Talk:Laboratory

	Architecture portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Architecture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Architecture 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.ArchitectureWikipedia:WikiProject ArchitectureTemplate:WikiProject ArchitectureArchitecture articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Other kinds of laboratory

This article seems to focus on chemical labs, or at least labs related to chemistry. There are other places called 'labs' that don't fit the description, e.g. computer labs. I suggest this article be renamed 'Chemistry laboratory' (or 'Laboratory (chemistry)') and 'Laboratory' be made a disambig. What do you think? Ddawson 09:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, but there should be a generic "laboratory" article that does include the general nature of it's being a place for scientific investigation as well, not restricted to chemistry, biology, psychology, mathematics, computer science, history, sociology, et cetera. Courtland 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Ddawson's comments. I have worked in both evolutionary biology and physics labs. Both are much different than the layout specified in the article. I find the assumption that "lab" refers a room full of glass and chemicals to be detrimental to many disciplines and slightly offensive on a personal level.
There's only one kind of laboratory: The chemical laboratory! Everyone else is just posers. Just kidding...perhaps there should be a disambig page for the various types of laboratories? --AtomicCactus 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I would prefer to see a well-written "generic" laboratory definition, with lead-ins and links to specific types of labs. I can help with public health laboratories. dcbeetle 17:16, 16 April 2007.
There should be a generic article, this one, and then each could have their own if and when the details on them are sufficiently extensive. Example^(talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauMartinez (talk • contribs) [reply]

Action!

G'day all, Unfortunately, I'm not cluey enough to figure out how to make a formal request for a clean-up/collaberative effort etc, however anyone who comes across this message, please tag as appropriate.

In my personal opinion, I think that this should really be a catagory, with the specifics of particular laboratories confined to their own articles. In which case, this article (as it currently stands) would have to be moved to something like "Laboratory_(Chemistry)". Any thoughts?

My particular specialty here is that I work in a Civil Engineering lab, which is so far from what this article (currently) describes, that it almost is insulting to the profession! And as such, there's almost no direction that I can take with regards to incorperating what I know with this article, as it would require an EXTREME re-write. And if that's to occur, then all fields need to be represented otherwise a complete re-write will have to occur again, and again, and again, and again!

Any thoughts out there wikipedians? Cheers --Sjkebab 12:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we move the current article to the name "Wet Laboratory", redirect queries such as "chemistry lab" to there, and rewrite the general labortory article to be less specific. Sound good?

Sounds good to me - I haven't done any work on my side of this yet, as I've been on holidays. Although, is "Wet Lab" the correct title? No idea personally... --Sjkebab 06:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not opposed to moving the current article, I do question whether separate articles are warranted. There are thousands of kinds of labs, both "wet" and "dry", corresponding to the many different purposes of individual labs. There is a lot of overlap; for example would an electrochemistry lab be covered by "Laboratory_(Chemistry)" or "Laboratory_(Electronic)"? Articles for each would risk being repetitive and boring. Yet all labs have the common purpose of providing a controlled environment for scientific study. Safety is paramount in all labs, both for the public (harmful agents must be contained, whether biological viruses in a microbiology lab or computer viruses in a malware lab), and for the human occupants (both staff and, in some types of labs, subjects). --Rick Sidwell 16:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are real differences between the type of lab described in this article and many actual labs, so I think some different classifications are in order. But we shouldn't try to enumerate every type, especially ones that might combine several classifications. In my experience, the "wet" and "dry" dichotomy is the broadest classification scheme, with most every scientific discipline utilizing both types to varying degrees. Of course, the problem is that these terms are a bit too colloquial. While used frequently in practice, are they appropriate for encyclopedia article titles? Does anyone have any better suggestions?

Lab is not always chemical. Physical laboratories may have little or no dangerous chemicals.

I agree that this article focuses too much on chemical laboratories. I think it should be moved to a specific article on chemical labs, and rewritten in a more generic manner. A comment about the safety issue: I am used to work in physics labs where we care most about handling radioactive stuff, which has nothing to do with chemistry. --Philipum 11:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teaching laboratories
Chemical Laboratories
Wet labs
Dry labs
academic Labs
clandestine lab
medical lab
computer lab
film lab
psychologist or economist lab
metallurgy lab
physics lab
food lab
pharmacology lab?

Are all not covered properly. Please don't delegate anymore articles out. Sure some we have enough info on to write separate articles but I don't see the possibility a massive outpouring of academic students to flesh out a "Metallurgy lab" article, ever. We need to cover them all with their own section. We need book sources as well.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1 November 2006 rewrite

This article was really bothering me. I rewrote it to take a more generic approach and removed the cleanup and globalize templates, replacing them with the expand template (as the article is still incomplete). The material from the old page should probably be incorporated back into this article or into other more specific articles (especially wet laboratory) but I don't have time to do this right now. Maybe I can work on it bit-by-bit later. Hopefully this new article provides a better basis for improvement... --User:Ajwitte

this song is fast u bye..haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.47.62 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baho niyo sulat niyo nalang.. xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.13 (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are not in a lab you are forbidden to study with explosives and you are most likely able to get jail time. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.227.222 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red links in the See also section are based on the following....

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=biological+laboratory&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.64.25.74 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quarantine spec expand are based on the following...

--222.64.25.74 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]