Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Recent change in the taxonomy of the Red Wolf.

Please look at TALK:Red wolf re: the recent change from Canis lupus rufus to Canis rufus rufus.

On the rest of Wikipedia, ex. Subspecies of Canis lupus, we still follow MSW3 with regards to the taxon.

Given the taxon change at the article Red wolf, should Subspecies of Canis lupus and the rest of Wikipedia follow suit? Chrisrus (talk) 13:50, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Viking spacecraft biological experiments#Labeled Release, i.e. Life on Mars claimed to have been discovered

Can someone add more views to that section? Smacks of WP:FRINGE. It's currently mostly based on Levin's publications. A search in Google Books finds plenty of material... Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem with User:Geichhorn2000's articles

I've checked the last three fish articles created by User:Geichhorn2000 and found that the text is replicated almost verbatim from their sources (which are not under Wikipedia-compatible licenses):

• Pacific spotted scorpionfish: "The head of the Pacific spotted scorpionfish is very bony, with numerous spines, as deep as broad. A deep pit is present behind eyes, a smaller pit below and in front of eye". Source: "Head very bony, with numerous spines, as deep as broad; a deep pit present behind eyes".
• Blue and gold snapper: "Occur in coastal waters, frequently around rocky and coral reefs. Occasionally they congregate in large schools." Source: "Adults are found in coastal waters, frequently around rocky and coral reefs. They occasionally occur in large schools."
• Giant damselfish: "They defend both feeding and reproductive territories by driving off other fishes and divers who come too close". Source: "Defend both feeding and reproductive territories by driving off other fishes and divers who come too close."

I count 7 fish articles created by the user, and he has also contributed to other biology articles. Can somebody with experience dealing with multiple copyright violations take a look at this? -- Yzx (talk) 06:22, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

New navbox: Template:Extinction

I just started it. The group names (Phenomena, Models, Processes, Theories and concepts) are a bit bizarre, but I didn't know how else to arrange it. Please feel free to bend it into the right shape.

I've posted this at a few other projects, so if there's anything to discuss, I'd suggest Template talk:Extinction.

Many thanks, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Biy-b.jpg

image:Biy-b.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:49, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

{{Science}}

FYI, there's a note at WT:PHYSICS about a discussion at template talk:Science concerning Template:Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Biology and related subjects - Skysmith (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

David H. Hubel

It would be great if someone could improve this article of a Nobel prize winner. I have nominated it for a recent death spot on the main page, but it needs improvement. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 08:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site (2) and Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Influenza A Segment 7 Splice Site

The first of these is a submission by the same user who submitted the second, which was redirected to another article. To review it will need an expert. Is this the right project, or would someone from Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine be more appropriate? —Anne Delong (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Articles for creation/Nautila profundicola

Hello, biology experts! This article was written long ago, but never submitted for review. Is it of any value? —Anne Delong (talk) 23:35, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Evidence-based toxicology and Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration

Dear biology experts: These two new articles have a lot of overlap. They are very detailed, and from what I can understand as a non-biologist, seem a little essay-like. They may need attention from an expert in toxicology, or at least someone who has access to some of the off-line resources. Thanks! —Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission

Do you reckon this should be merged with Succinic acid? FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:41, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Quasispecies model - has bunches of "citation needed" tags and a whole lot of statements and maths that doesn't have references.

Please check! I also listed it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology Soranoch (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Immortal jellyfish

We currently have two articles on the "immortal jellyfish": Turritopsis nutricula and Turritopsis dohrnii. The first article is much more comprehensive than the second, but it appears that nowadays T. dohrnii is the accepted species name. The original descriptions of the rejuvenation phenomenon in Bavestrello, Giorgio; Christian Sommer, Michele Sarà (1992) and Piraino, Stefano; F. Boero, B. Aeschbach, V. Schmid (1996) used the name T. nutricula, but the publications Species in the genus Turritopsis (Cnidaria, Hydrozoa): a molecular evaluation (2006), A silent invasion (2009) and Can a Jellyfish Unlock the Secret of Immortality? (2012) all use T. dohrnii. There is a similar comment (with further references) on the article's talk page. Should we move the article? AxelBoldt (talk) 23:34, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, I have performed the move. AxelBoldt (talk) 21:32, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Precinctive species

Dear biologists: The above article has a lot of references that are not on line. Perhaps someone here could decide if this is an accepted and well-used biological term. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:11, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The term is real, albeit apparently rather quaint and restricted to entomology. Google Scholar search reveals fewer than 200 appearances of the term in literature since 2000, which is practically nothing. The proposed article as currently stands also has the problem of sounding rather POV-pushing, in advocating for the use of "precinctive species" over the much more common term "endemic species". -- Yzx (talk) 18:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

If, as the proposed article seems to claim, "precinctive" is merely an alternative term for what almost all biogeographers call "endemic", then it should, at best, be given a line or two in the article endemism. There does not seem to be any distinct concept involved. --Stemonitis (talk) 18:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I have declined the article, pointed to the correct location for any useful material, and suggested that "Precinctive species" be a redirect to "Endemism". —Anne Delong (talk) 20:38, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/recombinant cytokines

Dear biologists: The above submission at Afc will shortly be deleted as an abandoned stale draft. Is this a notable topic? If so, would someone like to improve it? (If you would like to see the list of articles that will shortly be deleted, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/G13 rescue.) —Anne Delong (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Articles for deletion: Native

Contributors to this project may be interested in discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Native. Cnilep (talk) 04:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Pachydemoceras

Dear biologists: Is this an acceptable stub? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The subject already exists under the correct spelling, Pachydesmoceras. -- Yzx (talk) 05:43, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It's been deleted now. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Electric Thrombosis

Dear biologists: Is this a notable topic that should be saved from deletion? Right now it's eligible for db-g13 as a stale draft. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

"Electric thrombosis" as described here is an obscure concept that thus far only seems to appear in the paper cited in ref 2 and in subsequent papers by that author (and is not even the most common definition of electric thombosis, which is the artificial inducement of thrombosis in a blood vessel using electric current). The proposed article itself is a copyvio reproduced verbatim from ref 2. Delete. -- Yzx (talk) 23:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt and thorough analysis. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:58, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_26#Category:Solitary_Animals

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_26#Category:Solitary_Animals. Discussion proposed deletion of the category Category:Solitary Animals Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nerolic acid

Dear biologists: This old Afc submission is will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic that should be saved? —Anne Delong (talk) 20:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The topic is potentially notable, but there's nothing in the draft worth saving, IMO. Choess (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; I have tagged it for deletion. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Here's another one that was decline as "no context" :Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nitrogen Catabolite Repression. Is this a topic that should be improved and added to the encyclopedia? —Anne Delong (talk) 14:46, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Gone now, never mind. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Cochrane Wikipedian in Residence Application

Hey folks,

Just a reminder that Cochrane is taking signups for a Wikipedian in Residence: Wikipedia:COCHRANE/WIR.

Cochrane is a fantastic organization which publishes systematic reviews about medical treatments and efficacy.

Wiki Project Med Foundation is helping to coordinate the search for great candidates.

The Wikipedian in Residence would ideally be:

1. An active Wikipedia editor, a Wikipedian in good standing, for at least 1 year and with 1,000 edits (more is preferable)
2. A science and/or healthcare enthusiast, preferably with a background as either a student or professional
3. An ambassador, capable of interacting between Wikipedia's community and Cochrane groups
4. A teacher, helping Cochrane contributors to properly and successfully navigate and use Wikipedia
5. A collaborator, comfortable working in and among a distributed network of professionals
6. A remote facilitator, adept with email, scheduling, online meetings, and conference calls
7. A passionate individual, both about Wikipedia’s mission and Cochrane's approach and goals

The position is open to anyone who can meet these criteria but may be particularly suited to students or recent graduates looking to expand their skills and experience, or those who work part-time in another job. Candidates should have an excellent level of written and spoken English, although those that speak more than one language are particularly welcome to apply.

Location

Cochrane is structured as a network of groups located throughout the world to which people contribute in different ways, but primarily as authors of Cochrane Systematic Reviews. The WiR will work remotely from their chosen location and will interact with a number of groups and their contributors via email and online. Cochrane will provide a selection of online collaboration tools to facilitate communication.

Reporting

The WiR will report to, and be guided by, Cochrane’s Head of Communications & External Affairs, and a Senior Editor of The Cochrane Library. They will also interact regularly with other members of Cochrane’s senior management team and representatives of its publishing partner for The Cochrane Library.

Working hours

The WiR will be expected to work flexibly at different times of their day to suit their schedule and to help support Cochrane groups throughout the world (some work in the evenings is likely to be required). The exact number of hours per week will be agreed with the successful candidate, but is likely to be in the region of 7-12 hours per week.

Remuneration

The WiR will receive a stipend of up to $6,500 USD/£4,000 for the initial six month term, which will be paid in two instalments at the beginning and middle of the term. In addition, the WiR will be funded to attend and present a session at the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium in Hyderabad, India, 21st-25th September 2014.

Applying to be WIR

We want to learn more about you and see how we can best give you an opportunity to work with Cochrane. Signup! WP:COCHRANE/WIR.

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Weigh in needed at WP:Anatomy -RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles.

Hi, throwing this out there for anyone concerned. There is a discussion at WP:MED & WP:Anatomy concerning the way articles should be made up. So as not to exclude you I am posting here. CFCF (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Genus and genera categorization and category disambiguation

Hello, I just noticed Category:Hungarian genera which is not what I expected (biological genera endemic to Hungary) many of the subcategories use the disambiguator "genus". I don't think I'd be the only one confused by this sort of categorization, particularly with the primary topic being genus/genera in the biology sense. Any idea of whether these categories need renaming? -- 65.94.78.9 (talk) 05:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree; perhaps bring it to CFD for discussion? Or bring it up at the wikiproject for names or for Hungary, perhaps they might have an idea for a better name. Or perhaps ask the creator? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

electron microscope images

Hi All

I'm the Wikipedian in Residence at the Natural History Museum in London. I've been offered a small amount of time for someone to take electron microscope images of entomology specimens in the collection. What would be the most wanted images? Given the size of our collection we will probably have a specimen of most species you' d like. If you reply on my talk page in the few days that would be really good. Feel free to request images that have already been suggested, it will help me get an idea of the most wanted ones.

Thanks

--Mrjohncummings (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Category:Unpowered aviation and Category:Unpowered flight

These two categories have come up at WP:CfD, see the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 3 ; you may be interested in whether biological flight should be so divided as powered and unpowered. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Lots of models, need more theories

I wanted to add Population model into Category:Biology theories, but there is a distinction between model and theory. Underneath many models is an implicit theory. In this case for example, the theory is that a significant aspect of population dynamics can be attributed to interactions between predator and prey rather than looking for an external reason, i.e., sun spot activity is not the stimulus with the population being a response. I recall reading that this was a monumental finding, but the theory seems to have been lost.

RfC about interpretation of a paper on effect of cosmic radiation on microorganisms on or near surface of Mars

I have posted a RfC on the Life on Mars talk page:

"Do the cited papers say that the cosmic radiation influx within the surface layers of Mars is lethal only for long term dormant life? Or do they say that it is lethal for all life dormant or reproducing?"

See: RfC: Is this an accurate summary of the research on cosmic radiation influx on the Mars surface?

Comments from microbiologists particularly appreciated. Thanks!

One of your project's articles has been featured

Hello, Please note that Life sciences, 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 Theo's Little Bot at 01:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 18:57, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Two biology classes looking for interaction with editors

Hi! Two classes (Prokaryotic Diversity) and (Natural Disturbances) at Louisiana State University will be editing Wikipedia this semester. The professors have used Wikipedia as a teaching tool before, and the students at LSU tend to do pretty great work with the help of their Ambassador Becky, who is also the instructor of the class about natural disturbances. In the last few classes, the students have hoped for more interaction with experienced editors. Since those of you in this WikiProject are likely interested in the articles they'll edit, I wanted to reach out to see if anyone is interested in communicating with these new users during their Wikipedia assignment.

Even if you're only interested in participating very informally, it would be great to have editors who are familiar with the topics comment on the work they're doing! One of the great features of the course page is that you can even use this link for the prokaryotic diversity course and this link for the natural disturbances course to see a feed of their edits, which I find extremely useful for providing good feedback. You can also now leave messages on the talk page of the course, which will notify all students in the class. So if you happen to see a trend about references they're using, have suggestions for topics to edit, etc., that's a great way to reach them. Please let me and Becky know if you're interested in working with them this semester, either by notifying us on a talk page, sending me an email, or pinging us back here! Thanks so much, and sorry for the cross-posting if you already saw this request on a more specific WikiProject! Jami (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Ncbp

Hello again, biology experts. Here's another of those old abandoned Afc submissions. Is this a notable topic, and are the sources reliable? Or should the page be deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Nanoparticles and biomolecules

Hello, biology experts. Is this old Afc submission about a notable topic? Are the references good, and if so, what needs to be changed before it is an acceptable article? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this submission is about a notable topic. The references are good, you could do better than "Dissertations Abstracts International" for one of them, but they are mostly fine otherwise(at the least up to par with the general standard found on current wikipedia articles). I think it is currently an acceptable article, I have gone ahead and submitted it for review.AioftheStorm (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have accepted it on your recommendation. There was previously some concern that the article was too essay-like, perhaps including opinion original research. If you see any of that in the article, maybe you could remove it. The article could also use a better lead paragraph so that the reader would know right away what it is about. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:38, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will go ahead then and try to clean up the article sometime this weekend.AioftheStorm (talk) 05:43, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:55, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Age-stage, two-sex life table

Dear biologists: This old abandoned Afc submission has references that are not linked on line. Is this a notable topic, and are the references good? It reads as though it were part of a journal paper. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 4th and 5th

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

• Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science
• Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.

I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Portal:Paleozoic up for featured portal status

Today I nominated the Paleozoic Portal for featured portal status. Your comments and criticism are welcome at the nomination page. Abyssal (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Requested move: regarding Diastema

I believe Diastema (dentistry) should be the primary topic for Diastema. Please see discussion at Talk:Diastema_(dentistry)#Requested_move. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Input needed on RfC at Talk:Pathology

There's a debate underway at the above article concerning the breadth of concepts which should be covered in the article itself. However, despite the high-profile nature of the article, it has only so far managed to attract the opinions of three editors (the two original parties in disagreement and myself) and this seems like an appropriate place to secure further opinions from editors informed on the subject. Similar notices posted at WP:Wikiproject Medicine and WP:Wikiproject Anatomy. Snow (talk) 17:00, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Alpha taxonomy

Knowledgeable persons are invited to comment at talk:Alpha taxonomy#Drastic trimming proposal. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:36, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Venturi Seba edits about Iodine.

Special:Contributions/Venturi Seba

This user has made a lot of edits, however he cites his own work. For that reason I have reverted some of his edits. That is a WP:COI. However, I cannot judge the quality of the edits at all, as I do not have enough scientific expertise. Which is why I'm coming here. Could you guys review the edits to see if any should be kept and what, if anything, should be reverted. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I am no expert on the thyroid, however I will urge caution as although the editor has cited his own work, It is not unpublished personal opinion. It is peer reviewed first class publications. This means what he is citing has been reviewed by people who do know the subject and its been published as such on public record in a scientific journal. So I agree have someone who knows the topic to check it, but some of it may be legitimate edits. It is something we need to watch for but depending on the circumstances it can be a good thing to have genuine authors on a subject willing to put their own published material up on WP. Faendalimas ^talk 12:43, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and this is why I want these edits reviewed. It is problematic to cite your own work, because they are not always the best person to decide the quality and importance of that work. Such work might end up being WP:UNDUE or of too little importance to include. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 20:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 25th and 26th !!!

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am again pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 25th and 26th. This is in conjunction with the Diversity in Science Edit-a-thon on 25 March. The event is held by the Royal Society and there are currently a couple of places available, as well as online participation which is very welcome, as are suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Diversity in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 25th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 26th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

• Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science
• Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events in May, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intrinsically Disordered Protein (IDP)

Hello again - here's an article that's currently under development at Afc that may be of interest to member so this project. —Anne Delong (talk) 16:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

The article has been in the queue for some time now, but it needs an expert to check it out. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

inverted-hexagonal cylinderical micellar phase-forming monogalactosyl diglycerides?

Good morning WikiProject Biology. Let's talk about mitochondria and chloroplasts in their role as a key component of (some) biological cells, shall we?

For quite some time now, Cell (biology) has had a short paragraph on this topic. It seemed to be readily comprehensible to the layman (thoughtful use of wikilinks helps with this), written in grammatically correct English (almost entirely), and addresses the key points directly. (This is good, since it's "a level-3 vital article in Science".)

Yesterday, while I slept, this paragraph was doubled in length. The addition is incomprehensible to the layman (a complete absence of wikilinks contributes to that), written in abhorrently ungrammatical English, seems to average about one spelling mistake or typo per sentence, is variously malformatted, and also seems to stray far off the main point of summarising the main points of significance of mitochondria and chloroplasts with regard to biological cells.

The addition was also added by the same person, apparently, that wrote the single source cited, i.e. the very respected retired scientist User:Rakeshyashroy.

Please could those with a greater knowledge of the topic than me assist in doing whatever needs doing with regard to this article change, and possibly offering Dr YashRoy some advice after reviewing his recent contributions (which seem to have been rather rapid). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's rather problematic that Dr Yashroy is pushing his own paper as a reliable source to support his addition. When I see additions to an article like this I think of a 4th-grader doing a science fair project after dinner, looking for materials on his home computer, scratching his head after reading that passage, and shouting downstairs "Dad...what does this mean?"; to which his father would dutifully trudge upstairs, take one look at it, take a second look, scratch his head, and says "Son, I don't know." It's rather exclusionary. Sharing knowledge is one thing, but writing it at a level that is only accessible to other experts doesn't serve Wikipedia's general purpose. I'm no scientist--just a lowly classicist by training who likes poetry and botany as a hobby--but Dr Yashroy might as well have written this in Lydian.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:32, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Appropriately enough, having occurred while I slept, the problem introduced to this specific article has been fixed by Sunrise.

Not sure what to do about the editor, but someone from WikiProject Medicine has dropped a note on their talk page too. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:24, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I briefly tried to rescue part of that edit, like maybe turning it into a brief mention of thylakoids, but it didn't seem to fit. Looking over his contribs, it appears that the majority of his edits so far have been to insert references to his own papers, especially into high-level articles. Many of them have been reverted (especially the ones where WP:MEDRS applies) but others remain. He's written Host-pathogen interface and opened a Talk section there, so that might be a good place to engage him.

FYI, feel free to ping me if it becomes important to understand exactly what a particular section is trying to say. :-) Sunrise (talk) 07:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/NeuClone Pty Ltd

Dear biology experts: Is this old Afc submission about a notable company, and should it be kept and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

'Vector Borne Disease' WebEx/Walden University (2014)

Please , I would like to know whether WikiProject is part of the Walden university WebEx project that took place today, 7th April 2014. If yes, would there be any downloads available from this meeting?

Thanks, Prisca Baidoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.139.60.13 (talk) 20:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Evolution of sex

I spotted an editor has added content about their own theory of how sex evolved in many different articles. I bought it up at WP:MCB last December but nobody other than the editor and myself commented. User:Flyer22 reminded me of it again yesterday at Talk:Sex and I still think the content is problematic per WP:WEIGHT. It's currently in over 20 of our most important articles and I'd like to seek consensus here as to whether others share my concerns and if so whether we should remove the content entirely or severely cut it back. Thanks SmartSE (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I obviously agree with Smartse on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 19:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll interpret this as WP:SILENCE and remove it from some articles and see if anyone disagrees. SmartSE (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

These are more tricky than I realised. I checked when the first information entered evolution of sexual reproduction and came across Bernstein275 (talk · contribs) (i.e. more WP:SELFCITE concerns) adding this way back in 2007 - it's remained there since. His work is mentioned in The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature but I'm still unsure about how accepted his theories are by the scientific community at large and in particular the more recent work. SmartSE (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Sexual differentiation articles -- redundancy/merge discussion

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter (WP:Permalink): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

AFD

There is an AFD on a musician/biologist that may be of interest to this wikiproject. There is an open question on if the subject would pass WP:NACADEMICS. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Robinson_(filk_musician) Gaijin42 (talk) 14:31, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Microbiota

The usage of Microbiota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:Microbiota -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:48, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Article Needs Help

Hi all. A new editor has drawn my attention to Nesfatin-1, an older article that is written in such a manner that it is likely to be of little help to anyone without a PHD in biology. I also have to admit that to my decidedly non-biology expert eyes, it seems a tad essayish. But I could easily be wrong. In any case I have posted some tags. Maybe someone with a little free time can take a look. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

It strikes me personally as one of that variety of articles that is quite technical in nature, but largely owing to necessity and the niche context in which our sources treat it, as a matter of clinical and ongoing research. I genuinely doubt that subject can be parsed down much further to suite the needs of an audience beyond a certain level of unfamiliarity with the neuroscience and biochemistry involved, no matter how devoted to (and skilled with) encyclopedic tone the authors may be. Such articles do exist, and while we should do the best we can to make them as understandable as possible to the non-expert, sometimes there are just limitations on that end. I'll added it to my watchlist and see what I can do about it, though I'm not exactly particularly familiar with this peptide. Snow talk 21:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Countryside Biogeography

Dear biologists: Here's a page that was never submitted at AfC to be added to the encyclopedia. Is this a notable subject? A lot of the references appear to have and author in common. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems to have a number of issues, most of them related to notability. To start with, it's not very well written or formatted. Second, it seems to be a bit of a content fork on other, better defined and more verifiable fields for which we have articles (consider Human ecology, Urban ecology, Population ecology, Population dynamics, Agroecology, Ecosystem ecology, Natural resource management, Biome, and the parent subject of Biogeography itself, amongst a whole slew of others). In truth, this article seems like something approaching original research, or at least coverage of narrow set of terminology that is a re-branding, so-to-speak, of already well-established concepts in the field of ecology, but the issue is muddied somewhat by the fact that the article utilizes no in-line citations to suggest which claims are being supported by which sources, so it is hard to assess how novel this field is or how well supported by sourcing or in the scientific community broadly. For what its worth, I've never heard of the term before today. In any event, the article is clearly lacking in a number of ways not relating to this central issue and no one has edited the content on it in some eight months, so unless someone with an interest in the subject familiar enough with the particular research cited comes along to refine it a bit, I think it's safe to say it's not likely to enter into regular article space any time soon in any event. Snow (talk) 05:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Snow, for taking time to check this out. It will be deleted shortly as a stale draft unless someone edits it soon. Since I am neither a biologist nor a geographer, I will leave it to fade away. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:48, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

De rien. :) Snow talk 21:30, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Places still available! Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 10:39, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Another Royal Society offer

As Wikimedian in residence at the Royal Society, the UK's National Academy for the Sciences, I'm trying to organize a release of some images in various categories from their Picture Library. One of the categories is historic (out of copyright) natural history books, mainly for the illustrations. Are there particular books or other holdings that people would like to see images from, or particular images? Unfortunately much of what they have is not digitized and much of what is digitized is not presently online at the last link. The main library catalogue search page is here. Before asking, please try to see if decent quality images are not available elsewhere, as they often are, from the Library of Congress etc. Thanks, Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hello Biology experts, here a discussion going about a biology related subject, your opinion is very much appreciated there, Thank you. Jim Carter ^(talk) 06:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikiproject Biology At Wikimania 2014

Are you looking to recruit more contributors to your project?
We are offering to design and print physical paper leaflets to be distributed at Wikimania 2014 for all projects that apply.
For more information, click the link below.
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 11:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Lifeforms

Question please: Is lifeforms generally used in the plural in real science? I know it is in science-fiction, but is it a term a biologist would use? In ictu oculi (talk) 06:29, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem this project is very active. FWIW, since no reply I judged that the use is not limited to sci-fi, and as it could relate to real biology notify of a RM at the album Talk:Lifeforms which may be of interest. Though note that as per Friends (TV show) it is possible for plurals to redirect to media products. In ictu oculi (talk) 23:27, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Expert input required on Template:Primitive fishes

The template is under discussion at TfD and expert opinion is welcome.--cyclopia^speak! 16:10, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A similar issue is present at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_29#Category:Primitive_fishes. Input welcome there as well. --cyclopia^speak! 17:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

AfC submission - 05/06

Draft:Simultaneously extracted metals/Acid-volatile sulfide. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Epigenetics of partner preference

Hello again biologists! This AfC submission is up for review right now if anyone would like to review it or provide guidance for another reviewer. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Science by press release in Neonicotinoid article

Please see this posting on RSN. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epigenetic Sexual Differentiation of the Brain

Dear biology experts: Should this old AfC submission be kept, or deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Specialized reviewer

This is a request for a biology expert to review Draft:Chloroplast migration. Thanks! Darylgolden^(talk) 09:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Outline of biophysics

FYI, "Outline of biophysics" has been requested to be renamed to Biophysical techniques; for the discussion, see talk:Outline of biophysics -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Burghardt Wittig

Dear biologists: This old AfC submissions seems to me to be about a notable professor. Perhaps someone familiar with this field could provide an opinion. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/18A (peptide)

Dear biologists: This old draft was not submitted until now because of bad formatting. Is this a notable topic? —Anne Delong (talk) 09:10, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

The draft was declined as not having enough context. Is it worth improving? Or should it be let go? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Never mind. I realize that I have already had an opinion that this is non-notable on my talk page. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ionizing Radiation at levels of Interior of ISS not instantly lethal to life on surface of Mars

Note: I have removed a huge mass of unreadable material, all written by the same editor except one brief comment. Flooding this page with a monologue is not going to accomplish anything. If the material is restored, I will ask for administrator intervention. Looie496 (talk) 15:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that. In a nutshell, I just wanted to say that the Life on Mars article should mention the research described in this video (as well as in his paper) by Nilton Renno, notable member of the Curiosity Rover Team - his "swimming pools for bacteria" were widely reported recently and it is undoubtedly notable according to the criteria of Wikipedia.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLWv9UGwjdE

The article also used to have a paragraph explaining how present day life on the surface of Mars is compatible with ionizing radiation. It would be good to restore this paragraph, which you can see here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Life_on_Mars&oldid=556292054#Cosmic_radiation

Background information: Curiosity measured 0.076 Grays per year on the surface of Mars during solar maximum. And Chroococcidiopsis, the most radioresistant Mars analogue microbe we have can recover from 5,000 Grays. 0.076 << 5,000.

The professor is an expert on Mars surface conditions, BTW, he operates the REMS weather station on Curiosity.

Please someone fix it. It's an "Open and Shut Case I can't do anything myself, and don't want to go to moderation, for the reasons explained before in the now removed section of this talk page.

.

Is this short enough? Thanks! Robert Walker (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Monologues and introduction of biased, fringe and OR are the hallmark of user Robert Walker in all articles related to life on Mars. Beware. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

@Robertinventor: It's self evident from what you have written here that you are engaging in OR to come to the conclusion that you have. I don't think that continuing to post here is going to persuade anyone that you are correct and I'd advise you to stop. SmartSE (talk) 10:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll stop Robert Walker (talk) 12:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Gonad

The usage of "gonad" is under discussion, see talk:Human gonad -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Like a Virgin (book)

Page move is requested; join discussion. --George Ho (talk) 07:49, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

npp for category tool

Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Killer cells question

Hi all, I found a draft on Cytokine-induced killer cells and wanted input on how to proceed. I've posted a discussion here but I thought I'd post in this project as well to cast a wider net as it were. Cheers, Primefac (talk) 19:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plinian Core

Another editor has created Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Plinian Core. If you think the topic is notable, could you accept the article? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

American paddlefish

The FAC reviewer gave his support after reviewing the article, and suggested the following ...ask relevant WikiProjects on their talk pages to drop by the review. Following is the link: [1] Your time will be greatly appreciated. Atsme☯^Consult 15:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy

There is a discussion at the Anatomy Project about a mismatch between the title of the project and its scope. The title refers broadly to anatomy, but the project rejects all articles that are not primarily about human anatomy. Thus, for example, none of the articles in Category:Animal anatomy, Category:Plant anatomy, Category:Cell anatomy and many of their subcategories are accepted by the project. There is a similar issue with WikiProject Physiology. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:21, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I have witnessed that, too. And I think it is a problem that there is no project that watches over the animal anatomy content. Maybe a Taskforce Anatomy as part of this project would restore some balance.--Melody Lavender (talk) 17:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Am thinking of transferring some animal content into their own pages with the tag of (zootomy). Wikimedia commons has a page of that title. This may not need an umbrella project - just any interested editor can add to pages or add them as wanted. Feel this would give a clear focus to both Anatomy and Zootomy without the distractions of what to include in one or the other and without the need for constant refs to in humans or in animals. And would hopefully encourage more input generally to animal anatomy pages. Would appreciate any views on this. Thanks Iztwoz (talk) 13:28, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

(Zootomy) is absurd. Articles should be under a common name or at least something that comes as close as possible. And talking about umbrella-project - that is a really great idea. It's obviously absolutely necessary to have a project that can cover Anatomy and also Physiology, be it human or vertebrae or whatever. I think Wikiproject Human Anatomy has to wrap their minds around the fact that animals do have an anatomy and that they need to be covered in any encyclopedia. There will be no way around an RfC with subsequent implementation of a policy on naming. This RfC should involve a significant number of people and be open for a significant number of days or weeks. Additionally, I don't see how you're going to manage to avoid articles that have animal and human anatomy content combined in them. And if this is the only coverage a signifcant human organ/system/disease gets, then this has to have a separate section. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't see that use of zootomy is absurd. There is a page with that title on Wikimedia commons. An example I was thinking of was Pinna (zootomy) to give a page for the animal part mostly referred to as auricle in humans. Such a page would necessarily include all relevant info on the subject. Somebody (anon) has put a split article suggestion tag on small intestine to give small intestine (human) and small intestine (non-human) which I don't think for a minute would be acceptable. But there does seem to be a need for a split of contents. Stomach is another possibility - there is some good info on other animals there which if given its own animal page would generate the addition of even more relevant material. Iztwoz (talk) 09:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Repeating the 'rationale' that there is some article somewhere doesn't make it any more reasonable. (Non-human) is just as far-fetched as (zootomy). We do agree on the point that there has to be a separate page for human anatomy, and it should be easily recognizable as such. The best way is probably to have overarching articles that are called brain or intestine or eye and a hatnote pointing to the human article, just like the one I just added to eye. If there is no clear naming convention there will be this mixed-up editing just like it is going on now in the example articles you're citing, and we're losing animal content because it is often deleted as irrelevant by human anatomy editors. --Melody Lavender (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why you find the term zootomy so far-fetched - there is a category in Animal anatomy titled Cephalopod zootomy...... What you are suggesting is a retrack of how anatomy articles were always treated and the move has been to remove the human part and merge all together - which cannot be achieved overall. As for us editors deleting animal content can you give one such example - I have never experienced this. Happy editing Iztwoz (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

diff. ('trim animal section') And I have to admit that this was only a suggestion on a talk page. It is the 'move' that you mention (moving the 'human x' article to 'x' namespace without a clear strategy what to do with the animal content) that I am criticizing. There needs to be a strategy to achieve a more balanced outcome. There is also a problem the other way around: diff. Here an editor (a physician by the way) edits out vital information about the human heart ('heart not required for life because there are organisms without one'). Please, we need medical articles that contain all basic information and take into consideration that the reader might know nothing about the subject. The first thing you'd teach children is that the human heart is vital for life. Happy editing to you, too. --Melody Lavender (talk) 06:11, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Notability for scientist biographies

I've mentioned notability criteria for scientists on a couple different sub projects, but should probably discuss it here for group dialogue. I've seen a good number of biology biography stubs created without apparent due consideration of the subject's notability as defined by Wikipedia. I've seen stubs that seem to almost arbitrarily pluck a name out of literature (usually a field in which the creator has great interest, understandably) and present an unbalanced view of the subject (sometimes a single achievement which may or may not be the subject's actual "notable" act), and often present unverified opinion such as "Joe Scientist is notable for describing this and that species", which is original research unless other reliable sources vouch for notability. Additionally, some editors seem wont to wikilink every taxon authority, wherever it appears, creating red-links that then perhaps give the false impression of notability (having a lot of incoming links does not in itself demonstrate notability). That habit might be discussed as well, with restraint urged before hyperlinking.

I feel the notability criteria for scholars should be stressed in relevant projects, and special care should be emphasized for biographies of living biologists (per WP:BLP), with due consideration to privacy and the potential implications an article may have on a living person's life. I've posted a notice on the Paleontology project to remind new and established editors of notability and BLP guidelines, which others may adopt for their own projects if they see fit. And I realize that all of us are probably biased to an extent: we like the taxa we work with, and perhaps develop a disproportionate view of the importance of obscure workers' achievements. I'm not saying we need to have standards in place: those are already at WP:SCHOLAR, and the notability threshold is even, in my opinion, a bit too easy to achieve. But it's what we have, and I think drawing editors' attention to them will ensure that our biographies of mycologists, diplopododologists, and paleobryologists, etc. actually have the potential to eventually become complete, balanced, and interesting articles, rather than forever remain stubs to the tune of "X was a biologist who made notable contributions to the taxonomy of zarfblats, and published 100 articles on zarfblats." Thoughts? --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Human Evolution by Robin Dunbar

Wikimedia UK is delighted to announce that we have been given some copies of E-books from Pelican Books to give to Wikipedia editors, of which Human Evolution by Robin Dunbar may be of particular interest to people in this WikiProject. More details including application details are at Wikipedia:Pelican Books. Sorry, but for commercial reasons this offer is not available for editors in the USA. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Missing page

Red links are usually not something odd, but it does strike me as od that Hemerophile (d:Q680681) does not have a page (Although it has one in simple-enwiki). Hemerophobe (d:Q1392779) is also missing, but only has a page on de-wiki. Anyone feel like creating those two? --Tobias1984 (talk) 09:15, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Something odd about the etymology. -phile is clearly Greek, lover of, but Greek hemera = day, so one would expect hemerophile=lover of the day, presumably as opposed to dusk-loving bats or nocturnal owls. Why does it mean going with humans, I wonder? Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Growth

Why isn't there an article on Growth? (growth is currently a dab page.) I'd have thought it would be a level 1 vital article. After all, On Growth and Form must relate to some kind of science. Odd. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:06, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Seems like Biological growth might be a target - it currently redirects to cell growth but might need to be more expansive and cover growth, development and repair. Shyamal (talk) 05:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that article covers a fraction of the target topic. We could use the clunky 'Biological growth' title; once written, we could see about appropriating the G-word for the article and calling the rest 'Growth (disambiguation)' - but that's way in the future. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 14 December 2014 (UTC)