Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

New issue of the Tree of Life Newsletter published

For any interested, there is a new issue of the ToL Newsletter available here: WP:TOLN. It's the second-ever issue so it would be be great to have support, feedback, and suggestions for moving forward. Thanks, Enwebb (talk) 16:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

To make sure this newsletter doesn't die (like enwiki's many many inactive newsletters) would you be interested in having multiple people work on the newsletter? I really like the overviews you do of recently featured articles, and it would be cool if you did more features of editors in different ToL subprojects! Starsandwhales (talk) 18:19, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Starsandwhales, thanks for the positive feedback! I'd absolutely be interested in having multiple people involved. I didn't actively solicit help when creating the newsletter, I've just been accepting what people are willing to offer. I started a draft of the next issue already, but we can discuss on its talk page what ideas you may have. Enwebb (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:BIOL redesign discussion

I'm making a new section strictly for discussing the redesign (likely with WPX elements) of Wikiproject Biology. Some of the tasks we will need to perform will depend on the ongoing merger discussion above. Those should be on the back burner. However, many other tasks we will need to perform have no prerequisites--we have enough consensus to begin drafting, and we are working strictly on a Wikiproject we are all familiar with. With that in mind, I'd like to present Special:PrefixIndex/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biology/ this list of all the subpages of WP:BIOL so that we know just how much content we are talking about. There are 9 subpages including a redirect. The main content subpage is Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology/Assessment. While not subpages, we also have to consider our various templates. We have several of those, one of which is a subpage (Invitation). Now let's discuss some issues here and pick some that we can work on.

• Of these subpages, several (popular pages and unreferenced BLPs for example) are not linked to at all from the main page. I think that is probably not good, and that we should have an automated directory placed somewhere on the main page (or even a subpage linked to from the main page, as ironic as that is).
• The assessment page needs its own rework because it is the subpage with the most content. It's not just a page to be transcluded onto the main page. I am nearing the end of the drafting stage of a detailed guide to the use of Rater and I will be submitting it to several people today. Due to my experience assessing well over a thousand articles in this project and my guide, I feel I should take point on writing the content here. I will need help with formatting and fancy design features, though.
• There are requests in both the assessment page and the main page. All of our leftover requests need to be either completed (difficult considering one is a GA nomination request from years ago) or centralized. In addition, I would like to use the Requests feature designed by WPX accessible from the main page and/or all subpages which someone may wish to submit a request from. If we are simply centralizing these, it could be very easy. We could put them all on the main page (my preference) or all in a new subpage. I think this is a good item to start with.
• We need to deal with the members list. It is very old. I would at some point like to send out a mass message to all former members, but I think that this should wait until we have something pretty to show them. Rather than doing that now, I would like to start by investigating how to implement the WPX members system. I have already spoken to Isarra, the dev for WPX, about WP:BIOL being interested. This would be a good move forward--it is less complex than a total page redesign, and really the WPX feature is better in every way than our system. So I suggest we leave the list alone for now and discuss how to integrate it into a new system.
• Tabs at the top. Some people have suggested this and it sounds good to me. Either we do it like WP:Plants and have old-fashioned (but still good) tabs, or we go full WPX and do it more like WP:Cannabis and have buttons. We should think about what sorts of content we need to be linking to here, though.
• For that matter, Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Dashboard is a list of projects with WPX layouts. I picked WP:Cannabis since it is the most BIOL-ish project and is technically under our project, eventually, but there are other great candidates as well. We should identify a few projects here that we really would like to emulate with our design if we do decide to go full WPX (which I support).
• We also need to consider how we are going to integrate our subprojects and their discussions. Regardless of the merger we have been discussing, we will still have subprojects including WP:TOL, the merge parent, WP:EVO, WP:ECO, WP:PHYSIO, and others. Even if we merge some of those, we will still have many subprojects. WP:Cannabis has a discussions module which seems to pick up discussions from a bunch of pages. I really like that, and I also like how it prompts people to add a new topic. That is a really nice feature for people who are content experts but not necessarily Wikipedia experts.

@Isarra:Tagging you since I said I would update you, and we are all a little less educated on WPX than we'd like to be. Feel free to weigh in anywhere I've said something dumb or missed something obvious. There are many other issues we need to address but I think this is plenty of food for thought for now. GreatSculptorIthas (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Whatever you manage to do, awesome, but I'm afraid I don't know that much either - I was mostly just the designer at this stage, only really started development on the extension later. And yeah, I don't think anyone has any objections to you hijacking or changing anything in whatever you use as needed either, as long as it doesn't break anything else! (I'll let you know if the WiR folks come yelling. :P) -— Isarra ༆ 18:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Requests page

@Evolution and evolvability: Tagging you since you've been pretty active here. I've been a bit sick these past few days, and I've been working on other projects as well. So sorry that I have been slow. One thing I wanted to do was set up a requests page which would handle all future article, assessment, and other requests. I made a subpage for it and I wonder if I should eventually move all of our old article requests onto that system as well, or just include that link. I would like to do the former--it seems like a much better way to handle the issue going forward. Any thoughts? Also, I changed it to a subpage for now, but that may not be the best move in the end. I did it that way because that's how some other Wikiprojects did it as well--I figured we would make one of those nice buttons like the ones you put on GMCB. GreatSculptorIthas (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14

Newsletter • June 2019

Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.

There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:

• A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
• We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!

Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:

• Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
• WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)

Until next time,

-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

non-breaking spaces

Pinging Ravenpuff. I'm sorry to bother you guys with something so trivial, but your answer could save me thousands of edits over time. This edit added a non-breaking space to I. sinensis, "per MOS:ORGANISMS". That page (apparently not part of MOS) says you "can" add non-breaking spaces here, and I only see them in FAC leads in this context about 10% of the time. I don't have a preference, except that I don't want people to have to make a lot of extra edits if it's not necessary. - Dank (push to talk) 11:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever used a nbsp in a binomial or trinomial. Personally I don't think readers will get lost in a line break. --Nessie (talk) 18:31, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 18:50, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Science project

I just happened across the article Science project, which looks rather unloved. Expansion would be welcome and probably not that difficult. XOR'easter (talk) 01:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Call for portal maintainers

Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:Biology and other portals, such as Portal:Biotechnology, that fall within the scope of this WikiProject? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:05, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@UnitedStatesian: you might want to ask about the latter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology. --Nessie (talk) 13:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 September 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15

Newsletter • September 2019

A final update, for now:

The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.

Regards,

-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Persecution

• Lammergeier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Crowned eagle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not used to seeing this definition used for human behavior that may threaten animals. However, at least one source (help to evaluate it welcome) uses it. I'm just leaving this note, in case my impression makes sense and an interested editor can improve the related articles. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 08:19, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I assume you mean "persecute" used as a term for harassing animal species? If so, I've heard it several times, and would regard it as standard usage (at least in the UK, I can't speak for other countries). Here are another four sources that use it, and that seem reasonably reliable to me. Anaxial (talk) 19:50, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Fasting states

Hello, I updated the Intermittent fasting entry, and I need help checking if the infos in Intermittent fasting#Mechanism about the various fasting states transitions are correct, as it's difficult to find a single source that summarizes all fed/fasting states and with enough biological details. If anybody could check if there's not a big mistake written in, even using animal reviews, it would be very helpful (I have already sourced with appropriate reviews on humans, but I want to make sure that the info is correct, as I lack some competence in biology). To be more precise, for the timeframes it's ok, but it's more about what happens in the metabolic sense: when glucagon is released, what does it do, idem for starvation state and ketogenesis, etc. Thank you in advance! --Signimu (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Taxonomic boundary paradox

Taxonomic boundary paradox is a new article, but since it is beyond my expertise I have no idea if this should have its own article on Wikipedia per WP:GNG and so on. I am hoping someone from this project can take a look. This may already be content that we have on Wikipedia. Also, the language is incomprehensible to the general reader and it seems to be written like a scientific paper or journal article. So, I tagged it as needing an expert. Thanks for your help. Regards - Steve Quinn (talk) 09:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm no expert, but it reads fine to me. It is certainly a notable topic that is not yet covered in other Wikipedia articles on taxonomy or cladistics. My bigger concern is that it appeared fully formed with no sign of original incremental development. It is possible that it was written off-wiki first, but it was already fully wikified too. Loopy30 (talk) 10:48, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

It is an interesting case. The article is well written and I can believe the interplay of taxonomic assumptions and evolution is notable. But the only person who uses the term "Taxonomic boundary paradox" seems to be Janos Podani. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 11:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

@Steve Quinn and Loopy30: This is an interesting article and is looking at the issues between different methods of nomenclaturally describing the tree of life. As noted above the jargon taxonomic boundary paradox has only been introduced by one author, some 10 years ago, and not overly followed up upon, however the ideas represented by it have been highly discussed in areas of species boundaries and the presentation of PhyloCode and the Linnean system of nomenclature. For our purposes here I think the article should more widely cite other opinions on the matter such as Gould, de Quiroz, Joyce and oters, including responses from the ICZN. It should also be simplified in its terminology and in-line links made where possible to terms, this will include linking the jargon to more regularly known terms that encompass them. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) ^talk 15:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

I think it's a keeper but with some flaws, as identified above. It's hard to tell how much synthesis or OR has gone into this - assuming GF, the lede and background material is a summary of Podani, which would make the entire thing somewhat single source-heavy. I've stuck a {{too few opinions}} tag on. Otherwise I believe this is a valid topic and a good basis. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:58, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello to Loopy30, Mark viking, Scott Thomson, and Elmidae. Your feedback here is much appreciated. Sorry it took this long to come back, but the time did allow for a number of responses. I'm glad to see this project's members are now aware of this page. Now, I have another article query for project members, entitled "Transcriptional memory". I will open a section below. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Transcriptional memory

Hello again. Transcriptional memory is a relatively new article (since August 2019). However, I am wondering if this topic merits its own article on Wikipedia, per GNG. The page has some wonderful sources, and the text does not seem to be the creator's WP:OR or WP:SNYTHESIS based on these sources. What I mean by this is, you may notice all the references appear to be peer-reviewed biology or microbiology journal articles. The article creator does a good job of simply describing what the sources say. I suppose the only thing to wonder about is if this is already covered in other biology or microbiology. I would appreciate if project members could take a look and make some determinations. Thanks in advance. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

A thorough review of the gene article

Transcluded from Talk:Gene/Review

To WP:MCB, WP:GEN, WP:BIOL and WP:EB

The gene article gets 50,000 views per month but has been de-listed as a featured article since 2006. Given the success of the recent blitz on the enzyme article, I thought I'd suggest spending a couple of weeks seeing if we can get it up to a higher standard. I'm going to start with updating some of the images. If you'd like to help out on the article, it'd be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 09:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears the main reason gene was delisted as a GA was sourcing (see Talk:Gene/GA1). The following free textbook is probably sufficient to document most basic facts about genes:

• Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2002). Molecular Biology of the Cell (Fourth ed.). New York: Garland Science. ISBN 978-0-8153-3218-3.

a second one is even more relevant, but unfortunately not freely accessed:

• Watson JD, Baker TA, Bell SP, Gann A, Levine M, Losick R (2013). Molecular Biology of the Gene (7th ed.). Benjamin Cummings. ISBN 978-0-321-90537-6.

I will start working on this as I find time. Boghog (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt on this! I see I did do some work here back in the day, but not enough. Looks like a typical large-but-untended wiki article - bloated up with random factoids with no attention to the flow of the article. I'm pretty busy for this week and out of town next week, but I'll try to give it some attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably go through and make all the necessary MOS tweaks for FA status to the article within the next week. Too preoccupied with other articles at the moment to make any substantive content/reference changes though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Glossary

Snooping around I encountered Template:Genetics glossary, I don't know it's backstory, but it is a rather cleaver idea for a template in my opinion. I partially reckon it might go well under the first image in place or the second image depicting DNA, which conceptually is a tangent. I am not sure, hence my asking. --Squidonius (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Including a glossary could be useful, but I think it should be concise and tailored specifically for this article. Currently {{Genetics glossary}} contains 22 entries and some of the definitions are quite lengthy. A shorter glossary, closer to the size of {{Transcription factor glossary}} or {{Restriction enzyme glossary}}, IMHO would be more effective. Another option is to transclude the {{Genetics sidebar}} which in turn links to {{Genetics glossary}}. Boghog (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

...could also just transclude a collapsed version - provides the full set of terms and takes up little space. If people need a glossary, they can expand it. Glossaries probably shouldn't be expanded by default unless there's a lot of free space along the right side of the page between level 2 sections (i.e., horizontal line breaks), since images and tables should take precedence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed or not collapsed, {{Genetics glossary}} is still way too long. Glossaries should be restricted to key terms with short definitions that can quickly be scanned while reading the rest of the article. IMHO, a long glossary defeats its purpose. Furthermore an uncollapsed glossary is more likely be read and if kept short, no need to collapse. Boghog (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Might as well make a new one since it's not referenced anyway; imo, glossaries should cite sources, preferably another glossary, because it's article content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently I added a bunch of stuff to that template awhile back, but don't remember it at all. It appears to be a subset of the article genetics glossary. (I'm not really sure we need both.) I agree that the template is way too long, and as constructed is hard to ctrl-F for a term.

I suggest just linking to the MBC glossary as a "reference". I would consider this kind of thing as a summary analogous to the lead paragraphs; no need for a clutter of little blue numbers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm planning on adding some more Molecular Biology of the Cell references to the article using {{rp}} to specify chapter sections. I went to the MBOC 4th ed. online page but I can find no way of searching by page number, chapter, section or anything else. Any ideas on how to specify specific sections as is possible for Biochemistry 5th ed. online? Alternatively, maybe there's a more easily refernced online textbook for general citations. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I had the same train of thought here on the regular talk page. How about something like this? Uses {{sfn}} to include links to individual sections as notes. Of course, now they're separate from the rest of the references, but maybe it's not a bad idea to distinguish 'basic stuff you can find in a textbook' from 'specific results you need to consult the literature for'. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that. I agree that it's actually a good way to format it. Having a separate list that indicates the significance of the references is useful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 08:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of {{sfn}} templates. They are more complicated and harder to maintain. Plus they don't directly address the problem of searching Molecular Biology of the Cell. What seems to work is to search for the chapter or subchapter titles in quotes. For example search for "DNA and Chromosomes" provides a link to the introduction of chapter 4. Then one can reference the chapter or subchapter number with {{rp}}. I am busy this week but should have more time this weekend to work on this. Boghog (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I mis-described my own suggestion; it's actually {{efn}} (not that that's better). I like your method better from an aesthetic and maintenance point of view, but the problem is that giving a reader a reference to "chapter 4" is less useful if there's no obvious way to get to chapter 4 from the book's table of contents page. I don't see a way to provide separate links for each chapter/section without splitting up the references in the reference list. We could use {{rp}} like this, but I think the links police won't like that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I now see what you mean. The choice is between {{efn}} and in-line external links and {{efn}} is the lesser of two evils. One other possibility is to append the chapter external links to the citation:

• Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2002). Molecular Biology of the Cell (Fourth ed.). New York: Garland Science. ISBN 978-0-8153-3218-3. Chapter 4: DNA and Chromosomes; Chapter 7: Control of Gene Expression; Chapter 7.1: An Overview of Gene Control; Chapter 7.2: DNA-Binding Motifs in Gene Regulatory Proteins; Chapter 7.3: How Genetic Switches Work

or have separate citations for each chapter where only the |chapter= and |chapterurl= parameters differ:

• Alberts B, Johnson A, Lewis J, Raff M, Roberts K, Walter P (2002). "Chapter 7: Control of Gene Expression". Molecular Biology of the Cell (Fourth ed.). New York: Garland Science. ISBN 978-0-8153-3218-3. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

Boghog (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My first reaction to your 'appended links' idea was that we shouldn't create our own linked pseudo-TOC given the publisher's apparent desire not to have a linked TOC hosted by the organization they actually licensed the content to. But all the other ideas do essentially the same thing, so that's a bit silly. I think I like that idea in combination with {{rp}} chapter labels best, as it's least intrusive in the text, makes clear how many citations go to a general reference, and doesn't require a separate list or potentially fragile formatting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've not done much non-standard reference citation so I'll wait until you've done a couple so that I can see the format in context before doing any more. The ones I added yesterday shouldn't be too difficult to reformat. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You're the one currently doing the work, so I think that means you get to decide :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

MBOC references

Article

Genes are numerous and useful

References

Glossary

Ch 2: Cell Chemistry and Biosynthesis

2.1: The Chemical Components of a Cell

Ch 4: DNA and Chromosomes

4.1: The Structure and Function of DNA

4.2: Chromosomal DNA and Its Packaging in the Chromatin Fiber

Ch 6: How Cells Read the Genome: From DNA to Protein

6.1: DNA to RNA

6.2: RNA to Protein

Ch 7: Control of Gene Expression

So {{rp}} labels the chapter number but does not provide any easy link to the actual information. Therefore it's combined with a list of chapter links. the benefit is that the {{rp}} template is relatively easy to maintain and the list of chapter links doesn't require maintainance and places all the MBOC links together. As stated above, there's basically no way to avoid linking individually to chapters if we want to cite MBOC. I'll finish building the chapter list over the next couple of days. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've finished adding MBOC references up to section 3 (gene expression). Also, whoever originally wrote the gene expression section of the article really liked semicolons! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, I like the collapsible box! I can't find it at the moment, though - IIRC there is somewhere an agreement not to use collapsed boxes for references for accessibility reasons. I don't see it in WP:ACCESSIBILITY so I could be misremembering, and since the box contains links and not the reference note itself, it's probably fine. Just wanted to mention it in case someone recognized the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis and Evolution and evolvability: The guideline is MOS:COLLAPSE, which states "...boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists ... When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS." I checked this article on my phone, a mid-2011 model, and that entire box just doesn't appear at all using the default mobile view. I tried setting the template parameter expand=true so the box is expanded by default but that made no difference. Maybe better to change to a bulleted or indented list? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 10:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: Well spotted - It's really irritating when templates don't work properly on mobiles! I've changed the MBOC list to be wrapped in {{Hidden begin}} + {{Hidden end}}, which renders properly on phones (default expanded). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that works – thanks! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017 Editorial: Core models and topics Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago. The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005. Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable. In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed. Links WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development). Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon. As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata. GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions. Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months. Olivia Solon in San Francisco, [Why the net neutrality protest mattersWhy the net neutrality protest matters], opinion piece in The Guardian on 11 July. Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Third vs. Fourth Generation Sequencing

Nanopore sequencing is described as 4th generation Nanopore sequencing and 3rd generation Third-generation sequencing in Wikipedia. Please review and revise. Definitions of third and fourth generation differ amongst sources. Consider adding a page to describe 4th generation. One distinction is that 3rd is all about very long reads whereas 4th is about in situ (single cell) reads. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.36.206 (talk) 18:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Folding@home FAR

I have nominated Folding@home for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. GamerPro64 17:19, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Fixing biology typos

At Wikipedia:Correct typos in one click, you can fix typos or tag them for attention in a single click. However, there are a lot of biology terms that we need help with. Can anyone help out with checking whether the typos relating to biology, particularly some obscure species are indeed typos? Thanks! Bellowhead678 (talk) 11:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I have had a go at some of them. Some were typos, some wern't, some I do not have enough knowledge to decide MerielGJones (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

how to handle change in scientific name?

How do you handle changes to preferred scientific names? In the plant genus Petasites (there is a page about the genus), the species P. fragrans (winter heliotrope) has a page already. Another species (P. pyrenaicus) is listed on the genus page, but does not have its own page. In 2019, the authorative New Floral of the British Isles, 4th edition (C. Stace) indicates that P. pyrenaicus is now the preferred name, and that P. fragrans should now preferable not be used. This sort of thing must happen a lot. How do you handle this, please? MerielGJones (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

In general, the article should get moved to the current scientific name. You should be able to do it yourself in this case; in desktop view, to the right of the "Edit" and "View history" is a "More" tab. Select that then, Move, and enter the new title. If there is already a redirect for the current scientific name, you may not be able to move it yourself, but you can request a move at Wikipedia:Requested_moves/Technical_requests. We generally prefer to use Plants of the World Online as a source for synonyms/current names of plants. POWO treats P. fragrans as a synonym of P. pyrenaicus. Other sources may be followed if there is a compelling reason to do so. Plantdrew (talk)`

OK, many thanks. Plants of the World Online has all the info about the species listed under P. pyrenaicus, and redirects from P. fragrans (as one of its synonym) to it, so it would be consistent to do the same. I will have a go at this!MerielGJones (talk) 22:31, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

I have moved it. Thanks for the good advice. MerielGJones (talk) 22:47, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

NPOV issues at a biography article

I am asking for your advice on how to mitigate WP:NPOV issues at Draft:Bruno Reversade highlighted by the reviewing editor Willbb234. This article is a properly stated Conflict of Interest contribution and I did my best to keep the style neutral and encyclopedic. I understand that phrases like "In 2012, he became the first scientist based outside Europe to win the European Molecular Biology Organization Young Investigatorship Award" may sound promotional, but what if is it exactly true, word by word, as highlighted by the European Molecular Biology Organization? Should I just remove all the awards and fellowships from the text and keep this info only at the tabular format? What are the best practices for keeping WP:NPOV at biographical articles and how this particular article could/should be improved? Thank you in advance. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 22:34, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Script to detect unreliable sources

Main page: User:Headbomb/unreliable

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

I'm still expanding coverage and tweaking logic, but what's there already works very well. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Seeking a Wikipedian in Residence! (U.S.)

Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher, seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).

The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable expansion of content.

This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA, NY, HI, or MT.

PLEASE APPLY! https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about article "Race and intelligence"

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Race and intelligence#Requested move 4 March 2020, which is about an article that is within the scope of this WikiProject. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 20:00, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

15,000 photos of plants, plant diseases, and plant pests now in the public domain

I am pleased to inform you that all images at https://www.flickr.com/photos/scotnelson/ are now CC-0 public domain. If you find any of use, please upload them directly to Commons using the template {{Cc-zero-Scot Nelson}}, which contains the corresponding OTRS ticket. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

"Genetic memory"

There is an article split from somewhere unstated back in 2010 entitled "Genetic memory (biology)". The article is poorly cited with many wholly-uncited paragraphs, and the overview is itself uncited, which suggests original research by synthesis. A search reveals many pseudoscientific sources but no peer-reviewed biology articles on the subject. In her book The Meme Machine, Susan Blackmore writes that "Lamarck's idea is still popular and appears in many guises, including memories of past lives being attributed to 'genetic memory'...", which doesn't bode well for the subject. Do other WP Biology editors think the article has a genuine biological basis? Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes and no. Epigenetic memory is a well-established set of concepts. Epigenetics plays a role in memory formation, see Epigenetics in learning and memory. Epigenetic state can be inheritable, see Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. Some believe it plays a role in evolution, see Contribution of epigenetic modifications to evolution. DNA can be used as a memory storage device, see DNA digital data storage and E. coli for that matter. But I don't know of any reliable sources in biology that discuss these under the umbrella term of genetic memory. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

OK, that means it should be deleted, as it's not a biology article. The nomination is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Genetic memory (biology) and project members are invited to contribute to the AfD discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Probable fake articles

Hello biologists,

I would like to point out to you that some, many, or all of the contributions of this user are considered to be possible fakes on the German Wikipedia; see also here and this deletion discussion. He is assumed to be identical with this person, and especially the species he claims to have discovered deserve a closer look. --217.239.4.130 (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you - that is concerning. There seems to be no reasonable doubt Jaffacity is von Jaffa, since their page creations and much of their editing are restricted to the species described by that researcher:

• Chilean blue whale
• Diaphorodoris olakhalafi
• Urocaridella renatekhalafae
• Trapania norakhalafae

As to the validity of these - well. As pointed out on deWiki [1], the blue whale subspecies indeed is not recognized in any reliable list, which includes what I'd consider the primary touchstone for recognized marine mammals, the Society for Marine Mammalogy list. In fact, none of these four species are present in any register save the user-generated ZooBank (the GBIF entry for Diaphorodoris olakhalafi [2] is marked as ZooBank-based; the "backbone" version [3] has the species as doubtful. Same for the other two species.)

This is not to disparage ZooBank; it's the standard first repository for new taxa described in online publications. But if all descriptions are published in the author's own journal, by someone who seems keen on self-promotion, then fail to show up anywhere else for several years - I think caution is advised. I'd tend toward removing these articles pending verification of status. Taxo editors, what's your impression? Dropping notification at Tree of Life.

(The discussion on deWP is well worth reading, if you have the German chops.)

--Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

ADD: one more comment - the author's attempts to establish a new subspecies based on what appears to have been a partly albinistic house mouse [4] do not inspire confidence. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Just a quick note, since I cannot edit the article myself due to semi-protection: User:Jaffacity's edits in Blue whale – a featured article – are currently still live. Could someone please revert them? Thanks, --Földhegy (talk) 22:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

There are still more edits of this user in Blue whale. [5] --AlexanderdieMaus (talk) 00:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

There's more to check I'm afraid: [6].--Nico b. (talk) 11:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I started this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chilean blue whale. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 14:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

• I'm currently removing links to that amazing "journal", Gazelle - the Palestinian Biological Bulletin, which seem to have been spammed liberally around the encyclopedia as Further Reading or unconnected references. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:05, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Old merge discussion

There is a merge discussion at Talk:Bilateria#Merge_Nephrozoa_into_Bilateria from January 2020 which needs to be closed, please. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Violence article

Violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Violence#Defining violence in the lead sentence. Considering that violence is a broad term (as is clear by the Wikipedia article), but it is especially relevant to the medical/health area, how to define the term in the lead sentence needs discussion.

The talk page is currently tagged with this WikiProject. Otherwise, I would not have contacted this one. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:52, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

It's now an RfC: Talk:Violence#RfC about the first and second sentences in the lead. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Updating NOAA Fisheries article

Hi, I'm Allison and I'm an employee of NOAA. As an editor with a conflict of interest, I will not directly edit the NOAA article, or related articles. I am seeking interested editors to review an updated History section for the National Marine Fisheries Service article and implement the changes if they see fit. You may view the complete request and section here. My version of the History section encompasses information in the existing Background and History sections, and provides a cohesive and accurate story of the organization and includes inline citations. I'm hoping an editor will review my proposed section below and place the section at the top of the article, removing the existing Background and History sections. I'm happy to provide more information if needed. Thank you for your help! AP at NOAA (talk) 16:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@AP at NOAA: Hi Allison, thanks for taking the high road - as you can see it may take a while before people look in on individual articles. This is not my area, but I wouldn't see any problems with updating the history section with your material. It's more concise and certainly better sourced. Two points: what about the 2000s developments (the last senetence of the current section) - doesn't that strike you as relevant? And, I don't quite see how the new material would serve to replace the "Background" section. There's a deal of information about current scope and setup in there which is not present in your replacement text. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

FAR for cell nucleus

I have nominated Cell nucleus for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 22:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Is this a good source?

https://bio.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Cell_and_Molecular_Biology/Book%3A_Biofundamentals_(Klymkowsky_and_Cooper)/04%3A_Social_evolution_and_sexual_selection/4.09%3A_Sexual_dimorphism

I used this website as a source for several biology articles. Any thoughts?CycoMa (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's an essay by some academics. That's a bit better than a random blog but far from the sort of reliable secondary source we'd like for biological topics. For medical stuff you have to use really solid material such as systematic review articles; for biology, a decent textbook is usually fine, and review articles will be useful to keep things up to date. Best to avoid the majority of websites really, though articles from places like the major natural history museums or research institutes will often be usable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Vagility page

I've created the Vagility page based on Sessility page. Usually i write articles in italian, I hope you will appreciate also this contribution! --Sinucep (talk) 13:09, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for the inconvenience (the page had been nominated for speedy deletion due to copyright concerns), I've changed the text, I think the banner can be removed now. --Sinucep (talk) 13:58, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Help with article that involves biological research

I wonder if someone might help with the review of a proposed research section about the scientist Martha G. Welchlocated at Talk:Martha G. Welch#Request Edits October 2020 In general, it the concerns autonomic nervous system. The subject is very technical so someone with a background in biology would make a good reviewer. I have a conflict of interest as an employee of Nusura, which represents the Nurture Science Program at Columbia University Medical Center. Welch is the Director of the program. Many thanks. KnollLane55901 (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Description regarding differences in skin among individuals

Thoughts are needed on the following: Talk:Human skin color#Description regarding differences in skin among individuals. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:57, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Entomoculture

I would appreciate a review of this draft. Should it be accepted as an article? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Help with Review of Biologist

I’ve made a number of proposals to substantially improve the article about Martha G. Welch, a Professor of Psychiatry in Pediatrics and in Pathology & Cell Biology at Columbia University Irving Medical Center. I can’t implement these myself since I have a conflict of interest. Could someone in the project take a look at the requests? Please scroll to the revised requests about mid-way down. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Martha_G._Welch#Request_Edits_October_2020 Thank you very much.KnollLane55901 (talk) 16:00, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Helen Rodd

Please help to build this stub. Bearian (talk) 02:10, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Are extracellular matrix adhesions and focal adhesions the same thing?

Could biologists please comment on this: c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/03/Category:Extracellular matrix adhesions? Thank you!--RZuo (talk) 12:38, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Martha G. Welch § Request Edits December 2020

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Martha G. Welch § Request Edits December 2020. KnollLane55901 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Reassessment request

Hi, I am trying to see if the article Biogenic substance can be reassessed from a stub class since I have expanded it as part of an educational assessment and my coordinator has told us to get it reassessed, but I don't think it's appropriate to do it myself. Sorry, I wasn't sure where to ask this because the Assessment page says to list it in the "Requesting an assessment" section but this doesn't exist on the page and the Assessment log is automated. If someone could please tell me the correct place to apply it would be greatly appreciated, thank you. --Wikiuser553 (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Done. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:35, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much! --Wikiuser553 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Musa Hakan Asyalı

Is this biomedical engineer notable? Bearian (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not knowledgeable in biomedicine or any kind of engineering, but I put his name into Google and got dozens of hits, not counting the wikis. He is listed as author or co-author of a number of articles and, I think at least one book. The majority of the hits are in Turkish, which I cannot read and therefore couldn't evaluate even if I had the time for it. -- Hope this helps. Thnidu (talk) 00:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The link in the article goes to a CV which lists a large number of publications in biomedical engineering, many with English titles. Google Scholar gives him an h-index of 21 (1761 citations); his top five publications get 325, 163, 161, 153 and 93 citations respectively. His work covers an impressive range of subjects within the domain, too. (Perhaps these comments and Thnidu's should be copied to the article's talk page.) Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:09, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

What's the MOS for including discovered/classified species in a biologist's article?

Is there a recognized manual of style for such things? Should only the most important (a very subjective claim) be included, similar to the selected publications sections in most such articles? Should discovered/classified species not be included at all in the biologists' articles? Silverseren^C 18:48, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we have any such manual. Some taxonomists have described hundreds of species, so it would breach WP:NOTDIR not to mention the rules of tedium to try to list them all. That means we can at best (1) list a few examples, probably as well-known as possible; (2) if they've named higher taxa, then as high as possible (not many people have named a phylum...); and then (3) there are species named after them, certainly an honour if other biologists have seen fit to do that for a distinguished colleague. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

That helps a lot, thanks. I'm trying to help out with Rosemary Margaret Smith and she's classified a lot of species. To an extent that I would consider her extremely notable as a botanist. It's just unfortunate that she was mostly active in the era previous to where scientists would routinely have news interviews on their achievements. Silverseren^C 20:12, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Quantum biology

• Quantum biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm opening this thread for more input on two aspects:

• The article may be a magnet for pseudoscience although by itself may not be if the scope is well defined. The related discussion is: Talk:Quantum biology § Pseudoscience as related to this topic.
• There appear to be few sources and this may be the very theoretical work of a particular facility's program. There is evidence that the article was written by students. If so, we should also evaluate if it meets WP's notability requirements.

Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 16:44, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Specific extramophiles

I suggest that we focus our efforts on the topic of extramophiles in the following direction. Let's publish locations in the world where one type of bacterium is isolated only in this particular location. Petrov Russia (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser

Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work

Hi all

I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.

Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.

John Cummings (talk) 11:05, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Menstrual cycle Featured article review

I have nominated Menstrual cycle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Creating infobox with "behavioral" information

(I'm not an active member of the project and I hope this is the right place where to discuss such ideas.) I was wondering if one could create some infobox for describing some keywords regarding the behavior of an animal species, as e.g. in https://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Vulpes/ where, at the end of each section, there is a list of keywords such as Key Behaviors (nocturnal, diurnal, etc.), Mating System (monogamous etc.), and so on. Natematic (talk) 18:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Help on article Megascolecidae

Hello! I'm a university student working to improve Megascolecidae article. Would anyone be willing to look it over in a few weeks? Potatono (talk) Potatono (talk) 05:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The Core Contest

From June 1 to July 15, the Core Contest will be launched in its ninth iteration. It's an exciting contest, running over a period of six weeks, with £250 of prize money for the articles that are most improved. It would be neat if we could get participants from the biology wikiproject! For inspiration, Human evolution, plant, algae and photosynthesis are now rated C-class, so perfect candidates for improvement. FemkeMilene (talk) 07:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC) FemkeMilene (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Sex categories in nature and biology

Can we get this article fleshed out? This topic is not in the category of Wikipedia articles you'd find by using a search engine. WikiBeryl (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Maybe look at Sex-determination system and Mating system first, which appear to cover the ground that your draft proposed? Template:Sex determination and differentiation, Template:Animal sexual behavior, Category:Sex-determination systems, and Category:Mating systems link further related articles. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge Complete glucose breakdown into Glycolysis

Hello, I'm littleb2009.

I have proposed a merge between Complete glucose breakdown and Glycolysis. However, I am aware that Glycolysis is within the scope of WikiProject Biology (and is a vital article), so I wanted to bring the merge to this talk page.

Please discuss at Talk:Glycolysis#Merger proposal. I will not do the merge until more people comment for it than against it.

--littleb2009 (talk page) 20:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Does the information in this article hold up?

I found this article. I was wondering if any of the information presented in this article holds up?CycoMa (talk) 05:30, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

The article in question is

• PLoS Biol. 2004 Jun; 2(6): e183.
• Published online 2004 Jun 15.
• doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.0020183
• PMC 423151
• PMID 15208728
• "Everything You Always Wanted to Know about Sexes"
• John Whitfield

PloS Biology is a reputable journal and the article looks to be an accurate and entirely conventional summary of the field, as described in WikiProject Biology articles such as Sex determination and Sexual reproduction. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:15, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: It's got some nice examples of the complexities of sex in non-human organisms. There was a nice update on S. commune a few years later (ref), though it is so extreme that its mating locus system starts to even stretch the concept of sexes! Another relevant aspect is environmental sex determination systems like those found in various reptiles (ref) and others (ref). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Zoologist

Page watchers may be interested in Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021_May_11#Template:Zoologist. Izno (talk) 23:21, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

An evaluation for on a stub article

Hi, I’m a student and new to a wikipedia editing. Currently, I’m working in a stub article called List of mammalian gestation durations. Any feedback would greatly appreciated, thanks for your time. ToastedPeanutButter (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Article for Review

Hiya!

I've been working on the article Geophilus flavus, I was hoping someone would be willing to evaluate it and assign a new grading? It's currently at stub-class, however, I think it's been substantially improved since the last assessment. I would also greatly appreciate any feedback or editing tips.

Kind thanks,

--Witchruby (talk) 02:33, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Nice work Witchruby! Comments at Talk:Geophilus flavus. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Joan Roughgarden, sexual selection, and gender in animals

Comments by editors from this WikiProject are requested at Talk:Gender#Yes, Roughgarden's views are fringe. Thank you. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment Robert Lanza

There is a Request for Comment about Robert Lanza#Biocentrism that may be of interest to members of the WikiProject: Bibliographies/Science task force. Talk:Robert Lanza#Request For Comment Robert Lanza. I would encourage members of this project to consider participating to add diversity to the discussion. Sapphire41359 (talk) 17:40, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Sex differences

I am thinking about using [this book] as a source for sex and other articles relating to sex differences. What do y’all think?CycoMa (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Limited use. It's not only rather old (2000), but the author is a psychologist and ethologist (behavior), not a genetics/biochemistry/sex differences academic. So I would consider her involvement in such subject matter to be not as high quality as those focused on the topic at hand. Silverseren^C 03:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:RSN discussions of interest

The following discussions may be of interest to participants of this project:

• WP:RSN § Sperm Biology
• WP:RSN § Sex differences
• WP:RSN § The Ape that Understood the Universe
• WP:RSN § What do isogamous organisms teach us about sex and the two sexes?

Best, MarioGom (talk) 15:08, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

All those are from me. Well I got this wiki project’s attention.CycoMa (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

CycoMa, I'd advise you not to start so many threads. The articles you've been asking about for using those have experienced editors already. Most people use those noticeboards to resolve disputes or to ask about a source that is already being used, not to ask for permission. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:06, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads just to make things clear a good chunk of these sources are for articles that are rarely edited. In some cases I’m the only editor on certain articles.CycoMa (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The articles all have a good number of watchers. Being rarely edited can be a sign that everybody thinks they're acceptable as they are, even if not specially wonderful; or that they're busy with something else, real life, or whatever. Getting a whole WikiProject's attention may also cause the whole WikiProject to form an opinion, too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Pincers and Chelae

Is there a difference between pincers and chelae? Studies such as "The exoskeleton of scorpions’ pincers" and "Functional implications of chela shapes in scorpions" refer to such parts as "pincers or chelae", so I'm wondering if these two stubs should be merged. – Xingyzt (talk  |  contribs) 00:45, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

I need help expanding these two articles

There are two new articles I have created called Andromonoecy and Gynomonoecy. Another editor stated that the topic may not be notable and recommend a merge.

I must admit I don’t know too much on plant biology, so I kind of need help expanding these articles.

I have seen tons of sources that mention these topics, so I know that there are tons of sources on this topic.CycoMa (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Need help with sexual systems

An editor on Wikiproject plant suggested to make an article on sexual systems. I created [this draft] called sexual system.

I know the topic of sexual systems is notable because there are sources like [this on monomorphic sexual systems].

There is also [this source] and [this].

There is even an entire book on sexual systems [right here.]

So it’s not like there is a lack of sources on this topic. It’s just there isn’t a proper definition of sexual system as a matter of fact some call them breeding systems or mating systems.

And the definition I presented in the lead isn’t ideal and doesn’t make much sense.CycoMa (talk) 01:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Actually I made an article for sexual systems. Sexual system.CycoMa (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 2 August 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Reviving WikiProject Zoo

Hello, WikiProject Biology members, I am reviving WikiProject Zoo as I feel many of the zoo articles are lackluster. If anyone is interested in helping out, please do so. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)