Talk:Cognitive biology

Untitled

1. RE: "This article has multiple issues."

The issues deserve much work and over the next few weeks and months, I hope to make many improvements.

2. RE: "This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states the Wikipedia editor's particular feelings about a topic, rather than the opinions of experts. (June 2014)"

There is currently no science of Cognitive Biology, but rather it is still being formed by sundry researchers, biologists, and theorists. There is no common understanding nor expert nor published authoritative text. So I've attempted to present examples from a variety of sources (most all I could find) in an objective fashion and encyclopedic style. I'll try to improve that style as I re-read the article over the coming months. As the science matures, I hope a few experts will improve and/or rewrite the article.

3. RE: "This article's introduction may be too long for the overall article length. (June 2014)"

I neglected using a "Discussion" heading, and after adding it realized the first two paragraphs worked best if switched around.

Jakelove (talk) 23:53, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

---

4. RE: "orphan"

I have put a link to this article in the "See Also" sections of many other relevant articles.

5. RE: "very long"

I've cut several thousand words or more about Goodwin and Kovac.

6. RE: "technical" The passages cut were the most technical.

7. RE: "lead too long"

I've cut the lead in half.

Jakelove (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

---

8. RE: "This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: WP:MOS. Please help improve this article if you can."

I will be full of gratitude if you [whomever fastened this tag on this article] would so kindly tell or show me where or what needs the work. I want to present an article which has "consistent, clear, and precise language" et cetera.

Please read Note 2 above: I left the "personal reflection or opinion essay" flag at the top of the page while I work to improve the article. Jakelove (talk) 01:21, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakelove (talk • contribs) 00:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

You have all the info you need at WP:MOS. It is mostly about using italics and external links properly. I will help here too, as I already have. --Λeternus ^(talk) 08:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Thank you kindly, Aeternus, for that detail. It's time for me to study the MOS. I had been ignoring my use of "italics and external links" heretofor but will now get to them in the days ahead as I struggle to write about this topic in an encyclopedic style. Jakelove (talk) 23:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The main thing to remember is that scientific fields are not italicized (cognitive science not cognitive science) and external links aren't allowed in the main body of the article. It either has to be a wikilink (English Wikipedia internal link, cognitive science for example, or it has to be formatted as a footnote (<ref>...</ref>). --Λeternus ^(talk) 07:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

By way of explanation, my use of italics in that example, and several more times in that paragraph, was for the sake of emphasis. Yet the operative word is sparingly in the WP:MOS statement: "Italics may be used sparingly to emphasize words in sentences." And I struggle to trust that the reader will parse my sentence to catch the keyword without my underlining, circling, and highlighting. As a therapeutic exercise, I'll reduce my emphases in this article by 90%.

Thanks again for your help and now I've got one more request, please: I had intended the title of the page to be Cognitive biology. But when I first posted the article I realized it was titled Cognitive Biology. How can it be changed? Jakelove (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

• If you look, you will see it has already been moved. Bensci54 (talk) 02:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

---

Thank you Bensci54 for fixing the upper/lower cases in the page title.

Thank you, Aeternus, for linking the Cognitive biology page to both the Biology and the Cognitive science projects.

And thanks to whomever removed the two remaining tags from the top of the Cognitive biology page. The page now feels real, erstwhile, and up to snuff. I plan to keep working on it for the sake of encyclopedic improvement. My work is honored by acceptance to an institution which has given me wonderful kinds of knowledge in vast quantity, without fee. Long may WIkipedia live! Jakelove (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

---

---

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cognitive biology. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://arquivo.pt/wayback/20160520170354/http://comparative-cognition-and-behavior-reviews.org/index.html to http://www.comparative-cognition-and-behavior-reviews.org/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Multiple Issues

This article needs to include more information to fully understand the topic, it is underdeveloped. Milcaarellano (talk) 05:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC)