This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It seems there has been some confusion about which lists to use, and indeed there is a separate list of botanists while list of zoologists redirects here. Since before the 20th century, so many were not specialists, it would seem to argue for a single list, on the other hand it doesn't hurt to have people listed on multiple lists. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but it ought to be decided so that editors know where to link bios in. Stan 17:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Figured since I've got a bunch of red links in some of my taxoboxes, I'd start a wish list so that we can work on finding these folks together. To find out which articles have these links, you can click on the red edit link, then on "what links here" from the empty edit page.
Wow... It's been ages since I last looked at this list, and I see that very little has been done to fix this. I can remove one, maybe two from the list, but I have to add one... - UtherSRG (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to add in everyone at Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine that isn't already on this list. However, there are a number of Nobel laureates who might not be biologists. Should we include in this list, for example, a physicist who helped invent the MRI? Or a physician who developed a vaccine? I'm inclined the list the physician but not the physicist, even though MRIs have had a huge impact on biological research. I guess the fundamental question is, are we listing famous biologists or people who made important contributions to biology? GabrielF 20:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, there are currently 714 names on this list (by my reckoning anyway) representing every letter of the alphabet and there are hundreds more molecular biologists, biochemists, neuroscientists, evolutionary biologists, etc. to go. GabrielF 05:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to use this as a running list of people who may or may not be good candidates for inclusion in this list. Hopefully people who know more than I do can share there opinions on whether they should be classified as biologists. GabrielF 06:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Gabriel has it right. I leave it for discussion exactly what you want to call the new page, but what you have been intending seems not to have been what was intended in putting most of the names here. We need another taxonomic level. There is already List of botanists by author abbreviation and List of Zoologists by author abbreviation, which come very close to what you have in mind, because such abbreviations are not used elsewhere. But is it the case that every name so used has an abbreviation? DGG 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody track down / make any necessary redirects / start article if necessary for " Kowalesky" per letter of Thomas Huxley [2] - "Kowalesky could never have announced his great discovery of the affinity of the Ascidians and Vertebrates, by which zoologists had been startled." -- May be AKA "Kowalski", but I can't find a likely reference. -- (Hmm, Kazimierz Kowalski? - in which case we need an article.) -- Writtenonsand 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
At present there are 424 footnotes, most giving abbreviations in botany and zoology, and many of them added by me. Once I have finished making sure that the information is in the Infoboxes of the people concerned I plan to remove most of the footnotes (but probably not those for pairs of people with the same or similar names). However, I won't do this if there is significant and convincing opposition. Athel cb ( talk) 08:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
It seems there has been some confusion about which lists to use, and indeed there is a separate list of botanists while list of zoologists redirects here. Since before the 20th century, so many were not specialists, it would seem to argue for a single list, on the other hand it doesn't hurt to have people listed on multiple lists. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but it ought to be decided so that editors know where to link bios in. Stan 17:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
Figured since I've got a bunch of red links in some of my taxoboxes, I'd start a wish list so that we can work on finding these folks together. To find out which articles have these links, you can click on the red edit link, then on "what links here" from the empty edit page.
Wow... It's been ages since I last looked at this list, and I see that very little has been done to fix this. I can remove one, maybe two from the list, but I have to add one... - UtherSRG (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm going to add in everyone at Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine that isn't already on this list. However, there are a number of Nobel laureates who might not be biologists. Should we include in this list, for example, a physicist who helped invent the MRI? Or a physician who developed a vaccine? I'm inclined the list the physician but not the physicist, even though MRIs have had a huge impact on biological research. I guess the fundamental question is, are we listing famous biologists or people who made important contributions to biology? GabrielF 20:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
In case anyone is interested, there are currently 714 names on this list (by my reckoning anyway) representing every letter of the alphabet and there are hundreds more molecular biologists, biochemists, neuroscientists, evolutionary biologists, etc. to go. GabrielF 05:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm going to use this as a running list of people who may or may not be good candidates for inclusion in this list. Hopefully people who know more than I do can share there opinions on whether they should be classified as biologists. GabrielF 06:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
I think Gabriel has it right. I leave it for discussion exactly what you want to call the new page, but what you have been intending seems not to have been what was intended in putting most of the names here. We need another taxonomic level. There is already List of botanists by author abbreviation and List of Zoologists by author abbreviation, which come very close to what you have in mind, because such abbreviations are not used elsewhere. But is it the case that every name so used has an abbreviation? DGG 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Can anybody track down / make any necessary redirects / start article if necessary for " Kowalesky" per letter of Thomas Huxley [2] - "Kowalesky could never have announced his great discovery of the affinity of the Ascidians and Vertebrates, by which zoologists had been startled." -- May be AKA "Kowalski", but I can't find a likely reference. -- (Hmm, Kazimierz Kowalski? - in which case we need an article.) -- Writtenonsand 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
At present there are 424 footnotes, most giving abbreviations in botany and zoology, and many of them added by me. Once I have finished making sure that the information is in the Infoboxes of the people concerned I plan to remove most of the footnotes (but probably not those for pairs of people with the same or similar names). However, I won't do this if there is significant and convincing opposition. Athel cb ( talk) 08:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)