![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Hello, I want to let you know that I've opened a discussion at CFD vis-a-vis merging these two Categories, which both cover the same subject matter -- and deciding which term should be used. You are invited to share your thoughts on this proposal HERE. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 09:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello I made this new article called Simultaneous hermaphroditism. Unfortunately this new article is kinda an orphan and I need help having other pages link to it. CycoMa ( talk) 13:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. The former genus has been first erected in 2001 on the basis of two genes.
[1] In 2014 a phylogeny based on genomes reveals it is nested within
Klebsiella and concludes: Robust genome-based phylogeny showed that a unified Klebsiella cluster contains Enterobacter aerogenes and Raoultella, suggesting the latter genus should be abandoned
.
[2] In 2021 another publication proposes again to reunify the genus Raoultella with the genus Klebsiella
based on similar results
[3] I have been trying to redirect
Raoultella towards
Klebsiella, but another user prevented me to do so. Can we have another opinion? Thanks,
Totodu74 (
talk)
13:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
As you tried to change it on de as well see de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie#Raoultella vs. Klebsiella. LPSN does not agree with your change (see here) and at least on de-WP thats the guideline. .... When they change it de will change it probably as well. But not by simple putting a redirect; there is content which needs to be reviewed and maybe moved ... Sicherlich Post 09:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, hoping to bring attention to a series of edits made by a new ipuser, who is making several taxonomy changes in some animal species articles. Hoping to draw some attention to verify that the edits are constructive. Thanks. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 18:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I thought these proposed moves would be of interest to this wikiproject. Talk:Principle of Coordination#Requested move 5 November 2021 – Coordination/Homonymy/Priority/Typification/Ubiquity or coordination/homonymy/priority/typification/ubiquity. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.
WSC is organized every two years, and it is formally open to files from all countries (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are set up for example for USA or Ireland. These national competitions when they exist act as an additional incentive to participate.
We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on Wikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice images to Commons, please consider to submit them to WSC, you might win a prize.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 22:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Is Encyclopedia of Life a reliable source? CycoMa ( talk) 19:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hundreds_of_RNA_motif_pages would benefit from more biological input. SmartSE ( talk) 15:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This discussion on the notability of RNA motifs over at WP:MolBio has expanded to be the broader question of notability for sets of topics like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, etc. Since ppl in this group will have had to grapple with similar questions on microbial species, I'd be interested in your input. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Until I stumbled upon it, this article consisted mainly of WP:PROFRINGE primary sources. I've essentially reduced the article to a stub, but it could be substantially expanded based on legitimate scientific sources, e.g. [1] and [2]. Any help from this community would be greatly appreciated. Note that I've also raised this issue at FT/N. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the periodic table in the lede of the periodic table article have 18-columns or 32?
The rfc is here.
I thought I'd ask given the relevance of the periodic table to biochemistry.
Sandbh ( talk) 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.
Thank you. Sandbh ( talk) 07:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This critical article is rated an FA since 2007, and needs an overhaul to maintain its FA status. Please see the discussion at Talk:Evolution. ( t · c) buidhe 17:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
In this article, professor János Podani ( translation) writes “Many articles in Wikipedia refer to classifications in which clades and ranked categories are intermingled — thereby triggering taxonomic chaos rather than clarifying the concept of a natural genealogical order, which confuses the readers of this popular digital encyclopedia.” Personally, I don't feel confused by that (as long as all “ranked categories” are monophyletic – that is, clades, too), but I thought I'd bring it up for consideration here. ◅ Sebastian 20:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
In the article Depth gauge, section Light based depth gauges in Biology, there is some content related to eyes of biological things (bristle worms?). The article is about "devices", not biology. So this needs moving somewhere else. I'm sufficiently "biology challenged" to be clueless about this. Just letting this wikiproject know that there's content to be had... before it gets deleted from the Depth gauge article. Platonk ( talk) 23:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Archaeplastida currently contains the statement “[T]he non-photosynthetic lineage Rhodelphidia [is] a predatorial (eukaryotrophic) flagellate”. While “predatorial” is not a term known to Wikipedia, “predatory” redirects to “ Predation”, which defines the term by the killing. That could fit to the description of Rhodelphis as “a heterotrophic predator that feeds on bacteria and smaller flagellates”.
On the other hand, “eukaryotrophic”, for which I could find no article, when derived etymologically, has quite a different meaning: feeding on eucaryotes. That contrasts with the above description in two ways: It excludes bacteria, and it includes many categories other than croppers, such as lectivores. The latter would fit to another interpretation of the description of Rhodelphis: Maybe it feeds on dead resources, too.
This leads me to the following questions:
◅ Sebastian 20:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has requested for Autism to be merged into Autism spectrum. Since you had some involvement with autism or autism spectrum, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). Averixus ( talk) 00:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I frequently encounter lemmata whose preferred binomial name differs between different Language versions of Wikipedia. That often has negative side effects. E.g. Lactuca muralis, although a common plant in Europe, shows only four links to the article in other languages (Cebuano, Español, Íslenska, and Italiano). That's not because other languages don't have an article for it, as can be seen e.g. in German. German WP simply prefers Mycelis muralis; so much so that it didn't even have a redirect from Lactuca muralis until now. While there are ways to fix those problems individually, I think ultimately the best solution would be to agree on a preferred binomial name. What would be the best (internationally used) source to go by? ◅ Sebastian 17:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
The species Hypomeces squamosus (beetle) has just been renamed Hypomeces pulviger. I'm not a specialist, but this modification does not convince me. The old name was used in the NCBI and the EPPO, while the new name is unknown in these directories. Only the GBIF accepts Hypomeces squamosus as synonym of the other.
All the sources of the article mention Hypomeces squamosus. Moreover, Google returns 22'100 results for Hypomeces squamosus, and only 624 results for Hypomeces pulviger (35 times less occurrences). I think WP:LEAST would recommend to keep the first name. Thanks for your help. Also notifying Cwmhiraeth (1st contributor). Best regards -- Basile Morin ( talk) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, dear biological and especially pomological friends!
Maybe someone of you can help me.
I am looking for English translations for apple parts, shown in the picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bestandteile_des_Apfels_02_(fcm).jpg
I have already found some terms (bracketed), but I am not sure.
Not in the picture:
gruß, fcm. -- Frank C. Müller ( talk) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed an anon making suspicious edits to articles on animals, mostly mammals. Mostly making a large number of edits to scientific classification info w/o adding, mentioning an RS nor leaving ES. Doesn't appear to want to communicate though has gotten a number of warning templates. A few are obvious errors, but it's not my area of expertise and deciphering sources is a chore. Is there someone who would be willing to help me vet some of these and maybe determine what to do? I don't think ANI would work unless there are a few admins with appropriate degrees. Thanks Adakiko ( talk) 07:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Should this draft be accepted as a stand-alone article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
Comments are requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads -talk- 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that works with universities to investigate biology and develop new medical diagnostic processes, therapies, and cures. If you would like to read my full conflict of interest disclosure, you can do so by visiting my user page.
I have a small ask for any curious editors at this WikiProject: would you mind reviewing an edit request I posted to CZ Biohub's Talk page? It's a pair of updates that add a logo and a purpose line to the page's infobox. Due to my COI, I can't edit the article directly and need independent editors to approve my suggestions. I would deeply appreciate any help I can get with this. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB ( talk) 13:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I posted some updates to the page about biotech company Modern Meadow here Talk:Modern Meadow - is a member of this project able to review them? The proposals address the concerns of the warning boxes posted on the article, but I have a COI and don’t want to violate Wikipedia rules by editing the page myself. Thanks in advance. Olympus4Me2 ( talk) 19:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on Talk:Injury and any input would be appreciated. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Background: A discussion was held in June–July 2011 that ended with a declaration of a consensus that stated, in part, that in an article about an organism, if the scientific name of the organism is not the title of the article, the scientific name should not be presented in boldface in the opening sentence – i.e. that only italics should be used (ordinarily inside of parentheses). As far as I am aware, that consensus has not been formally overturned, and indeed many articles about organisms on Wikipedia do not use boldfacing for the scientific name of the organism. See, for example, the current versions of the Timber rattlesnake article and the Wild turkey article. Some articles do not even use boldface for the scientific name when it is the title of the article – e.g. see the current version of the Crotalus cerastes article. The general Wikipedia guideline about the boldfacing of topic names can be found at MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDSYN, which say that boldfacing should be used for the topic name and for significant alternative names that redirect to the article, which appears to differ from that July 2011 conclusion. This question was recently discussed further at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)#Boldface for common vs. scientific names, wherein several editors suggested that the scientific name, since it is always one of the significant alternative names by which an organism is known and is practically always the name of a redirect when it is not the title of the article, should always be boldfaced when it is introduced.
The question: In an article about an organism, should the scientific name of the organism always be presented in boldface (as well as italics) when it is introduced?
— BarrelProof ( talk) 01:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Note This discussion only applies to animals, i.e. taxa covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Different conventions apply to plants, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Potential closure: Per the RfC process description, "Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, ... But editors should not wait for that ...". With 11 days remaining before the bot assumes the discussion is stale, I think the consensus is clear and this discussion is ready for closure. I invite someone to close this. — BarrelProof ( talk) 16:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I've updated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals to reflect the outcome of this RfC. I'm not aware of any other pages where the previous practice of not bolding the scientific name is mentioned (I've checked WP:NCFAUNA and WP:TOL, but found no mention). Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals mentioned the discussion from 2011 that established the previous practice; I've linked to this discussion there, but the link will need to be updated once this thread is archived. Plantdrew ( talk) 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
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
[3], it seems to be merely asserted. Responses were evasive. So perhaps Wikiproject Biology can help.
Bogestra Bob (
talk) 08:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Striking
WP:BLOCKEVASION.
Generalrelative (
talk)
23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
PS: I'm also going to point you toward
WP:NOT#FORUM. WP is not a forum for endless debate-for-sport, which is clearly what you are attempting here. The respondents appear to be unanimously against your position on this, and with the topic being under
discretionary sanctions, you should give it a rest. You appear to have created your account only a few days ago for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble in a contentious subject. I predict a
topic ban if this continues.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Our article Intelligence has a section on intelligence in plants - Intelligence#Plant.
This is pseudoscience or mislabeling and should be removed.
- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:3D7F:4056:46AB:658D ( talk) 00:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that partners with universities to advance biology and medical science research. My full COI disclosure can be read at my user page. You might notice that I posted a note above, asking for some help with the Biohub page's infobox. That edit request has since been closed, so if any helpful editors came from this WikiProject, know that I appreciate it.
I recently put forward a new edit request on the Biohub Talk page, which proposes an Organization section that combines some parts of the page's existing History section with information about the Biohub's structure, how it operates, and the types of research projects it pursues. That request is available for review here and if you would like to review the full text of the Organization draft, which I uploaded to my user page, you can do so using this link. Would anyone at this WikiProject be interested in reviewing my request and/or draft? Any help or feedback would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB ( talk) 19:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 20:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Alfred Russel Wallace/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an active request for comment on Male expendability. Feel free to add your voices. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I just saw that the Vaquita article has been edited to say it is now extinct. I have not been able to find sourcing for this. Thriley ( talk) 19:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Could you help to disambiguate some of the links to Interaction? This list shows the 200+ articles with links to the disambiguation page. It would help readers to link to a more specific article. Some are chemistry related (particularly those redirected from Chemical interaction) and others biology, physics or other sciences. Any help with sorting these out would be appreciated.— Rod talk 12:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This article looks like it could benefit from some attention by this project 76.14.122.5 ( talk) 18:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Hello, I want to let you know that I've opened a discussion at CFD vis-a-vis merging these two Categories, which both cover the same subject matter -- and deciding which term should be used. You are invited to share your thoughts on this proposal HERE. Anomalous+0 ( talk) 09:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello I made this new article called Simultaneous hermaphroditism. Unfortunately this new article is kinda an orphan and I need help having other pages link to it. CycoMa ( talk) 13:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Hello. The former genus has been first erected in 2001 on the basis of two genes.
[1] In 2014 a phylogeny based on genomes reveals it is nested within
Klebsiella and concludes: Robust genome-based phylogeny showed that a unified Klebsiella cluster contains Enterobacter aerogenes and Raoultella, suggesting the latter genus should be abandoned
.
[2] In 2021 another publication proposes again to reunify the genus Raoultella with the genus Klebsiella
based on similar results
[3] I have been trying to redirect
Raoultella towards
Klebsiella, but another user prevented me to do so. Can we have another opinion? Thanks,
Totodu74 (
talk)
13:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
As you tried to change it on de as well see de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie#Raoultella vs. Klebsiella. LPSN does not agree with your change (see here) and at least on de-WP thats the guideline. .... When they change it de will change it probably as well. But not by simple putting a redirect; there is content which needs to be reviewed and maybe moved ... Sicherlich Post 09:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Hello, hoping to bring attention to a series of edits made by a new ipuser, who is making several taxonomy changes in some animal species articles. Hoping to draw some attention to verify that the edits are constructive. Thanks. -- PerpetuityGrat ( talk) 18:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
I thought these proposed moves would be of interest to this wikiproject. Talk:Principle of Coordination#Requested move 5 November 2021 – Coordination/Homonymy/Priority/Typification/Ubiquity or coordination/homonymy/priority/typification/ubiquity. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi, I remind you all that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many territories last week. It will last until November 30th or December 15th, depending on the areas.
WSC is organized every two years, and it is formally open to files from all countries (the goal are the international prizes) but specific national pages are set up for example for USA or Ireland. These national competitions when they exist act as an additional incentive to participate.
We expect a sitenotice to show up for all readers here on Wikipedia as well, but probably during the second half of the month when all countries with national competitions are open for submission. In the meantime, if you are planing to upload some nice images to Commons, please consider to submit them to WSC, you might win a prize.-- Alexmar983 ( talk) 22:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Is Encyclopedia of Life a reliable source? CycoMa ( talk) 19:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hundreds_of_RNA_motif_pages would benefit from more biological input. SmartSE ( talk) 15:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Menstrual cycle/archive2. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This discussion on the notability of RNA motifs over at WP:MolBio has expanded to be the broader question of notability for sets of topics like genes, gene/protein/rna families, cell lines, etc. Since ppl in this group will have had to grapple with similar questions on microbial species, I'd be interested in your input. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 10:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Until I stumbled upon it, this article consisted mainly of WP:PROFRINGE primary sources. I've essentially reduced the article to a stub, but it could be substantially expanded based on legitimate scientific sources, e.g. [1] and [2]. Any help from this community would be greatly appreciated. Note that I've also raised this issue at FT/N. Thanks, Generalrelative ( talk) 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Should the periodic table in the lede of the periodic table article have 18-columns or 32?
The rfc is here.
I thought I'd ask given the relevance of the periodic table to biochemistry.
Sandbh ( talk) 22:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.
Thank you. Sandbh ( talk) 07:28, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
This critical article is rated an FA since 2007, and needs an overhaul to maintain its FA status. Please see the discussion at Talk:Evolution. ( t · c) buidhe 17:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
In this article, professor János Podani ( translation) writes “Many articles in Wikipedia refer to classifications in which clades and ranked categories are intermingled — thereby triggering taxonomic chaos rather than clarifying the concept of a natural genealogical order, which confuses the readers of this popular digital encyclopedia.” Personally, I don't feel confused by that (as long as all “ranked categories” are monophyletic – that is, clades, too), but I thought I'd bring it up for consideration here. ◅ Sebastian 20:07, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
In the article Depth gauge, section Light based depth gauges in Biology, there is some content related to eyes of biological things (bristle worms?). The article is about "devices", not biology. So this needs moving somewhere else. I'm sufficiently "biology challenged" to be clueless about this. Just letting this wikiproject know that there's content to be had... before it gets deleted from the Depth gauge article. Platonk ( talk) 23:56, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
The article Archaeplastida currently contains the statement “[T]he non-photosynthetic lineage Rhodelphidia [is] a predatorial (eukaryotrophic) flagellate”. While “predatorial” is not a term known to Wikipedia, “predatory” redirects to “ Predation”, which defines the term by the killing. That could fit to the description of Rhodelphis as “a heterotrophic predator that feeds on bacteria and smaller flagellates”.
On the other hand, “eukaryotrophic”, for which I could find no article, when derived etymologically, has quite a different meaning: feeding on eucaryotes. That contrasts with the above description in two ways: It excludes bacteria, and it includes many categories other than croppers, such as lectivores. The latter would fit to another interpretation of the description of Rhodelphis: Maybe it feeds on dead resources, too.
This leads me to the following questions:
◅ Sebastian 20:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
An editor has requested for Autism to be merged into Autism spectrum. Since you had some involvement with autism or autism spectrum, you might want to participate in the merger discussion (if you have not already done so). Averixus ( talk) 00:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I frequently encounter lemmata whose preferred binomial name differs between different Language versions of Wikipedia. That often has negative side effects. E.g. Lactuca muralis, although a common plant in Europe, shows only four links to the article in other languages (Cebuano, Español, Íslenska, and Italiano). That's not because other languages don't have an article for it, as can be seen e.g. in German. German WP simply prefers Mycelis muralis; so much so that it didn't even have a redirect from Lactuca muralis until now. While there are ways to fix those problems individually, I think ultimately the best solution would be to agree on a preferred binomial name. What would be the best (internationally used) source to go by? ◅ Sebastian 17:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Hello,
The species Hypomeces squamosus (beetle) has just been renamed Hypomeces pulviger. I'm not a specialist, but this modification does not convince me. The old name was used in the NCBI and the EPPO, while the new name is unknown in these directories. Only the GBIF accepts Hypomeces squamosus as synonym of the other.
All the sources of the article mention Hypomeces squamosus. Moreover, Google returns 22'100 results for Hypomeces squamosus, and only 624 results for Hypomeces pulviger (35 times less occurrences). I think WP:LEAST would recommend to keep the first name. Thanks for your help. Also notifying Cwmhiraeth (1st contributor). Best regards -- Basile Morin ( talk) 11:00, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
Hello, dear biological and especially pomological friends!
Maybe someone of you can help me.
I am looking for English translations for apple parts, shown in the picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bestandteile_des_Apfels_02_(fcm).jpg
I have already found some terms (bracketed), but I am not sure.
Not in the picture:
gruß, fcm. -- Frank C. Müller ( talk) 11:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)and turns it into something like
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{ cite web}}, {{ cite journal}} and {{ doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 16:00, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed an anon making suspicious edits to articles on animals, mostly mammals. Mostly making a large number of edits to scientific classification info w/o adding, mentioning an RS nor leaving ES. Doesn't appear to want to communicate though has gotten a number of warning templates. A few are obvious errors, but it's not my area of expertise and deciphering sources is a chore. Is there someone who would be willing to help me vet some of these and maybe determine what to do? I don't think ANI would work unless there are a few admins with appropriate degrees. Thanks Adakiko ( talk) 07:31, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Should this draft be accepted as a stand-alone article? Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
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)
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)
Comments are requested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female (gender). Crossroads -talk- 01:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that works with universities to investigate biology and develop new medical diagnostic processes, therapies, and cures. If you would like to read my full conflict of interest disclosure, you can do so by visiting my user page.
I have a small ask for any curious editors at this WikiProject: would you mind reviewing an edit request I posted to CZ Biohub's Talk page? It's a pair of updates that add a logo and a purpose line to the page's infobox. Due to my COI, I can't edit the article directly and need independent editors to approve my suggestions. I would deeply appreciate any help I can get with this. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB ( talk) 13:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I posted some updates to the page about biotech company Modern Meadow here Talk:Modern Meadow - is a member of this project able to review them? The proposals address the concerns of the warning boxes posted on the article, but I have a COI and don’t want to violate Wikipedia rules by editing the page myself. Thanks in advance. Olympus4Me2 ( talk) 19:50, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I've opened a discussion on Talk:Injury and any input would be appreciated. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 04:19, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
Background: A discussion was held in June–July 2011 that ended with a declaration of a consensus that stated, in part, that in an article about an organism, if the scientific name of the organism is not the title of the article, the scientific name should not be presented in boldface in the opening sentence – i.e. that only italics should be used (ordinarily inside of parentheses). As far as I am aware, that consensus has not been formally overturned, and indeed many articles about organisms on Wikipedia do not use boldfacing for the scientific name of the organism. See, for example, the current versions of the Timber rattlesnake article and the Wild turkey article. Some articles do not even use boldface for the scientific name when it is the title of the article – e.g. see the current version of the Crotalus cerastes article. The general Wikipedia guideline about the boldfacing of topic names can be found at MOS:BOLD and MOS:BOLDSYN, which say that boldfacing should be used for the topic name and for significant alternative names that redirect to the article, which appears to differ from that July 2011 conclusion. This question was recently discussed further at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (fauna)#Boldface for common vs. scientific names, wherein several editors suggested that the scientific name, since it is always one of the significant alternative names by which an organism is known and is practically always the name of a redirect when it is not the title of the article, should always be boldfaced when it is introduced.
The question: In an article about an organism, should the scientific name of the organism always be presented in boldface (as well as italics) when it is introduced?
— BarrelProof ( talk) 01:39, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Note This discussion only applies to animals, i.e. taxa covered by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (fauna). Different conventions apply to plants, as per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora). Peter coxhead ( talk) 08:17, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Potential closure: Per the RfC process description, "Legobot assumes an RfC has been forgotten and automatically ends it (removes the rfc template) 30 days after it begins, ... But editors should not wait for that ...". With 11 days remaining before the bot assumes the discussion is stale, I think the consensus is clear and this discussion is ready for closure. I invite someone to close this. — BarrelProof ( talk) 16:06, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I've updated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Organisms and Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals to reflect the outcome of this RfC. I'm not aware of any other pages where the previous practice of not bolding the scientific name is mentioned (I've checked WP:NCFAUNA and WP:TOL, but found no mention). Wikipedia:WikiProject Animals mentioned the discussion from 2011 that established the previous practice; I've linked to this discussion there, but the link will need to be updated once this thread is archived. Plantdrew ( talk) 20:40, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
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
[3], it seems to be merely asserted. Responses were evasive. So perhaps Wikiproject Biology can help.
Bogestra Bob (
talk) 08:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC) Striking
WP:BLOCKEVASION.
Generalrelative (
talk)
23:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
PS: I'm also going to point you toward
WP:NOT#FORUM. WP is not a forum for endless debate-for-sport, which is clearly what you are attempting here. The respondents appear to be unanimously against your position on this, and with the topic being under
discretionary sanctions, you should give it a rest. You appear to have created your account only a few days ago for the sole purpose of stirring up trouble in a contentious subject. I predict a
topic ban if this continues.
—
SMcCandlish
☏
¢ 😼
09:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Our article Intelligence has a section on intelligence in plants - Intelligence#Plant.
This is pseudoscience or mislabeling and should be removed.
- 2804:14D:5C59:8693:3D7F:4056:46AB:658D ( talk) 00:40, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
Hello! I'm here on behalf of Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, a nonprofit that partners with universities to advance biology and medical science research. My full COI disclosure can be read at my user page. You might notice that I posted a note above, asking for some help with the Biohub page's infobox. That edit request has since been closed, so if any helpful editors came from this WikiProject, know that I appreciate it.
I recently put forward a new edit request on the Biohub Talk page, which proposes an Organization section that combines some parts of the page's existing History section with information about the Biohub's structure, how it operates, and the types of research projects it pursues. That request is available for review here and if you would like to review the full text of the Organization draft, which I uploaded to my user page, you can do so using this link. Would anyone at this WikiProject be interested in reviewing my request and/or draft? Any help or feedback would be deeply appreciated. Thanks! Patricia at GMMB ( talk) 19:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 ( talk) 20:50, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Alfred Russel Wallace/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:52, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There is currently an active request for comment on Male expendability. Feel free to add your voices. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 00:40, 1 December 2022 (UTC)
I just saw that the Vaquita article has been edited to say it is now extinct. I have not been able to find sourcing for this. Thriley ( talk) 19:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Could you help to disambiguate some of the links to Interaction? This list shows the 200+ articles with links to the disambiguation page. It would help readers to link to a more specific article. Some are chemistry related (particularly those redirected from Chemical interaction) and others biology, physics or other sciences. Any help with sorting these out would be appreciated.— Rod talk 12:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
This article looks like it could benefit from some attention by this project 76.14.122.5 ( talk) 18:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)