Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Biology and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
Biology Project‑class | |||||||
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
There is a discussion in the archive of a consensus how scientific names are displayed in the lead of species articles listed under common names. |
Epigenetics
- Epigenetics - main article
- Epigenetic theory - overlapping content
- Transgenerational epigenetics - overlapping content
- Soft inheritance - overlapping content
- Inheritance of acquired characteristics - negatively characterized as outdated and disproven Soviet dogma that had disastrous administrative consequences
- Lamarckism - categorized as an obsolete scientific theory, despite contemporary re-analyses within the mainstream scientific community
- Lysenkoism - depicts Lamarckism, and, specifically, the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as being a textbook example of pseudoscience among Lysenko's many bedlamitic absurdities
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)
Wikimedia Discord has a Biology Channel!
It has recently come to my attention that not only is there a highly active Wikimedia Discord Server, it also has a #wpbiology channel! See Wikipedia:Discord for more details.
I hope to feature a link to this on the main page after the redesign is complete, but for the time being I wanted to advertise it here. I would love for more people to join, and I hope it will prove a major resource to us going forward as we improve WP:BIOL and it's subprojects. I cannot emphasize how refreshing it can be to talk in real time (or even in voice channels!) rather than in talk pages.
@Evolution and evolvability and Alexmar983: This also should serve us nicely for the user group discussions--they have a #meta channel as well.
Should this draft be accepted as a stand-alone article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- Probably not sadly. It's an ok draft, but would more logically be merged into RNA therapeutics#mRNA (from where 70% was copied over). The Heart Diseases application section and the Delivery systems sections could be merged over since they are both new content, and decently enough referenced. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Iron in biology
I recently created the article Iron in biology which for such an important biological concept has not had its own article until now. Does anyone want to help with fleshing it out?Immanuelle 💗 (please tag me) 09:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
Requested move of Abiogenesis
A requested move of Abiogenesis to Origin of life is under discussion. Project members are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
AfD for Female (gender)
Comments are requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads -talk- 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Is there a consensus in biology that race is a social construct?
A tweet by Steven Pinker agreeing with Richard Dawkins agreeing with a list by Jerry Coyne of ideological perversions of science included the idea that race is a social construct. Race (human categorization) claims there is a consensus ("Modern science regards...") about this, which I find hard to square with disagreement by these eminent biologists. Whether race is a valid biological concept is of course a question for biologists, who could situate it in normal taxonomic practice. For example they would know observations like "more genetic variation within groups" was typical among subspecific taxa, whereas a cultural anthropologist or even a medic would likely not. I raised the question of how this consensus was established on the talk page[1], it seems to be merely asserted. Responses were evasive. So perhaps Wikiproject Biology can help. Bogestra Bob (talk) 08:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)