Portal talk:Science/Archive 1

message: *Are Featured articles changed daily here like on the main page? Is there a voting page for determining the next featured article? Pattersonc(Talk) 1:20 AM, Monday; January 30 2006 (EST)
:There isn't an especial timetable for updates, nor are polls held to determine what is featured. Presently, Cyde is kindly maintaining this portal and switching over features roughly every week or less. Several portals have been converted to a queue system in which future features are selected well in advance, and special code automatically updates them as on the Main Page (this can be done daily, weekly or monthly). The experience of most portals in which there is active interest (as aside from those maintained by a sole editor), is that suggestions are made on the talk page, or externally in WikiProject's (like Portal:Cricket and Portal:Trains). Portal:London is the only one I'm aware of that actually has suggestions and voting sub-pages.--cj | talk 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured Articles Timetable

message: I would like to point out that 600 000 pounds per square inch = 40 827.5783 atm
please verify that this 'did you know' is true. It seems very outrageous to me.
:Good catch.  If the internet can be trusted, it's actually 600 PSI.--ragesoss 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  pop rocks!!! 

message: Hello. I'm part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics working toward a release version of Wikipedia (on paper or CD). 
If you're interested in helping, these are some related articles we plan to include: 
*Science
*Natural science
*Physical science
*Biology
*Chemistry
*Physics
*Earth science
*Geology
*Meteorology
*Oceanography
If you think any of these are ready, please let us know. You can see our proposed initial quality standards or learn more about the overall project.
Thanks. Maurreen 03:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Version 1.0 core topics

message: A scientific peer review has been started and we're looking for Wikipedians who are members of the scientific academic community to run for the board. If you want to give it a shot come over and post a little about yourself. New nominations are being accepted until the 00:00 on the 17th March.
The project aims to combine existing peer review mechanisms (Wikipedia peer review, featured article candidate discussion, article assessment, &c.) which focus on compliance to manual of style and referencing policy with a more conventional peer review by members of the scientific academic community. It is hoped that this will raise science-based articles to their highest possible standards. Article quality and factual validity is now Wikipedia's most important goal. Having as many errors as Britannica is not good–we must raise our standards above this. --Oldak Quill 18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Scientific peer review]]

message: this is a good idea since environmental science embraces earth science per reality and per the environmental science template.  besides this, navigation is confusing for someone looking for the following topics that are not usually associated with earth science but are associated with environmental science: noise pollution, air pollution, light pollution.  the present set up also begs the question of an ongoing debate in some circles: is atmospheric sciences really a subcategory of earth science? i dont think it is, but i understand both sides of the argument (see enviornmental science template talk).  but it would solve that argument to use environmental science as the portal, since that clearly embraces all of the above and more navigators can relate to environmental science....what do others think? Anlace 05:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: replace portal:Earth science with portal:environmental science

message: I see in the source for the daily picture that it says "added March 3, 2006." Has the picture been there since March 3, 2006?? I hope not! I would be glad to select a picture of the day for everyday. Do we have a voting process going? --  Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 05:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no voting process, and that image probably has been there that long.  Feel free to change the image as often as you like ; you may want to set up a queue on the picture talk page (as I have done for Portal talk:History of science/Picture, so that others can add their picture choices into the queue.  This portal isn't maintained all that actively, nor is the Technology portal.  Regularly changing the image (I suggest once a week) is a good place to start.--ragesoss 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Who has the discipline to remember to come change it every week? I sure don't. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm doing it. --  Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture of the day

message: I am adding new content everyweek because I have no life. Anybody want to help me? I'm going to be traveling next month and won't be here. (Noooooooooooo!!!! Wikipedia, I love you!!) It'd be nice to think that Portal:Science doesn't die as soon as I'm gone. --  Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Portal Maintaining

message: I've recently kicked off a science related chat room: #wikipedia-science on freenode.
I'd like to mention it on the science portal if others think it appropriate and if there's a good place to make a link.
Either way, come along and join the discussion on #wikipedia-science. We guarantee no american politics nor pop-culture talk. —Pengo 13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  #wikipedia-science 

message: Dear Scientist,
WikiChem, the english version of the chemistry section currently ads "Supplier links". My point of view is: this will give conflicts of interest. The following points are not clear: a) Where is a guideline for the selection of companies (there is a certain preference for aldrich) b) Are editors of WikiChem paid for the selection of certain companies? c) Is the educational, non-commercial character of wikipedia affected?
There are currently running several discussions. Please add your opinions. For me, Wikipedia is user-contributed and "WikiChem" is part of Wikipedia and not the product of two or three editors...
Currently, there are only two voices talking. Please add your opinion!
Best regards
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.188.227.119 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Commercial_Suppliers
213.188.227.119 01:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikichem Supplier Links 

message: Portal:Science is too wide. The page is half a screen wider than my screen.  The portal therefore needs to be corrected.  If it looks OK on your screen, so what?  That's because of you're computer. Maybe your computer has some sort of web page wrapping. If someone knows how to repair this portal please do so and also tell me how.  If it is not corrected by the time I look at it next, I will use experimentation to try to correct the portal myself.  I'm not taking a vote on this.  I will not put up with a page being too wide.--Chuck Marean 21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Even as one ought to be bold, one oughtn't unilaterally to undertake broad changes to portals prior to his discussing with others, not least because one doesn't own any page here, such that whether one editor will not put up with the format of a page isn't particularly relevant; it certainly doesn't evince the requisite collaborative spirit.  You have edited other portals and help pages in order that they should appear "properly" on your screen, irrespective of the deleterious effects such editing has had on the pages for most other editors.  To be sure, where one can accommodate all users, he/she ought to, but it is plain that your edits, which permit you more readily to read pages using IE 5.0 with Windows 95, make things much harder on the vast majority of users who use newer browsers.  It is simply unrealistic to expect other editors to abide a change that breaks portal formatting for almost all users to accommodate a group who, FWICT, compose, at most, one per cent of editors here.  If one can edit the portal such that it appears for all users in a readable fashion, that's altogether fine; I am eminently certain, though, that, if you edit this portal as you have other portals, you will break formatting for most other users, and so I advise that you not pertenaciously "correct" the portal against consensus.  Joe 21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, this is the first time anyone has said my correcting of a page goofed it up on their computer.  For this reason, calling me pertinacious was unfair. I'm sure many people would disapprove of you using an acronym, FWICT,  as an expletive, &  I don't know what it stands for. Your implication that the vast majority of people use newer browsers is unsubstantiated.  Most pages are seen just fine by my browser.  Therefore, the page is able to be corrected and seen well with all browsers. As far as I know, this was the first time an edit of mine goofed up a page for another model of browser. The page was put back to the way it was. Since then, someone has tried to correct it, so it can be seen well with my browser but it is still a screen-and-a-half wide.  You are basically saying that it is not that way on your computer.  I had no ill intent, and maybe you didn't either.  Maybe you're writing that way because you're over tired. I hope somebody knows how to repair the page.--Chuck Marean 06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Chuck, this is not the first time it has been pointed out that your attempts to change the layout of pages has affected other users. See , and the various comments at . --mtz206 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your first reference contains the only statement that makes the slightest hint at that.  The hint was: "your fix makes it look bad for the other 99% of us".  The statement did not explain what was meant by "look bad."  It was not understood and it was at the top of a paragraph that then changed the subject. I being normal would not have remembered the statement by the end of that rude paragraph.  Also, I don't believe the  "for the other 99% of us" part of the paragraph.  Also, my edit of Portal:Science did not look bad on Windows XP.  The left and right boxes simply had a space between them which was OK since the page on Windows 95 was not too wide with that edit.  This is in fact the first time I was aware that any attempt  to improve the layout of  a page for 95 goofed up the page for anyone else.  Most comments were not about  page layout.  They were about editing in general. They were full of insults and accusations of being bad.  All comments to me were badgering me not to edit because of being a newcomer.  They were against all of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. --Chuck Marean 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The problem is probably with the subportals box; a lot of new ones have been added lately.  Previously, it was OK even at 800x600, but I suspect all the current icons can't be squeezed tight enough.  We can try three rows of subportals.--ragesoss 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind.  The subportal box is not the problem.  I haven't figured it out yet, but you can play around with it at User:Ragesoss/template.--ragesoss 22:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I lowered the left column from 60 to 59%, and that fixed the width problem with IE at 800x600.  It should be hardly noticeable, unlike the previous attempted fix.--ragesoss 22:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was already at 800 by 600 pixels.  Changing the Desktop area doesn't help. (I found out 800x600 has nothing to do with IE).--Chuck Marean 11:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I've ]]) 15:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal:Science is too wide (21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)) 

message: Why did we chose REDas the main color in our traffic lights ?
Considering that Red had the least intensity compared to the violet ?
--Sumithnc 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Traffic Lights. 

message: A category for articles that need expert assistance from those with knowledge of Arts has been created and articles are being sorted into the category (:Category:Pages needing expert attention from the Science Portal).  I would like to propose adding a reference to this on the portal page so that those with expertise in Science would be made aware of it and would have a link to it.
:Make that :Category:Pages needing expert attention from Science experts. --Brad Beattie (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experts needed 

message: Barring any strong objections, I 'm going to set up the respective sections to rotate the article, biography, and picture archives. I'll use the randomizer method found at several portals, such as Portal:Chemistry. Rfrisbietalk 16:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rotated archives 

message: There is way too much going on now with this portal.  The Categories, Main Articles, and Portals windows, in my opinion, need altering.  Way too much unnecessary information is listed.  What is the point of it all???  It looks very bad being so cluttered.
What ever happened to the Subportals window, that just had like 10 subportals with the small thumbnail image?  That was perfectly sufficient for the page.  Why do subportals like Cannabis, Cats, Dogs, Apple Macintosh, etc, etc, need to be listed???  Who is doing this?
I suggest a pretty extensive overhaul, resorting to a simpler look and feel with less clutter.  Again, there is just too much going on...
Ksoth 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science Portal is way too cluttered 

message: The completed featured portal to do list is at Portal talk:Science/to do. Rfrisbietalk 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  FP to do list 

message: This portal is listed as a fundamental portal. The way the portals are arranged, social and formal sciences should be represented here as well as natural science. I think the introduction needs a rewrite to reflect this. Does anyone object? --Oldak Quill 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Hi! Why can't the definition of science at the gates of the science-portal be similar to the Wikipedia-entry of science? This here uses the controversial idea of verification in the first sentence. I don't find this adequate. Any comments? --Ehanzal 18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: That the DYK section hasn't been changed in almost a year? Antimatter--talk-- 16:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did you know...? 

message: Portal:Current events/Science and technology could use a little Portal help. For example I do not know where to get the Featured science article and Featured technology article for a given month. Further input would be welcome. - RoyBoy 800 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's because they don't exist. Both portals use , which randomly displays content every time the portal is refreshed. For example, see Portal:Science/Featured article. RichardF (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Oh yes, and sci/tech deaths... I need to know about dead people. - RoyBoy 800 03:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know of anyone who is pulling that info, except as it might appear from Portal:Science/News/Wikinews‎. RichardF (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal interchange 

message: In a knowledge-driven economy, managing and using information effectively is a critical success factor. There are a few challenges that arise from managing diverse information. The major challenge is archiving information easily and retrieving it quickly. Wiki is often used to create collaborative and power community websites, and is increasingly being installed by businesses to provide affordable and effective Intranets, or for use in Knowledge Management. Wiki is highly effective where group communication and collaboration is needed. Wiki offers a WYSIWG (What You See Is What You Get) editor and there is no elaborate syntax or programming involved, which is a boon for professionals who are not very familiar with. It encourages daily updates to the knowledge repository. People are motivated to use it because they are quite familiar with the format and so there is literally no training to invest in.
The wikis are easy to edit, they carry an inherent potential to change how we construct knowledge repositories on the Web. Wikis allow groups to form around specific topics Because they are so easy to use, the technology recedes into the background, allowing anyone to become a publisher. Because wikis grow and evolve as a direct result of people adding material to the site, they can address a variety of pedagogical needs—employee involvement, group activities, and so on.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.109.34 (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Very insightful.  But what does it have to do with the science portal?  Remember, this page is to discuss science portal-related topics.  Please reserve those narratives for the Community portal or Village pump or something else.  Antimatter--talk-- 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  wikis are good place to acquire knowledge. 

message: I don't think that "February 8: The first commercial vessel to use a kite to help save fuel created by SkySails finished its maiden voyage. Estimates are that the ship saved 10-15% fuel while the kite was in use, which translates into $5,555,555,555,555 to $8,888,888,888,888,888 in CONDOME costs FOR SEX SEX SEX per day.(Nature)" is really true, or grammatically correct... bad spelling. I cant find the right version to revert to. If somebody can find the correct version, please revert it. (I didn't know somebody could misspell "condom", hah) Cyborg999 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Is it really all that valid to say that science rejects supernatural explanation? it would seem to me that their may even be a branch of science where science and the supernatural go hand in hand. Isn't that understandable? but i think the statement about the rejection supernatural explanation needs to go, and maybe even a whole nother branch of science should be mentioned in the long term. but im getting rid of the supernatural statement for now anyway. Randy6767 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Supernatural rejected? 

message: I had an idea but I don't know how to implement it. I've noticed that a great deal of the articles have very high FOG Indecies, for example the LTP article has a FOG index of 21, while normal people with no understanding of the material generally best understand the scientific article when it has a FOG index of 12. Is there anyway to encourage the writers to use smaller sentences with exactly one idea (not two or three). You can try out the FOG index calculator if you like , but here are some results I found for these articles (I just looked at their intro paragraphs)
*Electricity FOG index=21
*Cancer FOG index=19
*Physics FOG index=18
*Action Potential FOG index=17
*Synapse FOG index=16
I think it will greatly simplify articles if we limit our sentences to one idea only, and thereby, reduce our FOG index. Paskari (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FOG Index 

message: "Science, in the broadest sense of the term, refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means." - Correct me if I am mistaken, but haven't we learned from Karl Popper that scientific knowledge (or at least scientific hypotheses and theories) cannot be verified but only falsified? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verifiable means? 

message: I have tried to get this portal protected, but nobody replied before being archived. So, should this page be protected? Gopal81ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Although there has been some vandalism recently, and most edits to this page are currently vandalism, there hasn't quite been enough of it in a short amount of time to warrant semi-protection yet, though it's close. Acalamari 23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So, when should we request it for protection? Say, 5-10 more vandalism edits? Or am I waaaaaaay off?Gopal81ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:24, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you had that in a week, then people might take notice. :"D And by notice I mean put on their watchlist to deal with it. Who has this watchlisted now? - RoyBoy 03:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for protection 

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

message: In 1614,Pocahontas married John Rolfe. Then, became a translater for the colonists.Became friends with both Colonists and Indians. The Colonists did not believe an Indian Girl could speak english. John Rolfe loved her and believed in her and that's all that mattered.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkdewey (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pocahontas 

message: ancient indians knew the science of shipbuilding and navigation very well. many sanskrit and pali texts contain references to travelling across the seas. indians from coastal regions travelled across the bay of bengal to countries like java,sumatra,cambodia,china regularly. they carried on trade with these countries.
it is believed that some went even as far as south america. they travelled across the arabian sea to arebia,
egypt and persia.we can see the picture of a sea-faring ship in the ajanta paintings. an image of a sailing 
craft was found at mohenjodara,too.it clearly shows that indians knew how to travel across the seas.
         you need good knowledge of the directions to travel acroos the seas. ancient indians studied the 
stars and it is believed that they also used the mariner's compass. they called it "maccha-yantra". it was 
an iron fish that floated in oil and always pointed to the north.
         a dock is a plase at a port where goods are loaded on to a ship or are taken down. there are also facilities for repairing ships. the dock excavated at lothal in gujarat is believed to be the worla's earliest
dock.
         ancient indians had good knowledge of tides. they also knew which seasons were good or bad for 
going across the seas from one place to another.
         ship-building was a thriving export industry in india. centuaries ago, arab and portuguese used 
to buy boats in india. a great varity of boats and ships were built in india.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.238.62.32 (talk) 14:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  shipbuilding and navigation 

message: What is the pH of a 0.25M acetic acid(CH3COOH) solution?(pKa=4.74)
Please also give some brief explain. thx.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yguo2 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the pH of a 0.25M acetic acid(CH3COOH) solution?(pKa=4.74) 

message: Pathani Samanta Chandrasekhar (1835-1904) was an eminent astronomer of Orissa. He was conferred the title ‘Mahamahoadhyaya’ by the British government in 1893, in recognition to his contribution in the field of astronomy. 
Pathani Samanta Chandrasekhar was born at Khandapara in Nayagarh District. He chose Sanskrit as his medium of education instead of English. He achieved great expertise in traditional Indian astronomy. During his research, he constructed many instruments using the local available materials like wooden sticks and bamboo pieces. His knowledge in astronomy ensured that these instruments had great accuracy in their measurement. His findings are recorded in his book titled ‘Siddhanta Darpana’, which is written in Sanskrit. This book won him wide acclaim and fame, finding special mention in the European and American press in the year 1899. 
Pathani Samanta Chandrasekhar’s calculations are referred in the preparation of almanacs in Orissa. The Pathani Samanta Planetarium is dedicated to him.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.18.66 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pathani Samanta Chandrasekhar 

message: Hello,
Sometimes, in a biography article of a person, such as Nicholas U. Mayall, the article includes citations to papers authored by the article's subject.  If you include the authorlink template arguments as found in template:cite journal back to the article, instead of a link, wiki substitutes bold text.
My question is, what is the accepted practice here?  It seems to me it is useful to include the link to self in case the cite is ever copied to another article and the boldness of their name tends to highlight their involvement in the cited paper.
Thanks.
WilliamKF (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing an author on their own page 

message: It's just showing some random symbols... Kernow (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm?  Don't you see :File:PIA02863 - Jupiter surface motion animation.gif?  It's clear for me, maybe there's an issue with your browser and animated .gifs?  Try refreshing. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 18:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Selected Picture

message: The DYK currently displayed claims that both Jon Lomberg (artwork pictured) and Aseroë rubra (pictured) are displayed; only Jon Lomberg's artwork is pictured. 92.30.47.7 (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed. The problem was at Portal:Science/Did you know/1. Thanks, Prolog (talk) 17:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  DYK, not pictured  

message: New Innovation In Biofuel Production Technology.
Researchers from the University of Sheffield, UK, has successfully developed the technology to save energy use in biofuel production units. With this technology, the use of energy savings of 18%. Currently biofuels production requires electrical energy large enough, which makes the production process becomes economically unattractive. And these findings would be of great importance to improve the economics of biofuel production units.
The research team is made of water-lift loop bioreactor, to generate micro bubbles (micro bubbles) with a diameter less than 50 microns. Microbubbles are able to move material faster than regular bubble, which produced conventionally. The findings of this team have been awarded Moulton Medal from Institution of Chemical Engineers, the category the best paper of the year. In addition, this innovative invention won the Best Poster Award at the 6th Annual conference bioProcessUK.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihwan2003 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biofuel Production Technology. 

message: Certainly mathematics is not, from any reasonable perspective, a 'framework for science' - the vast majority of it is certainly a field of its own. Also, you have a spliced comma in the relevant sentence - use a conjunction at any rate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.223 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If mathematics is a framework or a discipline or something else is debatable - but it strikes me as very odd that 20% of the description of science is devoted for saying so. There's plenty of other little defintion-issues in the broad term of science. And mathematics even has it's own portal from the front page. I'm deleting the paragraph to make the rest of the introduction (which I think is very well-written) stand out more clearly.--LasseFolkersen (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mathematics 

message: I'd like to find out if it is necessary for every tab on this portal to have the same header. When I click on a tab I'm expecting to immediately get to the appropriate content. Instead I have to scroll down past the header section. I'm not clear why this adds value. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tab header 

message: I recommend removing the Science News section of this portal. Firstly there's only one article from this month, and the month before wasn't any better. Secondly, it unbalances the page completely, removing it would rebalance the page. I know people get attached to helping out the sister projects, but if it's not generating news, it's not useful to have in the portal. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to remove the News section 

message: I'd like to propose that with articles describing a branch of science, we include a list of prominent scientists, the ones that have made important discoveries, in that field.  This will achieve four things:  1.  Scientists will receive some of the credit and fame they deserve for their discoveries.  2.  By giving credit, we will encourage others to pursue science further at a much more concrete way.  ("Steve Finkelstein made these discoveries in slug biology.  Say, he works at the University of Near-by City, maybe I should take classes from him, talk to him, find out what it takes to get into the field of slug biology."  That sort of thing.) 3.  Often, reading an article on science, my response is "How do they know that?"  With names of scientists, I (or anyone else asking that question) would be that much closer to finding out how they know that.  4.  We will have a place to link all those biographies of scientists to, so they can be deorphaned.    An example of what I have in mind is in the article on photobiology. Listmeister (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Listing the scientists 

message: I'll start by saying that I'm a relatively infrequent and inexperienced editor, so I'm not sure that this is even the correct place to post this issue, but here goes anyways.
When the "Coloration" hyperlink is clicked, it directs the user to a disambiguation page. First of all, that seems a bit out of place for something featured on the front page of a portal, and secondly, nothing on the disambiguation page seems to fit the context of the word as it used in the DYK section.
As I said, I'm not sure this is the correct forum for discussing this issue, but I'd like to see someone either direct the hyperlinked word to the correct page, or if there is in fact not a page for the given usage of the word "coloration", remove the item from the DYK box as there is no information to support it. Illini407 talk 03:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for catching this. After a bit of searching, I've edited the "coloration" link at Portal:Science/Did you know/7 to point to Loudspeaker measurement#Colouration analysis. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Did you know?" section issue 

message: I doubt that these introductions are suitable to distinguish the two concepts from each other and believe that Cargo cult science should be revised. Other points in the examples: 
* I do understand why the wrong methodology in the oil drop experiments is considered to be cargo cult science, and neither "true" science, nor pseudoscience. Ok. 
* I do not understand it in the case of Jaques Lacan: 
::... if Lacan stated things like that, this is pure pseudoscience; I really don't see why we need the concept of cargo cult science here and suspect that Tallis simply confused them or was not aware of their differences?
* About the Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study... without further details this seems to impose the conclusion "Any scientific activity with any fault in method is cargo cult science." Is that so?
--KnightMove (talk) 05:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely good points there. I think none these examples make sense. On the other hand, this might also mean that the term just is inaccurately applied to different kinds of pseudo scientific papers. While this may not be corrected with a Wikipedia article, the vagueness of definition should be made clear in the examples section - or the section should possibly be removed.
--146.211.0.10 (talk) 08:35, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudo- vs. Cargo Cult Science 

message: Some of the articles being displayed have references in the selected portions, and these are trying to appear in the gutters between the sections.
I cannot figure out how to fix this, so hopefully somebody else can!
TIA HAND —Phil | Talk 12:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this was a problem at Portal:Science/Featured article/22, which I have addressed. -- John of Reading (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks,  that seems to have fixed it. I suppose the references could have been replaced with raw links but eitherway it's tidier now. I wonder whether it's worth cobbling up an editnotice to explain it in future. —Phil | Talk 15:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  References appearing in gutters between sections 

message: There several types of science.
Goddyliz (talk) 10:59, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2016 

message: 119.160.118.72 (talk) 15:42, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:51, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017 

message: Arun46564 (talk) 13:50, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Ivecos (t) 14:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018 

message: Editors might be interested to see a discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Village Pump proposal to delete all Portals 

message: WikiProject Portals is back!
The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.
As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.
There are design initiatives for revitalizing the portals system as a whole, and for improving each component of portals.  So far, 2 new dynamic components have been developed: Template:Transclude lead excerpt and Template:Transclude random excerpt.
Tools are provided for building and maintaining portals, including automated portals that update themselves in various ways.
And, if you are bored and would like something to occupy your mind, we have a wonderful task list.
From your friendly neighborhood Portals WikiProject. Hope to see you there. Sincerely,      — The Transhumanist    07:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notice from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Portals|Portals WikiProject]] 

message: The discussion is at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Proposal to delete Portal space. Voceditenore (talk) 06:13, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to delete all portals 

message: FWIW - a draft "ScienceNews template" (see copy below) has been created - and discussed at => "Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science#Is "ScienceNews template" useful - or not?" - and - "Wikipedia:Village pump (idea_lab)#Is "ScienceNews_template" useful - or not?" - Editors at both discussion groups suggested that the template content (at least in some form) may have a place on the "Portal:Science" site - QUESTION:  Is such template content (or equivalent) useful anywhere on the "Portal:Science" site? - Comments Welcome - in any case - Enjoy! :) 
Drbogdan (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: If it weren't for WP:COPYVIOEL, this is where I'd link to a clip on Youtube of Eric Cartman singing the No Song.  But since I can't do that, you'll either have to imagine it or search yourself.  A bit more seriously: no.  This is terrible in so many different ways. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Nonetheless, seems some Editors think the content of the "ScienceNews template" worthy (please see "an earlier related discussion") - some may think otherwise of course - I also agree the content could be presented in some better form - as has been noted in "a different earlier discussion" - iac - may work further on this at some better opportunity, although others are welcome to work on this as well if they would like. Drbogdan (talk) 15:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is "[[User:Drbogdan/ScienceNews|ScienceNews template]]" useful - or not? 

message: , do you have any objection to automation of the "Selected article" section of the portal? diff1, diff2, diff3. I'm sorry, I didn't see the  notice. I should have asked you first. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Andrybak I have no objection. Regards, Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 22:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:RECOG]] discussion 

message: Section has been moved to Portal:Science/Recognized content. —⁠andrybak (talk) 16:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Recognized content

message: Are you opposed to removing the tabs from this portal and showing all the content on a single page? I believe this makes the portal more attractive to readers.Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:13, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: The tabbed design has been stable; I would prefer that they remain. --Ancheta Wis    (talk  | contribs) 20:24, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single page discussion 

message: How to separate sea water? Kanyanewamotho (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello  and welcome to Wikipedia.  This page is for discussing improvements to the Science portal, but the Desalination article may have the information you need, or you could ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.  Certes (talk) 19:29, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Physical science 

message: A new state of matter called Electron quadruplets was discovered (and published about today).  Major science news. Elijahandskip (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  New state of matter 

message: It is so mutch fun but there is always something wrong 2A02:C7F:8CDC:FF00:D54:1196:5B07:98A1 (talk) 18:37, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to point out any specific errors in this portal or elsewhere for attention. Certes (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science 

message: Airplane engine 123.243.105.67 (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Aircraft engine is a level-4 vital article in Technology but has been rated as C-Class, meaning it should be improved before being showcased in a portal.  It would also be more relevant to Portal:Aviation.  Certes (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electricity and science