Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Biology (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon WikiProject Biology is part of the WikiProject Biology, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to biology on Wikipedia.
Leave messages on the WikiProject talk page.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
Shortcut:

Epigenetics[edit]

This interrelated series of articles is one of the most disoriented, contradictory and factually compromised sets that I've encountered on our project in quite some time. Moreover, the overlapping nature of content and lack of adequately unambiguous central navigation is confusing, even for someone who has existing familiarity with the general topic. I'm not certain of how much available manpower WikiProject Biology has to offer at the moment, but I'd like to get the ball rolling on a collaborative effort of some sort.   — C M B J   04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/18A (peptide)[edit]

Dear biologists: This old draft was not submitted until now because of bad formatting. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The draft was declined as not having enough context. Is it worth improving? Or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Never mind. I realize that I have already had an opinion that this is non-notable on my talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Outline of biophysics[edit]

FYI, "Outline of biophysics" has been requested to be renamed to Biophysical techniques; for the discussion, see talk:Outline of biophysics -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burghardt Wittig[edit]

Dear biologists: This old AfC submissions seems to me to be about a notable professor. Perhaps someone familiar with this field could provide an opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ionizing Radiation at levels of Interior of ISS not instantly lethal to life on surface of Mars[edit]

Note: I have removed a huge mass of unreadable material, all written by the same editor except one brief comment. Flooding this page with a monologue is not going to accomplish anything. If the material is restored, I will ask for administrator intervention. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In a nutshell, I just wanted to say that the Life on Mars article should mention the research described in this video (as well as in his paper) by Nilton Renno, notable member of the Curiosity Rover Team - his "swimming pools for bacteria" were widely reported recently and it is undoubtedly notable according to the criteria of Wikipedia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWv9UGwjdE

The article also used to have a paragraph explaining how present day life on the surface of Mars is compatible with ionizing radiation. It would be good to restore this paragraph, which you can see here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life_on_Mars&oldid=556292054#Cosmic_radiation
Background information: Curiosity measured 0.076 Grays per year on the surface of Mars during solar maximum. And Chroococcidiopsis, the most radioresistant Mars analogue microbe we have can recover from 5,000 Grays. 0.076 << 5,000.
The professor is an expert on Mars surface conditions, BTW, he operates the REMS weather station on Curiosity.
Please someone fix it. It's an "Open and Shut Case I can't do anything myself, and don't want to go to moderation, for the reasons explained before in the now removed section of this talk page.

.

Is this short enough? Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Monologues and introduction of biased, fringe and OR are the hallmark of user Robert Walker in all articles related to life on Mars. Beware. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
@Robertinventor: It's self evident from what you have written here that you are engaging in OR to come to the conclusion that you have. I don't think that continuing to post here is going to persuade anyone that you are correct and I'd advise you to stop. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I'll stop Robert Walker (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

gonad[edit]

The usage of "gonad" is under discussion, see talk:Human gonad -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (book)[edit]

Page move is requested; join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Article about Hans Ris[edit]

Dear biologists,

as the articles for creation process is severely backlogged, I hope to count on you concerning the review of this article draft :

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Hans_Ris

Thanks!

npp for category tool[edit]

Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Killer cells question[edit]

Hi all, I found a draft on Cytokine-induced killer cells and wanted input on how to proceed. I've posted a discussion here but I thought I'd post in this project as well to cast a wider net as it were. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal[edit]

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)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plinian Core[edit]

Another editor has created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plinian Core. If you think the topic is notable, could you accept the article? Eastmain (talkcontribs) 06:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy[edit]

There is a discussion at the Anatomy Project about a mismatch between the title of the project and its scope. The title refers broadly to anatomy, but the project rejects all articles that are not primarily about human anatomy. Thus, for example, none of the articles in Category:Animal anatomy, Category:Plant anatomy, Category:Cell anatomy and many of their subcategories are accepted by the project. There is a similar issue with WikiProject Physiology. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have witnessed that, too. And I think it is a problem that there is no project that watches over the animal anatomy content. Maybe a Taskforce Anatomy as part of this project would restore some balance.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Am thinking of transferring some animal content into their own pages with the tag of (zootomy). Wikimedia commons has a page of that title. This may not need an umbrella project - just any interested editor can add to pages or add them as wanted. Feel this would give a clear focus to both Anatomy and Zootomy without the distractions of what to include in one or the other and without the need for constant refs to in humans or in animals. And would hopefully encourage more input generally to animal anatomy pages. Would appreciate any views on this. Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
(Zootomy) is absurd. Articles should be under a common name or at least something that comes as close as possible. And talking about umbrella-project - that is a really great idea. It's obviously absolutely necessary to have a project that can cover Anatomy and also Physiology, be it human or vertebrae or whatever. I think Wikiproject Human Anatomy has to wrap their minds around the fact that animals do have an anatomy and that they need to be covered in any encyclopedia. There will be no way around an RfC with subsequent implementation of a policy on naming. This RfC should involve a significant number of people and be open for a significant number of days or weeks. Additionally, I don't see how you're going to manage to avoid articles that have animal and human anatomy content combined in them. And if this is the only coverage a signifcant human organ/system/disease gets, then this has to have a separate section. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't see that use of zootomy is absurd. There is a page with that title on Wikimedia commons. An example I was thinking of was Pinna (zootomy) to give a page for the animal part mostly referred to as auricle in humans. Such a page would necessarily include all relevant info on the subject. Somebody (anon) has put a split article suggestion tag on small intestine to give small intestine (human) and small intestine (non-human) which I don't think for a minute would be acceptable. But there does seem to be a need for a split of contents. Stomach is another possibility - there is some good info on other animals there which if given its own animal page would generate the addition of even more relevant material. Iztwoz (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Repeating the 'rationale' that there is some article somewhere doesn't make it any more reasonable. (Non-human) is just as far-fetched as (zootomy). We do agree on the point that there has to be a separate page for human anatomy, and it should be easily recognizable as such. The best way is probably to have overarching articles that are called brain or intestine or eye and a hatnote pointing to the human article, just like the one I just added to eye. If there is no clear naming convention there will be this mixed-up editing just like it is going on now in the example articles you're citing, and we're losing animal content because it is often deleted as irrelevant by human anatomy editors. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Don't know why you find the term zootomy so far-fetched - there is a category in Animal anatomy titled Cephalopod zootomy...... What you are suggesting is a retrack of how anatomy articles were always treated and the move has been to remove the human part and merge all together - which cannot be achieved overall. As for us editors deleting animal content can you give one such example - I have never experienced this. Happy editing Iztwoz (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
diff. ('trim animal section') And I have to admit that this was only a suggestion on a talk page. It is the 'move' that you mention (moving the 'human x' article to 'x' namespace without a clear strategy what to do with the animal content) that I am criticizing. There needs to be a strategy to achieve a more balanced outcome. There is also a problem the other way around: diff. Here an editor (a physician by the way) edits out vital information about the human heart ('heart not required for life because there are organisms without one'). Please, we need medical articles that contain all basic information and take into consideration that the reader might know nothing about the subject. The first thing you'd teach children is that the human heart is vital for life. Happy editing to you, too. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

American paddlefish[edit]

The FAC reviewer gave his support after reviewing the article, and suggested the following ...ask relevant WikiProjects on their talk pages to drop by the review. Following is the link: [1] Your time will be greatly appreciated. AtsmeConsult 15:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)