Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Accuracy

In corresponding with the fellow who scanned Image:Boyle'sSelfFlowingFlask.png which replaced the Monty Hall image in the front-page article Paradox, he complained of inaccuracies in articles and a lack of quality control. (He is a professor and has used correcting errors in particular articles as class projects, so he's a part of the QC system.) He cited twelve errors in the short article on centrifugal force, though I would guess they were fixed by his class or someone else since his count. I would posit that we could use a strong emphasis on accuracy in scientific articles. -- ke4roh 03:09, Jul 19, 2004 (UTC)

Eye on Collaboration of the Week

I thought everyone here would like to know that eye is up for nomination on Wikipedia:Collaboration of the week. This article meets our criteria for a WikiProject Science article and really needs some work. I think it would be a fun collaboration since physicist, biologists, and others could all contribute something. If you're interested, go vote. Sayeth 23:14, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)

Task and info boxes

I think that there should be a template for tasks similar to the philosophy task box: Template:PhilosophyTasks. Also, I like their categorization scheme. It's good that you're focusing on high traffic articles, but the project's organization currently seems to ignore articles that need to be started from scratch and stubs that need to be expanded. A detailed review of a long article is a big project, I would guess that there are many people who wish to contribute, but are daunted by the task of reviewing a comprehensive article on a major topic. If the project were more accessible, this page and discussions might stay a little livelier. --AAMiller 30 June 2005 16:40 (UTC)

---

It seems like Template:PhilosophyTasks is for major philosophy pages, which is fine, but I agree that there is a need for a way to improve even minor science-related pages. --Memenen 1 July 2005 13:28 (UTC)

There's a good deal of overlap between science and philosophy anyway. I think this List of topics (scientific method) is a good organizational tool. We might consider adopting it as a dynamic navigation tool. There's also the List of science topics which is great. I put the {{WikiProjectNotice|Science}} tag on the talk pages of those lists to link them here. The WikiProjectNotice renders identically with {{WPStructure|Science}} for some reason. Anyway its a good way to link discussions about articles to WikiProject_Science, and they're getting pretty stingy with the Template namespace. Quinobi 8 July 2005 16:46 (UTC)

• {{WPStructure|Science}}
• {{WikiProjectNotice|Science}}

General versus Scientific Readership

The following was prompted by this Village pump topic:

The pupa article is fairly typical of many biology-related pages. There are two main directions that such pages tend to move in. The first is a basic description of the topic for students who need help with their homework. Such articles tend to be uninteresting to scientists who actually know something about the topic. The second direction is towards including the types of information that are of interest to scientists. When a few people with scientific training start to take an interest in a wikpedia article, you start to see references and links to on-going research. Biology articles that have not attracted the attention of scientists tend to contain over-simplified generalizations that are technically wrong and ignore the interesting details of the topic. A vague sense of outrage or disgust may be the reaction of many scientists when they see a wikipedia article like pupa for the first time.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Science says, "a good scientific article should be understandable by the "general public", as well as interesting to the scientifically inclined."

I think pages like pupa should have a label like this: {{Science:Needs Help}}

What-links-here census method

I've added a methodology for determining if an article has >500 what-links-here entries or not to the main page (Wikipedia:WikiProject Science). Courtland July 1, 2005 09:22 (UTC)

Growing WikiProject_Science

Project Home | Project Guide | Project Journal | Project Forum | Science Wikiportal | Science WikiProjects | Project Archives

WikiPraxis: WikiProject Newsroom

Oxygen regulation

The Oxygen regulation page is a quasi-redirect to erotic asphyxiation. Is their any biology-related topic that might also be called oxygen regulation. To me, oxygen regulation doesn't sound like an erotic act, but maybe some system where an organism controls the amount of oxygen that enters it - I don't know, maybe too much oxygen can harm or kill some organisms. Would there be another page out there to be linked to the oxygen regulation page? Or shall I just properly redirect it to erotic asphyxiation? This was found in Special:Ancientpages. --Montchav 13:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I've changed the disambiguation page to a redirect. But a Google search shows that "oxygen regulation" is predominantly a biological term. If you or someone else wants to write an article on that, I recommend that the oxygen regulation page be about the biological function, and there be a disambiguation hatnote on the top of the page that says that for the sexual practice sometimes referred to by this name, see erotic asphyxiation. -- John Broughton (☎☎) 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

NIH vandalises NIDA article

Take a look at how the NIH registered IP address has been editing the National Institute of Drug Abuse article[1] The majority of their claims have remained unchanged[2]. I saw your discussion on NIDA and substance abuse research [3]. How can I call attention to this exactly? Should I just start editing away while checking the discussion board. I want to help this article but I don't want to step on the wrong toes.

Thanks Eyejuice 22:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad Science articles

A review and organisation of bad science articles is needed. Decisions need to be made as to which terms are encyclopedic, and what means the same, and what means differently, how to categorise the articles, and how they are proprly related:

Incomplete list of articles:

• Category:Voodoo science and Voodoo science - possible Neologism
• Pathological science
• Bad science
• Pseudoscience + Category:Pseudoscience
• Junk science + Category:Junk Science
• Antiscience and Anti-science

...

I tried to do some organising a few months ago. But got a bit confused. I think it would be better if an organised group of editors took a stab at this.--ZayZayEM 02:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Style?

Is there a style guide for science articles? It seems that many of the articles (especially in more physical topics) are written in a terse textbook or research paper style which is completely impenetrable to the general reader. For example, the first sentence of density matrix is: "A density matrix is a self-adjoint (or Hermitian) positive-semidefinite matrix, (possibly infinite dimensional), of trace one, that describes the statistical state of a quantum system" which is utterly obscure. Analogies and laymen's terms are thin to absent. Sockatume 04:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

True no-nonsense definitions are also required. Particularly (IMHO) in the lead of an article. It should be short and explain exactly what the article is about.By all means expand the body using citable analogies and laymen's terms. If you make up an analogy yourself, it's pretty much Original research. --ZayZayEM 01:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I suppose that's part of the difficulty, most of our sources are highly technical. Sockatume 16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

How to get others involved?

Greetings I've started an article on Leona Woods but I'm wondering where might be the most appropriate places to add this article about her to bring it to the attention of other editors? Thanks. (→Netscott) 14:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Science help

I need some science related help with an article, but I'm not sure who the right people are to ask, or the correct project to submit the article to for review, so I've come here in search of help.
The article I'm currently reviewing is Red hair. In the article there is talk about the science behind where red hair comes from: biochemistry, genetics, and evolution. Unfortunately, it seems a bit jumbled to me - perhaps I am reading it incorrectly. I find myself confused about which components of red hair stem from biochem and genetics. If someone could take a peak, or point me in the right direction, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! ZueJay^talk 22:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

This deletion discussion covers a whole list of other sub-pages which are not allowed in article space. The likely conclusion is to userfy them all to User:Eequor. Does anyone know what this is all about? --Bduke 02:39, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.

Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 02:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

categories for deleteion

Category:Claude Shannon, Category:Norbert Wiener are up for deletion at WP:CFD 132.205.44.134 00:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Dinosaurs

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs is currently in danger of extinction. Although the project is active and the project members have written ten Featured Articles, there are very few active members on the project (there are 72 people listed on the participants page, but the number of active members can be counted on one hand).

Although the team members have put together articles for every dinosaur on the List of dinosaurs, many articles are still in need of expansion, and because dinosaur articles are a frequent target of schoolkid vandalism, if only one or two active members were to become inactive, article quality would quickly deteriorate.

Because the Dinosaurs project is a descendant project of WikiProject Science, I am writing here in the hopes of attracting some new, active members to the group, so that the project can continue to build Wikipedia's encyclopedic coverage of dinosaurs. If you are at all interested in Dinosauria, archosaurs, or prehistory, please consider joining. Firsfron of Ronchester 06:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Conversion templates

Hello! This is to announce that several templates for automatic convertion between metric and imperial units and for displaying consistently formatted output have been created: {{km to mi}}, {{mi to km}}, {{m to ft}}, {{ft to m}}, {{km2 to mi2}}, {{mi2 to km2}}, {{m2 to ft2}}, and {{ft2 to m2}}. Hopefully, they will be useful to the participants of this WikiProject. The templates are all documented, provide parameters to fine-tune the output, and can be substituted if necessary.

Any suggestions, requests for improvement/features, or bug reports are welcome.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Schmidt Sting Pain Index

Can some of you knowledgable and discerning scientist Wikipedians take a look at this please? This article has currently been getting some coverage in popular "gee whiz funny link of the day... how goofy!" type blogs ( I hate it when this happens and the article in question is dubious... I think it gives a bad impression of wikipedia), but it seems to be mainly based on the idea that this one insect scientist guy wrote some goofy comments for an insect sting pain index one day. Ok, I agree that insect scientists are allowed to have senses of humour (WITHIN LIMITS, for the sake of us all), but I am concerned that 1) this scale is not really widespread and may be just one scale promoted by one guy without much acceptance in the insect expert community. 2) the pdf article linked which this wikipedia entry seems to be based on does not seem to say that Schmidt actually wrote those goofy comments. Its a bit ambiguous, but its seems to say that "the media" (without specifying what media) came up with the goofy comments to append to Schmidt's original dry scale(I think this may be another case where people exaggerate or misinterpret what an article is saying). I dont have any access to science journal databases, and am certainly no science or insect expert. But these concerns and quick scans of google books and google scholar led me to bring this issue to wiser heads. Thanks very much for checking this out. 88.109.1.60 16:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

New User

Hi everyone. My name is Rowan (Rowan 03:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)Rowan Savage) and I would like to help move forward the quality of the science articles on Wikipedia. I specialise a bit each of: cellular and molecular biology/ biochemistry/ immunology. I am taking my finals this summer (2007).

Cheers. Rowan.

Please help with adding to this article

I recently made some major cleanup and reconstruction on the formerly inaccurate and POV social construction article. Please help me add scientific and cultural research to this article. Gender role needs similar help, by the way.--Urthogie 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment at capture-bonding

Hi, I've been trying to wikify and clean the article on capture-bonding for over a year now and I'm getting repeatedly reverted by two users, one of whom is mentioned in the article and citing himself. There are numerous issues involved. Please comment: here. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 09:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Spin off the Geology Project

Can we spin off Geology as a separate project? The corresponding request is placed here Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Geology. This is a vast area and deserves to become a project. Please sign up if you are interested. Solarapex 21:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering formatting year-by-year subcategories for Category:Years in science

I happened to notice that there is currently no good by-year category tag for scientific discoveries and advances. Typically all articles about important events should have a by-year category tag that subcategorizes the article with other similar articles that occured that same year. For example, Category:Years in architecture and Category:Years in film both contain subcategories for every year to sort corresponding articles. These subcategories work in conjuction with the Lists-by-year articles, so Category:1979 architecture works in conjunction with the list article 1979 in architecture.

However there is currently no by-year subcategory scheme for science. There are lists, such as 1968 in science, but there's currently no Category:1968 in science to house the corresponding articles.

I'm considering creating a by-year subcategory scheme for Category:Years in science similar to the ones used in Years in architecture and Years in film. Before I do, though, I thought I'd get input from this project since it is probably the main project affected by the change. Any thoughts? Dugwiki 20:06, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Others? --HappyCamper 23:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Big Bang FAR

Big Bang has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 14:22, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry cleanup

Hello, this is my best guess as to where to talk abut the fact that there are several chemistry articles that need a cleanup, specfically consistent naming and possibly merging/splitting? I started to fix the redirects for Arrhenius acid etc. and quickly realized there was a whole mess of things for acid, acid-base reaction, Lewis acid, Brønsted-Lowry acid-base theory, and so forth. There's a lot of repeated content, and the article names aren't necessarily obvious either. However these are relatively major topics, and so it seems some sort of consensus ought to be reached on how to handle it. It seems to me that their ought to be an entry for individual framework (Arrhenius/Bronsted-Lowry/Lewis) that covers its acids and bases, with redirects for ___ acid and ___ base to ___ acid-base chemistry/theory/what-have-you, and a single article (acid-base chemistry) that contains a brief synopsis of each that compares and contrasts them (for intance BL is a half-step between A and L). --Belg4mit 03:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that group of pages has been in quite a bit of disorder. It was a lot worse just a few months ago. Your scheme would eliminate repeated content... but is it really a good idea to have such basic concepts as 'acid' and 'base' without pages on their own, but redirect to 'acid-base chemistry' which sounds so much less obvious? Maybe it is, I am still new to wikipedia. Cubbi 04:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said anything about not having entries for acid and base themselves. They would probably either redirect to the "acid-base chemistry" page; yes there'll be some repetition of content there, but much less than currently exists, and not it needn;t go into great detail. Or it could be a stub with some brief text describing the general/common properties of all three forms of acid/base, xref'd to the other entries for more detail. --Belg4mit 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

They haven't been actively splitting, but rather just existed because people seem to have linked to them in the articles and then they've been cobbled together. I'd rather just have articles on the larger acid-base theories because generally per wikipedia policy, there would be too much content for a single topic in a general one; things like hydron, protonation/deprotonation and smaller definitions should be put on wiktionary rather than have an article.

Again, the compare and contrast thing; seems this would be more apt in a media studies article as it'd just be repeating some content by saying things that have been established previously in the article itself -- however, a small paragraph on the differences would be maybe OK so long as it is actually worthwhile. What i think should happen is the main theories should have their own articles, which terms such as Arrhenius base, simply redirect to an A NAME (Article#Heading title) which refers to a section of the article that information on such matter.

Why are you posting here and not Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry ? ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 06:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said they had been "actively splitting." And how does your preference for "just articles on the larger theories" differ form my suggestion of an article for Lewis, one for Arrhenius, and one for Bronsted-Lowry? As for compare and contrast, not at all. Most people only know of Arrhenius acids and bases, if you happen to hear of one of the others, perhaps through reading an article on wikipedia. It'd be nice if there were all of two or three sentences to help you relate it to what you already know, thereby making it easier to digest. Regarding redirect, umm yeah, like I said that's what I was doing. The problem is in making it consistent. Finally, as I said, this was the best place I could fine. Specfically, when I search for "wikiproject chemistry" there are no meaningful results. --Belg4mit 11:49, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

"As for compare and contrast, not at all. Most people only know of Arrhenius acids and bases, if you happen to hear of one of the others, perhaps through reading an article on wikipedia. It'd be nice if there were all of two or three sentences to help you relate it to what you already know, thereby making it easier to digest."

I think that's done by reading the other sections; i see the need for continuation paragraphs between the two, but what exactly can be done with regards to a "compare and contrast"? Advantages and disadvatages? A graph? The differences would be clear enough if there were simply continuation.. i don't see the need for saying "Arrhenius says this, but Lowry says this" otherwise the article would be just a long sentence that repeats what exists further down the page. I wasn't saying anyone had "actively split" articles, but rather agreeing with you. If you wish to add an information about relevancy to dissociation, steric effects, or solvation, then by all means go ahead :-) ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 15:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution peer-review

Hi there. The article on evolution is currently going through a major rewrite and expansion. Reviews either from an expert or non-specialist viewpoint are welcome at Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution/archive1. Thank you. TimVickers 13:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

WIRED

Of interest: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2007/05/why_does_wikipe.html claims Wikipedia is too jargon-heavy and too hard to understand. On the plus side, the author thinks the concerns about accuracy are overblown. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

POLICY DEBATE: Use of source code, mathematical examples and other examples in articles

Apologies if you read this message more than once - I am cross-posting variants of it to science, math and computing wikiprojects.

I have opened a debate on the use of examples in Wikipedia articles (mainly focusing on computer source code and mathematical formulas, proofs, etc.). It seems to me that many examples currently in Wikipedia violate Wikipedia policy, so I believe we need to either clarify or change the situation. Depending on the result of the discussion, this may result in a number of examples being summarily removed from articles!—greenrd 11:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution FAC

Hi there, I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 15:40, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

validity

Could somebody (preferably more people) with knowledge on the matter please check the validity of the claims made on the following website and comment. http://www.energyscience.org.uk Thanks! Teardrop onthefire 14:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Obviously invalid. Also, check this link out for some background on the guy: http://www.phact.org/e/z/adamsmotr.htm (it can be found on wiki under Adams motor) --Cubbi 17:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Palpebral bone

Hello, need help in finding a person who knows something of this atomical structure in ornithischian dinosaurs, there is a Dino barnstar as a reward for the creater. Horoo mates. Enlil Ninlil 05:02, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Cast your vote at the energy article straw poll

A new user turned the energy article into a disambig page; we are trying to fix the problem presently. Please cast your vote at straw-poll overview, on the proposed solution. Thanks: --Sadi Carnot 22:32, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

No merge of thermal energy, internal energy, and heat

There seems to have been some kind of edit war brewing over the last weeks at the heat and thermal energy articles between several editors, primarily User:The Way, that caused User: ScienceApologist to quit Wikipedia. In any event, the situation still continues; please review Talk:Heat (disambiguation) and Talk:Heat and give your opinion or vote here . --Sadi Carnot 04:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Need learned advice on a historic scientist bio

We could use some learned help on the article from this project, particularly from those familiar with electronic engineering and solar power.
The early 20th century engineer and inventor Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah is credited by the Arab American Institute and other sources for creating several patents that "were innovations in solar energy and television tubes." [4] Another duplicate by the Lebanese government on this is here. The current article version is massively reduced from a version that claimed this person actually invented the original solar cell and that claim was based on a poorly written "reader's opinion" article here. I managed to pull up almost every patent by this person at the US Patent Office website and find dozens of patents from the 1920s and 30s relating to electric conversions and dischargers, rectifiers, electric vapor devices and apparatuses and a few other things, but none are directly related to solar cells.
Here is a list to all the found patents by Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah and links to them.
I ask those who are familiar with electronic engineering if any of these patents are innovations related to solar cell technology. Thanks for reading! --Oakshade 21:24, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am an electronics/electrical and patent engineer with a long experience. None of the mentioned patents are related to solar energy. Note solar energy was invented in the 1940s and 1950s. Elikahn 13:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Elikahn, we were trying to get a neutral point of view on the topic, not from a user who has been trying for weeks to get the article deleted. --Oakshade 17:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Oakshade, you are right: after reading this propaganda a few weeks ago, as an electrical engineer, I had difficulty to remain neutral. This is just childest propaganda. I copied a few samples of the article, which was fiercefully defended by you, Oakshade, can you remember? After a long struggle, most of it was deleted, but somenonsence is still lingering.

Here we go, seat belts fasted It is necessary to show the application and technical importance of how Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah’s inventions and patents have contributed to applied technology in North America and the entire world. (Who never heard of him?)

There are 27 patents (1928-35) (I could find none) for Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah applied in space industries (in 1930, 30 years before the Sputnik was launched). Solar cells have been widely used for space vehicles and satellites as the main source of power. The original solar cell was invented and tested by Mr. Al-Sabbah in 1930. Many electronic instruments and equipments (integrators, regulators, inverters, timers, transmitters, and sensors) are major components of the assembly of these crafts are developed from Mr. Al-Sabbah’s original inventions of rectifiers and converters.

His early experiments gave General Electric the unique position as a pioneer in developing the solar cell and the sodium-sulfur battery as well.

GE research engineers developed the Liquied Christal Display (LCD) instrument system based on the original patents of Hasan Kamel Al-Sabbah. Further development and modifications of the Al-Sabbah cathode ray tube (CRT) created new types of CRT used in electronic systems. The television would not have been invented without this.

GE engineers recently developed several electronic equipments based on the original patents of Hassan Kamel Al-Sabbah. Among the new devices are the metal-oxide semiconductor field-effect transistor (MOSFET), the conductivity modulated field-effect transistor (COMFET), the high-power bipolar junction transistor (HPBJT), the power MOS-controlled thyristor (PMOSCT) and the thyristor valves.

It will be difficult for any electronics engineer to remain neutral after reading this nonsense.Elikahn

Elikahn, this is a childish rant filling up the talk page of the WikiProject Science. You're arguing against an article version that no longer exsts (you're pulling a classic Red herring distraction). Besides the fact I don't want that long propaganda version and am not trying to restore it in any way, we just want a neutral opinion by established non-SPA Wikipedia users which you are not. My apologies to the members of the Science project for the editor's inappropriate rant which has now polluted this talk page. --Oakshade 20:33, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The article on Kuru (disease) has been deleted

The original version was fair-use and not free. If you can help at all in rewriting the article, please do so. Thank you! --Hemlock Martinis 18:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Seriously, this project has no assessment scheme? If anyone is interesting in creating one but needs some help leave a note on my talk page. Richard001 08:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Scientific consensus

I think that some knowledgeable editors should take a look at the Scientific consensus article. That is perhaps only my point of view, but it seems to me that it has been a bit hijacked by the global warming team. As of today, it notably claims that the goal of science is to establish consensus (?), whereas I thought it was the acquisition of knowledge. It also makes a few other dubious claims that, I find, turns science as if it is by nature a matter of consensus. --Childhood's End 16:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

List of people known as father or mother of something

Please help us to restore this article at Deletion Review: Aug 13, 2007. I didn’t even know this happened, it was closed at 14 keeps and 11 deletes; with admins reopening and closing the article on an alternating basis, e.g. see the deletion log history. Thank: --Sadi Carnot 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone’s help in getting this restored. The article is now called people known as the founder, father, or mother of something, it has a “reason” column, is being ordered by “subject”, and only important world-view people are being included. Note also that the terms founder of, father of, and mother of link here; if you edit related historical articles, please link these to this article. Thanks and come and help build this fun article. --Sadi Carnot 17:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Requested diagram for linear motor article

The article Linear motor really needs a diagram of some sort to explain how it works. I can't quite visualize what they mean when they say that the stator, which is usually circular in a rotary motor, is straight in a linear motor. I don't really have good diagramming skills though. Anyone up to the task? --Cyde Weys 03:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Need a science inclined mind to help on Naphthalocyanine.

This article has plenty of sources out there http://news.google.com/news?q=Naphthalocyanine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=Swiftfox:en-US:unofficial&client=firefox-a&um=1&sa=N&tab=wn http://scholar.google.com/scholar?tab=ns&client=firefox-a&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=Swiftfox%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&q=Naphthalocyanine http://www.google.com/search?tab=sw&sa=N&client=firefox-a&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=Swiftfox:en-US:unofficial&q=Naphthalocyanine , but to me this stuff is as incomprehensible as hieroglyphics -- I can kinda understand some of the words they're using, but what they mean is nothing to me. This article could be easily expanded and make a great submission at WP:DYK, if someone with the stuff it takes to understand it worked on it --lucid 05:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The lay out for scientific biographies

Hi, on the project page I found the following lay out listed for the scientific biographies:

• Introduction
• Research?
• Biography -chronological order of life history
• Bibliography
• References

I wondered if the research and biography parts shouldn't be switched. Most biographical articles as far as I know seems to be in that order? - Mdd 11:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Primary and Secondary Sources Debate

There is currently a friendly debate going on at Wikipedia talk: No original research regarding the definition of primary and secondary sources, whether we can find definitions that are globally recognisable across all disciplines (including science), and how these concepts should be referenced in Wikipedia policies. As scientists, your input and view point on these important issues is very welcome. Please feel free to join the debate at Wikipedia talk: No original research. Badgerpatrol 03:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Time Dimension To Become Space-like

http://arxiv.org/abs/0710.0820v1

I found this, I have no qualification to re-solve the equasions, please review this paper. Teardrop onthefire 12:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Notice of List articles

Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).

• List of basic science topics
• List of basic Big Science topics

This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. --Quiddity 19:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Major changes to force article

I've been making some major changes to force. There are a few things I could use help with:

• Writing a section on nuclear forces (strong, weak, color, etc.)
• Referencing (this is mostly formality, but anyway)
• Finding a good lead image.

Cheerio,

ScienceApologist 01:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scientific peer review new discussion

This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. --Bduke 01:43, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Spin Force

Greetings! Would you have a look at this new(ish) article, Spin Force, please? Thanks, --Malcolmxl5 09:43, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a part of the Torsion field nonsense. In fact, one of the references refers to it by name. --Cubbi 13:32, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible new Wikiproject - Image Science

I'm very interested in creating a Wikiproject on Image Science. I find the quality of articles in this area to be lacking and I think I can get a group of folks together to work this. I am not sure whether it should go under the Technology or Science parent projects tho. Do any of you have any thoughts on this? Thanks. Tjamison (talk) 21:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Evolutionary relay

Does anybody know if this is a term that's actually used by biologists, or is this article just a neologism/OR (as I suspect)?P4k 04:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Greenspun illustration project: requests now open

Dear Wikimedians,

This is a (belated) announcement that requests are now being taken for illustrations to be created for the Philip Greenspun illustration project (PGIP).

The aim of the project is to create and improve illustrations on Wikimedia projects. You can help by identifying which important articles or concepts are missing illustrations (diagrams) that could make them a lot easier to understand. Requests should be made on this page: Philip_Greenspun_illustration_project/Requests

If there's a topic area you know a lot about or are involved with as a Wikiproject, why not conduct a review to see which illustrations are missing and needed for that topic? Existing content can be checked by using Mayflower to search Wikimedia Commons, or use the Free Image Search Tool to quickly check for images of a given topic in other-language projects.

The community suggestions will be used to shape the final list, which will be finalised to 50 specific requests for Round 1, due to start in January. People will be able to make suggestions for the duration of the project, not just in the lead-up to Round 1.

• General information about the project: m:Philip Greenspun illustration project
• Potential illustrators and others interested in the project should join the mailing list: mail:greenspun-illustrations

thanks, pfctdayelise (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC) (Project coordinator)

Request for input re Science Super-Categories

There is a CFD discussion underway regarding the relationship between, and possible merging of, two Categories: Category:Physical sciences and Category:Natural sciences. Thus far the discussion has attracted very few comments (I just discovered it myself), so I am going to request that it be relisted. Two editors suggested asking for input from this Project, but as far as I can see there was no follow-through on that -- until now. So please give this some thought, and then share your thoughts at the CFD linked above. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 04:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Now relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 December 15#Category:Physical sciences. --Bduke (talk) 04:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have just made a significant alternative proposal. Please take a look and add your comments to this important discussion. Cgingold (talk) 02:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

An important RfC

Vital for the survival of science textbooks as reliable sources about scientific statements:

Talk:What the Bleep Do We Know!?#RfC: Can a science textbook be used to refute a pseudoscientific statement made in a movie even if the textbook is not about the movie and doesn't mention it? Does this violate WP:NOR policy?.

Please comment. We need to get consensus on this matter.

ScienceApologist (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

List of scientific journal abbreviations at AfD

List of scientific journal abbreviations has been nominated for deletion. 132.205.44.5 (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Wikipedia:Peer review/Force. Please comment. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Reminder of the Philip Greenspun Illustration project

Hi. You may be familiar with the Philip Greenspun Illustration Project. $20,000 has been donated to pay for the creation of high quality diagrams for Wikipedia and its sister projects.

Requests are currently being taken at m:Philip Greenspun illustration project/Requests and input from members of this project would be very welcome. If you can think of any diagrams (not photos or maps) that would be useful then I encourage you to suggest them at this page. If there is any free content material that would assist in drawing the diagram then it would be great if you could list that, too.

If there are any related (or unrelated) WikiProjects you think might have some suggestions then please pass this request over. Thanks. --Cherry blossom tree 16:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

is the current science collaboration of the month. Please help improve this article to featured article standard. Last month's collaboration was .

NCurse _work 16:48, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Science portalbar (portal navigation)

Just wanted to check that you'd seen this and were okay with the selection and order of portals. It was created by User:Sushant gupta.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject Microscopy

I'm surprised in the entire WikiProject Science hierarchy that nothing like this exists. Hence, I've recently proposed the creation of such a project. If interested, add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Microscopy. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Article on World Science Festival in New York City

Hi all, I would like to propose the creation of a brief article about the World Science Festival, a science festival to be held annually in New York City, starting in spring 2008. As I work for the Festival, that is obviously not an article I can put into the Mainspace myself due to potential WP:Conflict of interest, but, going by what's suggested in WP:Suggestions for COI compliance for edits, I've created a mock-up version under my User page, namely User:Markus Poessel/WSF Sandbox and am posting it to the discussion page of the relevant WikiProject (this one).

As you see, I've tried to keep it short and factual, simply listing what the Festival is about, the institutions and people involved. All information except that for the roster of participants is referenced to external sources (New York Times, New York Sun, Ars Technica). By analogy with what's stated in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) (analogy as it's an event, not an organization), these external sources also should establish notability.

I'd be glad if somebody would use what I've written to create the article World Science Festival. Mainspace categories being prohibited in User space, that person should also uncomment the two category inclusions I've made, but commented out on the mock-up page. Markus Poessel (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NYCscience has kindly created the article. Thanks! Markus Poessel (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Pain

Pain is currently Wikiproject Medicine Collaboration of the Week. Many science disciplines have models/research/nomenclatures in this topic ie: physiology, psychologies, neurology, general medicine, evolutionary biology, veterinary science, scientific ethics, biochemistry .... I post here with hestitancy but feel that as broad a field of editors as possible would be highly beneficial to the current work on Pain. Hope to see some of you there. SmithBlue (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The proposed structure of scientific biographies

Hi, I happen to notice that the question I asked 26 September 2007 here is still on my mind.

In the proposed structure of scientific biographies on the projectpage listed for the scientific biographies:

1. Introduction
2. Research?
3. Biography -chronological order of life history
4. Bibliography
5. References

I still wondered if the Research (2) and Biography (3) parts should be switched. Most biographical articles as far as I know start with a biographical section. Could some one take a look. Thank you. -- Mdd (talk) 14:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposal for a new structure

I would like to propose a new structure:

1. Introduction
2. Biography (chronological order of life history)
3. Work (Research, theory and other accomplishments)
4. Publications
5. References
6. External links

A "See also" section should be added between the "Work" and "Publications"

Any comments? -- Mdd (talk) 21:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Access to resources

I've only just become aware of this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange, a central exchange where volunteers are willing to provide extracts from subscription-only sites to which they have access. This seems like a major potential resource.

Any ideas on ways to publicize this availability, get more volunteers and drive more usage? I'm thinking in particular of ways to use the WikiProject system, for instance a listing in the "Resources" section of each project page. Franamax (talk) 05:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

is the current science collaboration of the month. Please help improve this article to featured article standard. Last month's collaboration was .

NCurse _work 08:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles

Any editor with a broad knowledge of science is invited to take a look at Wikipedia:Vital articles and offer suggestions on how to improve the list of 1000 vital Wikipedia articles, as well as on the process of choosing them. It suffers from a severe lack of attention and POV editing. — goethean ॐ 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Science Collaboration of the Month

There aren't any new nominations in this collaboration. Should we stop the whole thing? NCurse _work 19:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename proposal for the lists of basic topics

This project's subject has one or more pages in the set of Lists of basic topics.

See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.

The Transhumanist 10:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Cold fusion issue

A new tactic being advocated is that WP:FRINGE doesn't apply to Cold fusion. I started a request for comment on the subject. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also one now asking whether Cold fusion can be categorized as a pseudoscience. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

FYI Blue shift

On July 1 someone redirected blue shift to redshift. 70.51.9.237 (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Brave editors needed

Brave science editors, you are needed here - Science and technology in Canada --Allemandtando (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Nobody? - it's just too big of a job for one editor to try and deal with - see here for the most recent. --Allemandtando (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

THIS link contains a study by Carl Sagan and Edwin Ernest Salpeter about the physical conditions for Jovian Life forms. As far as my gut feeling tells me, the article is science, as far as my knowledge stretches, it's some sort of speculative fiction or speculative science alike alternate history experiments. According to my CompSci terminology, both Sagan's/Salpeter's article and alternate history are simply simulations to determine parameters for hypothetical situations, but how does Sagan's and Salpeter's article relate to science? I'm confused. What term can I use? Said: Rursus ☻ 14:14, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Etymologies of "-logy"

The pages of sciences ending in "-logy" give a number of different etymologies for this suffix (see e. g. Nephrology, Andrology, Anthropology). Shouldn't this be unified in some way? Perhaps a link to -logy would do:

• Nephrology (from Greek νεφρός, nephros, "kidney"; -λογία, -logia)
• Biology (from Greek βιολογία - βίος, bios, "life"; -λογία, -logia)

But then someone should probably check the etymology given on the page -logy. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:44, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Deamon 138, ἀνυπόδητος and anyone else working on this issue. I thought ἀνυπόδητος's suggestion of getting people on the -logy page involved in this was really useful. I also mentioned that there are a number of other Greek derived suffixes to which this issue applies. I thought I could make a start by checking out the Oxford English Dictionary and any other sources you'd recommend to see whether they had any uniform method for stating the etymologies for -logy (in the first instance). Calypygian (talk) 16:23, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I just put an explicit call-out for help on the -logy page. Calypygian (talk) 16:36, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, no OED on my hands, but the Cassell Concise Dictionary has an entry "-logy" giving this etymology: "Gr. -logia, -logos, see logos (older examples through Fr. -logie, medieval Lat. -logia)"; the lemma "logos": "Gr., word, speech, reason, cognate with legein, to speak". Well, It's a start --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, my Encarta (2008?) dictionary has this entry for -logy: (right now this is the only dictionary I have to "hand", without going online for one)

suffix

1. speech, expression

haplology

2. science, study

musicology

[Directly or via French < Greek -logia < logos "word, reason" and < -logos "speaking"]

Does this mean that there are two etymologies of -logy, one from "speech" and the other from "reason" or similar? If so, how do we decide which -logy gets which etymology? Having say Biology and Anthropology or whatever differing with their etymologies seems kinda random. Deamon138 (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to worry about the first etymology, "haplology" isn't a science (see the -logy article in the section Other words ending in "-ology"). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

That's true, it isn't, but it does beg the question of why the science articles differ themselves as we are trying to understand, like in your examples. Deamon138 (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Heya. This is the entry on -logy from the second edition of the OED (1989);-

earlier written -logie, an ending occurring originally in words adapted from Gr. words in - (the earliest examples, e.g. theology, having come through F. -logie, med.L. -logia). These Gr. words for the most part are parasynthetic derivatives; in some instances the terminal element is word, discourse (e.g. in tetralogy, trilogy); more commonly it is the root - (ablaut-variant of -, to speak: cf. LOGOS). In the latter case, the ns. in - usually denote the character, action, or department of knowledge proper to the person who is described by an adj. or n. in -, meaning either ‘(one) who speaks (in a certain way)’, or ‘(one) who treats of (a certain subject)’. Hence the derivatives in - are of two classes, (1) those which have the sense of ‘saying or speaking’, examples of which are the words anglicized as battology, brachylogy, cacology, dittology, eulogy, palillogy, tautology; and (2) names of sciences or departments of study. As the words of the last-mentioned class have always a n. for their first element, and o is the combining vowel of all declensions of Gr. ns., the ending of these compounds is in actual use always -, becoming -OLOGY in Eng. The names of sciences with this ending are very numerous: some represent words already formed in Gr., as theology, astrology; many represent formations which might legitimately have existed in Gr., as geology, zoology, psychology; others are of hybrid composition, as sociology, terminology, insectology. The modern formations in -logy follow the analogy of Gr. formations in having o as the combining vowel; exceptions are petralogy (an incorrect form which some writers prefer to petrology because it shows the derivation from rock, not from stone) and mineralogy (F. minéralogie) which may be viewed as a contraction for *mineralology. The suffix -ology is freely used in the formation of humorous nonce-wds., some of which are illustrated below. All the modern formations in -logy may be said to imply correlative formations in -LOGICAL and -LOGIST; in the case of some of the older words, the related personal designation ends in -LOGER or -LOGIAN. (Cf. -LOGUE.) Hence logy nonce-wd. = OLOGY.

1820 W. BUCKLAND in Mrs. Gordon Life (1894) 40 Having allowed myself time to attend to nothing there but my undergroundology. 1837 Fraser's Mag. XV. 360 Hats were of scientific importance in his estimation, he had originated a system of hatology. 1853 (title) Chapology, or Hints about Hats. 1856 J. YOUNG Demonol. IV. iii. 372 The many Logies and Isms that have lately come into vogue. 1891 T. HARDY Tess (1900) 49/1 What are called advanced ideas are really in great part but..a more accurate expression, by words in logy and ism, of sensations which men and women have vaguely grasped for centuries.

The way they deal with individual etymologies for the sciences is like this;-

e.g.¹ ANTHROPOLOGY

f. Gr. - man + -LOGY. Gr. had (Aristotle) treating of man, of which * was analogically the abst. n. Anthropologia occurs as mod.L. in 1595, and anthropologie as mod.Fr.

e.g.² BIOLOGY

mod. f. Gr. - life + - discoursing (see -LOGY); according to Littré invented by the German naturalist Gottfried Reinhold (Treveranus) in his Biologie 1802, and adopted in Fr. by Lamarck in his Hydrologie 1802; it was used in Eng. by Stanfield in 1813, but in a sense directly repr. Gr. (see BIO-), and ‘one who represents to the life.’

e.g.³ NEPHROLOGY

NEPHRO- comb. form + -OLOGY comb. form. Compare French néphrologie (1803).

Encarta and OED seem to agree that there are two different groups of words in English ending in -logy with different etymologies;- those like 'eulogy' where 'logy' comes directly from the noun 'logos', and those that we are interested (i.e. the names of sciences), like ἀνυπόδητος suggested, that come from the ABLAUT-VARIANT of 'legein' (i.e. 'log-'). What do you think of the OED's approach to doing the etymologies? It doesn't give logos, logia or legein in any of the individual science etymologies, but just references the OED article on -logy. This is a possibility for us, but we'd probably need to collaborate on tinkering with the -logy article a little bit. I also like their schematic definition of our kind of -logy as "the treatment of [a subject]", which we could probably render into international english as "the study of [a subject]". I guess another possiblity would be to put in a hyperlink to our -logy page, but then also to offer a provisional translation on each individual science page as "the treatment of" or "the study of". I tend to prefer "the study of" to "the treatment of", as defining anthropology as "the treatment of man" would probably sound a little wacky to non-native speakers as it's not a particularly common usage of "treatment".

Do you want me to hunt through another couple of dictionaries for some more alternatives? Calypygian (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Online Etymology Dictionary is more concise on "-logy";-

"a speaking, discourse, treatise, doctrine, theory, science," from Gk. -logia (often via Fr. -logie or M.L. -logia), from root of legein "to speak;" thus, "the character or department of one who speaks or treats of (a certain subject);

They do the subjects like this;-

e.g.¹ ANTHROPOLOGY

"science of the natural history of man," 1593, coined from Gk. anthropo- (see anthropo-) + -logia "study of."

e.g.² BIOLOGY

1819, from Ger., from Gk. bios "life" (see bio-) + logia "study of."

They basically seem to be making the same point as the OED. They say -logia rather than logos, so that people understand that it is not -logy in the sense of eulogy etc. I still prefer the OED technique of linking to the '-logy' article, however, 'study of' is rather neat as a gloss for individual articles. Calypygian (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

The Concise Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology supports both the other dictionaries I've cited (i.e. it derives -logy for sciences from the verb legein via -log-, and not from the noun logos). However, it has a very clear explanation which we could adapt on the -logy page.

"repr. F. -logie, medL. -logia, Gr. -logí, which is partly f. lógos discourse, speech, partly f. log-, var. of leg-, légein speak; hence derivs. in -logia mean either (1.) saying or speaking in such-and-such a way, as eulogy, tautology, or (2.) the science or study with which a person (designated by -logos -LOGIST, -LOGER, etc.) is concerned, or that deals with a certain subject. Of the latter class, the first el. is a sb. and in combination ends in o, so that the regular form of such words is in -ology; an exception is MINERALOGY. Mod. formations in logy imply correl. formations in -logical, formerly also, now rarely, -logic (F. -logique, L. -logicus, Gr. -logikós), and -logist (see prec.)."

Calypygian (talk) 01:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your extensive research! I agree that we should link to -logy and give the etymology there. Do you think that my initial suggestion (see top of this section) will do for this purpose? If yes, all that remains is to find a formulation for the -logy article. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree with your suggestion of referring all articles for sciences ending in -[o]logy to the page -logy and giving the translation "the study of". I also agree that we need to collaborate with whoever is still active on the -logy page, if anyone, to make the article reflect the etymological research we have found. We might also need to think about developing the entry on -logy in Wiktionary (as it is not a full definition of both classes of word). Once that is done, we can do the hard yards of updating the etymologies on each of the individual pages with words ending in -logy. Shall we move this discussion over to the -logy talk page? Calypygian (talk) 14:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal and draft help

Wikipedia:Scientific standards

I have drafted a new proposal and would like help in clarifying, adjusting, adapting, and improving it. It is based on five years of work here at Wikipedia (not always the prettiest, I might add). I think it summarizes the opinions of a great majority of editors as to how to handle scientific situations. This proposal serves as a nexus between WP:NPOV and WP:RS for cases where we are dealing with observable reality. It is needed because there are a lot of editors who don't seem to understand what entails best-practices when writing a reliable reference work about observable reality. I don't pretend that this version is perfect, and would appreciate any and all additions, suggestions people may have for getting to some well-regarded scientific standards.

Note that these standards would apply only when discussing matters directly related to observable reality. These standards are inspired in part by WP:SPOV but avoid some of the major pitfalls of that particular proposal. In particular, the idea that SPOV even exists is a real problem. However, I think it is undeniable that we should have some standards for writing about scientific topics.

See also WP:SCI for another failed proposal that dovetails with this one. I hope this particular proposal is more in-line with the hole I see in policy/guidelines for dealing with these situations.

ScienceApologist (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup listing

Hello,

recently, this project subscribed to User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings. [5] However, the bot that generates these listings encounters a problem: It needs to identify the articles assigned to this project, but is currently unable to do so. Basically, it supports two different options for that:

1. The articles are identified by a template placed on the talk page (the most frequently used option),
2. The talk pages of the articles can be found in a specific category (they would need to be directly in that category, not in subcategories).

I'm unsure what option would work for this particular project. Do you use a project banner on talk pages? Or otherwise, how can the project's articles be found? --B. Wolterding (talk) 18:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

• I will remove the subscription for now; that bot can't process it in the current state. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Environmental radioactivity

This article is in need of a rewrite (especially the lead) by someone who is knowledgeable in the topic. It's also a rather long article, while managing to lack any context. Verbal chat 13:22, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I've made a small improvement to the lead, and added a see also section, but this article needs a lot of work. I'm no expert at all on the subject, but I can help with readability, layout, grammar etc. I'll keep an eye on the page and help out if/when I can. Deamon138 (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Achieve this page?

This page could do with achieving, I think. Verbal chat 13:20, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No kidding it needs archiving. Apparently the old bot isn't working. I just now tried switching to a new bot; let's see if it works. Eubulides (talk) 23:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Requested article?

Would someone here be interested in writing Narrative review (that is, what a systematic review is not)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC) (who is not watching this page)

Cold fusion

HELP! We have Cold Fusion proponents dramatically asserting ownership over cold fusion. I need all the help I can get. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Timewave zero

The article Timewave zero needs some major smacking down with a clue stick. It consists of a bunch of credulous reporting on pseudoscientific nonsense. --Cyde Weys 22:36, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Articles on experimental design

Hi all, I've been working off and on on the Neurolinguistics article, and realized I've gotten an awfully long section on experimental design... I think it's relevant because the fields has certain typical techniques that it uses to apply neuroscience methodology to the study of language, but at the same time it makes the article a bit funky right now, and I was thinking it might be good to split it into a spin-out article, Experimental design in neurolinguistics or something like that. But then I figured, before I do that, is anyone here aware of any other discussions to do this across many science articles? What I'm thinking is maybe articles on a lot of different fields could all have their own corresponding "experimental design in X" articles, since many fields have unique interests and challenges. Any feedback? Politizer ^talk/_contribs 22:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Looking for a non-expert reviewer

I'm looking for a reader that has no particular mathematical training to help me working on vector space. It recently failed in a FAC, in part due to what was perceived as a lack of accessibility for the general audience. If anybody around would be interested to help out, I'd be much obliged. (Of course, I will pay back with carefully reviewing another article!). If you are interested, please let me know (here, at my talk or the article talk page). Thanks, Jakob.scholbach (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Dispute over template

There's a dispute over what type of content should exist in {{Science}}. I prefer the former format, Stalk prefers the current format. We'd appreciate some outside input. SharkD (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

(For anyone reading this:) The discussion is at Template talk:Science#Relevance. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 22:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Science article

On Science, an entire criticism section appears to be undue. I've opened a discussion on the talk page. Comments are welcome. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)