barely start class. We could start with a monthly collaboration on the most important articles in various areas. Richard001 01:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Specific topics are covered by each subproject, but more general topics can be covered in a collaboration at the parent project level. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:43, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

How about Wikipedia:Biology collaboration of the month? Richard001 10:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for it. There should be some sort of collaboration on biology topics. For example, animal, plant, fungus and microorganism are all rated B-quality articles. They probably should be FAs, or at least GAs. - tameeria (talk) 21:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll help. — Scientizzle 17:42, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Colouration

I'd like to get more input on the organization of our articles on colouration. Currently we have no central article on the subject. We have animal colouration, largely from 1911 Britannica, as well as two small articles on advertising colouration and cryptic colouration. These should probably both be merged into a central article on the subject, but there is of course no such article at present. Should we keep the article on animal colouration, or just move the lot to a central location and try to work on it from there? It is a very broad subject (see e.g. Britannica's current 42 page article), but I'm still not very well read on this topic, so I'm unsure how we should partition such an article. I think we need to start with a single core article and work from there though. Richard001 22:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Would someone be able to add a |needs-photo parameter to the template like other projects that adds the request to Category:Wikipedia requested biology photographs. Richard001 23:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Done! Now you just need to create the category. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 18:41, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Hersfold, I've started using it already. Say, would you be able to do the same thing for plants? See Category talk:Wikipedia requested photographs of plants for the original request, which nothing seems to have been done about. Richard001 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD aid request

Hello, Categories for Discussion needs someone to help complete a category split from Category:New World rats and mice to Category:Sigmodontinae, Category:Neotominae, and Category:Tylomyinae. It's been sitting there for over a month because I don't think anyone at CFD really knows which is what. Could someone who does stop by and try to work on this? I know it's 493 articles, but it does need doing. Thanks. :-) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possible vandalism in project assessments

Would someone at this project take a look at the article assessments on Talk:Joseph Merrick please? It's not clear to me why this person should be considered a top-level importance on so many projects. WhatamIdoing 04:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the biology template, I think medicine is more specific. Probably best to address the assessor directly in these cases (the assessment was only an edit or two old). Richard001 04:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Change to Manual of Style on measurement systems

The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:

• In scientific articles, SI units are the main units of measure, unless there are compelling historical or pragmatic reasons not to use them (for example, Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s⁻¹)

Into:

• In scientific articles, use the units employed in the current scientific literature on that topic. This will usually be SI, but not always. For example, natural units are often used: ångströms (or angstroms) are widely used in such fields as x-ray crystallography and structural chemistry, and Hubble's constant should be quoted in its most common unit of (km/s)/Mpc rather than its SI unit of s⁻¹.

Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#ffffff_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:13, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

One editor is objecting strongly to this change, some feedback from people writing science articles would be very helpful. Tim Vickers 17:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Anthropocentrism in Wikipedia biology articles

I think that most biology articles on Wikipedia focus on humans too much. The article Exocrine_gland, for example, has a "List of exocrine glands" section which doesn't even mention that it only lists human exocrine glands, and ignores exocrine glands in non-human animals (the article solely focuses on human exocrine glands). Is this the right way to approach biology subjects? I think it would make more sense for articles to focus on defining "exocrine gland" from a species-neutral perspective (the term is species neutral, not human-focussed), and the article Human exocrine glands should focus on exocrine glands in humans (this would allow articles to be created for other species where it would be appropriate/interesting/needed). The species neutral exocrine gland article would have a section "Human exocrine glands", I assume. This would fix a bias that shouldn't be present in science articles. Any opinions on this? --Oldak Quill 22:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you, though it's a contentious issue that hasn't really been discussed much. I tried to bring it up on the naming conventions page, but nothing much came of it. Virtually all biology is biased in the direction of humans - whether that means focussing on humans and ignoring mention of other species, or focusing on species more closely related to humans (e.g. neglecting mention of plants and non-animals, or giving minimal attention to microbes (as in the whole taxonomic classification system, up until recently, and probably still now). The problem is even worse in laypeople, who often think animal and mammal mean the same thing. More attention to the issue, including discussion and policy/recommendations is needed. Richard001 02:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It's probably because they're also medical articles, and WikiProject Medicine is human. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 00:02, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Banner question

Would anyone object if I added parameters to allow assessments for Wikipedia:WikiProject Cell signaling to the existing project banner? The advantages of doing so would be that in those circumstances the single banner would automatically assess for both projects. The disadvantage would only arise if you thought the articles regarding cell signaling don't fall within the scope of this project. John Carter 16:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It would be okay for quality ratings, but not for importance, unless you can assign a separate importance for each project via the one banner. Richard001 07:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic biology topics
• List of basic biochemistry topics
• List of basic biotechnology topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 01:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AR1 Backlog

If a couple people who like making new articles would like to hop over to WP:AR1#f3f1f3e, I'll bet you guys could cross the "Sceince" section off the list of articles requested for more than a year. Just a friendly heads-up. Best, shoy (^words _words) 17:28, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC on 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack

• We have a Request for Comment at Talk:1984_Rajneeshee_bioterror_attack#f1fff1t_for_Comment, and your input would be appreciated. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 22:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC).
  • Please disregard this above request. I removed the "Request for Comment". Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage (talk) 00:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Soil

The Soil article could use some biological perspective to balance the human use and cultural impacts perspective. This has come up several times in the discussion at Talk:Soil. If interested, please join in. -- Paleorthid (talk) 00:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Articles listed at Articles for deletion

• Genetic memory (AfD discussion)

Please contribute to the discussion. Uncle G 17:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal for related site

At present, you are the project group responsible for the article on aging, but I have made a proposal at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:COUNCIL/P#f1ffffology which might interest some members. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What featured pictures should be acceptable for animals?

There is a discussion here. Permalink is here. Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Astrosociobiology at AFD

Astrosociobiology has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 20:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Famous pandas

Category:Famous pandas is up for renaming/splitting. 132.205.99.122 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

• General information about the project: m:Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project
• Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

[edit] "Natural Stress"

Could someone please have a look at Natural Stress? It reads like a school report, but I suspect there's some useful material there. Melchoir (talk) 02:51, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for input re Science Super-Categories

There is a CFD discussion underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_December_15#35f1ffry:Physical_sciences regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: Category:Physical sciences and Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments and it has been relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! --Bduke (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have just made a significant alternative proposal. Please take a look and add your comments to this important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested addition to "To do" section

I would suggest the addition of a third line to section Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology#To do, as follows:

• Create articles that appear on the Requested Articles in Biology list

Thanks for considering this addition. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:32, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Epibiont

Saw this new article on Epibiont and don't know enough about it to know whether its real or not. No sources, so I'm bringing it here. Mbisanz (talk) 10:49, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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).

[edit] List of animals displaying homosexual behavior AfD

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior is up for AfD. Benjiboi 17:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Biology education

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Josh Alman

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: [3]. 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 1984 Rajneeshee bioterror attack on FAC

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Megaselia scalaris

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)

[edit] Sex

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] New template for talk pages, expecially the larger ones

This question or request has not been resolved Remove this tag when this is resolved.(Current requests)

Some pages, such as this one have lots of post, and it requires some work to see what has been answered or acknowledged. therefore I have helped make the {{Unanswered}} template that can be put above a section allowing one to quickly glimpse what has been answered. If you were waiting for an answer but never got one as the post in somewhere in the middle tag it! please voice any queries or comments in the talk page ofTemplate:Unanswered (links, talk) and not here. Cheers --Squidonius (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Binomial name italicisation in article titles

This question or request has not been resolved Remove this tag when this is resolved.(Current requests)

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)

[edit] 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#ffffffal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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. This box: view • talk • edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Archaea

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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}}

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)