Talk:Apiology

Animals Redirect‑class Mid‑importance

Apiology is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to animals and zoology. For more information, visit the project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles

Redirect

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This redirect has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Animals To-do:

Here are some Open Tasks :

Copyedit:
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Improve: Photoperiodism, Tool use by non-human animals, Omnivore, Animal suicide, Sphaerium beckmani (a species in family Sphaeriidae),
Requests:
- Mammals:
- Invertebrates: Campocraspedon
- Fishes: Zaniolepis frenata
Merge: GLAM/ARKive donated texts into articles about endangered species.
Expand: Junqueira cow, Atka mackerel
Nominate and vote: Science collaboration of the month, Article Improvement Drive, WikiProject Animals Collaboration

Agriculture Redirect‑class

	Agriculture portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Agriculture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of agriculture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AgricultureWikipedia:WikiProject AgricultureTemplate:WikiProject AgricultureAgriculture articles
Redirect	This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wictionary

it was suggested that this page be moved to the wiktionary instead of the wikipedia. apiology is an important branch of zoology to which thousands of scientists have dedicated their lives. It is in the same category as other branches of zoology (the study of a specific group of animals) such as myrmecology, herpetology, or mammalogy. If it is gong to be removed from wikipedia, all other zoology branch pages should be moved as well. AJseagull1 00:08, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apicology

In response to 24.174.237.205's edit. Apicology was not a typo. AJseagull1 04:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But . . . how can "apicology" be a honey bee ecology? Is it, perhaps, the study of honey bee ecology?

Joey Kalmin

I removed Joey Kalmin from the list of notable Apiologists as he works on hornets, a type of wasp not a type of bee. - AJseagull1 00:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Joey Kalmin again, because I can't find any legitimate references to him. Does he have any artices in a high impact peer reviewed journal? What institution is he affiliated with? Has he made any major contributions to science or industry? The other individuals listed all have been published multiple times in high impact peer reviewed journals or they made major contributions that have lead to dramatic changes to bee keeping practices world wide. AJseagull1 16:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Apiologists

I undid the removal of all apiologists who don't have their own wikipedia page. As great as wikipedia is, I don't think that the existence of a wikipedia entry is the ultimate measure of notability. AJseagull1 (talk) 20:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M. Winston Book on Amazon

T. Seeley Book on Amazon

R. Page Book on Amazon

AJseagull1 (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See reply on talk page. The thing to do, if they are notable, is to create articles for them. That's really the way to go. Setwisohi (talk) 22:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is why it is important to have a line or 2 stating why the notable people are notable (especially if they don't have their own article). That way the wikipedia community can decide on a case by case basis. There isn't a consensus on wikipedia to blanket remove these people. Lots of lists include people who don't have their own page. For example: List of Harvard University people, List of people from Wyoming, List of biologists, List of chemists, etc.AJseagull1 (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will put some references on the page. to establish notability Cheers,AJseagull1 (talk) 22:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you are incorrect. Wikipedia policy is more or less as I described it: red links should not be created unless the intention is to write an article for that link. In preference, the article should be written first. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Red_link for guidelines. In the meantime, I have removed the link aspect of the disputed names. If you wish to keep them, please create the relevant articles. Setwisohi (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]