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  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | 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. |
An RfC to adopt a subject-specific notability guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Notability (species)#Proposal to adopt this guideline. C F A 💬 05:13, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Biological rules
[edit]A discussion is in progress at Talk:Biological rules on whether the article's scope is limited to evolutionary ecology, or whether it should cover every regularity in the whole of biology. Editors are invited to join the discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Protandry/Protogyny: suggestion to make standalone or disambiguate rather than redirect
[edit]Hi. Until yesterday I had not noticed, despite years editing Wikipedia articles, that the terms protandry and protogyny both redirect to Sequential hermaphroditism. This strikes me as extremely odd and even inappropriate, since out of the four most common uses of the terms (see here), that particular use is probably the third. "Protandry" is, I think, most commonly used in ecology, and also used commonly in botany in cases that do not involve sequential hermaphroditism (to quote the article: "Sequential hermaphroditism in plants is very rare"). It is likewise a very small portion of the world's animal fauna that are sequential hermaphrodites, nearly all of them being fish, and I can't imagine why that rare phenomenon would be the ONLY use of the terms protandry and protogyny that are discussed in Wikipedia, except that people have written so many articles about fish, and nearly every fish that exhibits sequential hermaphroditism has protandry linked. What is especially odd is that other editors working on articles discussing ecology and botany do appear to use these terms and wikilink them, but they are all getting unknowingly redirected to an article that has literally nothing to do with what those editors had in mind (e.g., Speyeria mormonia). This is a serious problem, in my opinion, but I'm not sure how best to address it. Should there be a single article that discusses, in sections of that article, the four most common definitions, or should it be a disambiguation page that points to separate articles related to each definition? Offhand, given how many hundreds or thousands of links exist presently, the latter approach is not practical, because a link to "protandry" won't automatically point to the disambiguation article. Thoughts? Dyanega (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Notability of accepted nothospecies
[edit]An discussion to adopt a guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk: Notability (species)#Proposal to add nothospecies. Ivan (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun articles need expert attention
[edit]Hi, there are a few sentences in these two articles pertaining to their research that remain uncited. As these are some highly technical subjects, someone who is more familiar with the literature is needed to find and evaluate the sources. I've moved the tags into the most specific sections that need citations. Thanks! Liu1126 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Ludwig Franzisket
[edit]I am looking for more information on Ludwig Franzisket's academic career. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)