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. |
Nature has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
RetractionBot
editI posted this story from the Signpost last month. Things have evolved a bit and now Retraction bot handles {{Erratum}}, {{Expression of concern}}, and {{Retracted}}. These populate the following categories:
- Arsenic biochemistry
- Bioeconomy
- Biotechnology
- Hypoxia-inducible factor
- Stephen Jackson (biologist)
- Liposome extruder
If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace {{retraction|...}} with {{retraction|...|intentional=yes}}/{{expression of concern|...}} with {{expression of concern|...|intentional=yes}}/{{Erratum|...}} with {{Erratum|...|checked=yes}}.
I put the list of articles within the scope of WP:BIOL in sub-bullets. Any help you can give with those are greatly appreciated. Feel free to remove/strike through those you've dealt with. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
RfC: On discovery of the 23 nonmetals
editShould this content on the discovery of the 23 nonmetals be removed from the nonmetal article?
RfC is here. --- Sandbh (talk) 00:03, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
Request to merge Frisson into Goose bumps
editI have noticed that these two articles talk about the same thing. I have created a proposal on Goose bumps's talk page to discuss a merger. 80.0.166.171 (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
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
editA 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
editHi. 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)