Talk:Biologist

message: This article has been marked as needing additional work since 2009.  I think it's fair to say that it's been improved as much as it's going to be due to that notice, and I think that having that notice on what is otherwise a fairly adequate article looks bad. Would anyone object to its deletion? Mwenechanga (talk) 22:06, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have improved since 2008 (I confess I haven't followed it over that whole time span) but the fact is that the article is still a fairly poor and amateurish account of what a biologist is and does in today's world.  The article paints a dusty, outdated picture of botanists, zoologists etc., traditional, 19th and 20th century partitions of biology that are so broad today that they have long ago been subdivided and, paradoxically, the fragments often re-merged again into new disciplines such as molecular biology (now already an ageing term), genomics, proteomics, structural biology and systems biology, to name but a few.  These cutting edge topics of modern biology are not mentioned, despite having their own WP articles, and the radical evolution of the subject, which has taken place in little more than the past 25 years is hardly reflected in the article.  And there is still only a single citation.  Much more work to be done I'm afraid. Plantsurfer (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article could use some statistical pictures providing factual information about life as a biologists in a visual format rather than portraits of different biologists. --Bailey.goley (talk) 20:30, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This article looks so great! Very excited to be back here some 8 years after my last contribution and see how this has improved so much. Go team, you did it! Mwenechanga (talk) 23:34, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional work 

message: Hi guys. I've just attempted to expand and improve the intro of the article to more accurately reflect what biologists do and study. I was mainly wondering about the distinction between "basic" (I changed this to "fundamental") and "applied" research. Is there such a significant difference between them that they need to be mentioned separately? I was under the impression that there was less of a distinction, as any "basic" research can often be somewhat applied anyway. I've left it in for now, as it was part of the previous version. Thanks! Cmastris (talk) 22:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article intro 

message: It's already been noted that the "Specialists" section is quite outdated and really not very comprehensive at all. I'm proposing that the entire section as it currently stands is deleted and re-done. Instead, I would suggest that there is a relatively short paragraph describing some of the range/types of specialism (e.g. animals, microbes, ecology etc.), but with a clear link (maybe "See also:" at the top) to Biology#Branches. Not only would that means that the list doesn't need to be updated, but the main Biology page is also likely to be updated more frequently than this one.
If anyone has any objections/alternative ideas then please let me know, otherwise I'll probably re-format the section as described above within a week or so. Thanks. Cmastris (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specialists section 

message: The recent pictures at the top of the article are a nice touch, but seeing as how they show biologists in labs conducting research and whatnot, would it be better to move them to the Research or even Working Conditions section? Thanks. Spotted RoboDinosaur (talk) 16:20, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research Pictures