Portal talk:Biology/Archive 3

message: I would like to inform you that the article Fauna (animals) is a candidate to Colaboration of the week WP:COTW. It is at the moment a small stub which has a great potential of improvement. Also, that the article Flora (plants) is a candidate to Article Improvement Drive WP:AID, it also has a great potential. I would like to invite you to vote, colaborate and improve both articles. They could be great Feature articles WP:FA. Thanks!!! --Francisco Valverde 07:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauna and Flora nominations 

message: Hello all, I was a wondering why there wasn't a WikiProject about insects or even Arthopods, considering there is one for Gastropods and Cephalopods (WikiProject Gastropods and WikiProject Cephalopods). Is it just because no one has created it yet, or is it because there is no need for one? I would be willing to help someone start such a WikiProject, or do it myself if necessary. Just thought I'd ask around for a bit of info first. Thanks, --IronChris 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree - i've wondered this for a while too seeing as they represent such a huge section of biodiversity.  Count me in if one is started.  Goldfinger820 21:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Me too SP-KP 21:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: The WikiProject Arthropods is now functional. If you like insects, arachnids, crustaceans or even pycnogonids, please feel free to join! --IronChris 16:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Arthropods? 

message: List of publications in biology is currently up for deletion. --Salix alba (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of publications in biology 

message: There has been talk recently in the Wikipedia:Barnstar and award proposals for a distinctly biology science barnstar, apart from The E=MC² Barnstar. I believe that the field of biology is so great that we could have a common biology barnstar. See the talk that has developt around this idea in Wikipedia:Barnstar_and_award_proposals#Nature-related_Barnstar. There is already a design by Jasu. I would like to know what do you think and if it would be possible such a barnstar. --Francisco Valverde 17:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal of the Bio-Barnstar 

message: Ctenophore is a featured article on deWiki and I did a translation of it fairly recently. It needs some outside attention to check I haven't confused my cilia with my cnidaria, and maybe further down the line to convert the references to in-line form (which would of course require someone with access to the literature) and give my Germanic prose an overhaul. I put an  tag on it and posted it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Marine life, but as the expert category contains hundreds of pages and the Marine life Wikiproject doesn't seem exactly overpopulated (the 'collaboration of the week' has been there for a month), I'm bringing it here in case someone either feels like taking a look at it or knows where someone else will.
Please consider looking at it, the pictures are really very pretty in my opinion :-) --Sam Blanning(talk) 17:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking for help with [[Ctenophore]] 

message: Cyanea redirects to Hawaiian lobelioids. There's also a genus of jellyfish by that name, but I can't find an article on it. At least two articles, namely Cyaneidae and Lion's mane jellyfish, link to Cyanea and thence to Hawaiian lobelioids, which is surely wrong. Currently Hawaiian lobelioids doesn't have a 'for the jellyfish, see Cyanea (jellyfish)' notice on it. Could someone clear this up?
At the least I'd like to know where the article should be. There's a wikilink to this hypothetical article in a translation I'm doing, and I'm not familiar with the naming conventions for disambiguated biology articles - whether it's going to be Cyanea (jellyfish) or Cyanea (Cyaneidae) or something else. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took a stab at this. Two articles is short for a dab, but I thought it the best way to go. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 12:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Confusion over [[Cyanea]]

message: Fauna is the new WP:COTW. Anyone can help to improve this article, this would be very much appretiated. It has been suggested to add Flora (plants) in tandem with Fauna to be improved. See both Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week/Flora (plants) and Wikipedia:Collaborations of the Week/Fauna (animals)... --Francisco Valverde 02:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fauna is this week's Collaboration of the Week 

message: I translated False death cap from French article. But i know nothing about writing biological articles - where should one go to find out how to write an article on plants? --Thewayforward 13:38, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a start, take a look at Death cap. You will find other articles on fungi at :Category:Fungi. If you would like some help in setting up a taxobox and/or citing references, let me known at ym talk page. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 15:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[False death cap]] 

message: What's the name ín english of the dead-eating worms?
:Use the help desk. Also, you will need to be more specific. --liquidGhoul 01:02, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Help

message: If any of these haven't been featured, I think they'd be great.
Image:Georgia Aquarium - Cuttlefish Jan 2006.jpg
Image:Spanish shawl.JPG
Image:Joey in pouch.jpg|Slightly gross, but great educational value!
Best,
Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More pictures: Sex and mollusks 

message: WikiProject Biology has now a new award in recognition of exceptional article contributions in the life sciences. It is the Bio-Barnstar. You can find it at Wikipedia:Other_awards#Awards_by_Wikiproject. Thanks to all who have been involved in this new barnstar. --Francisco Valverde 09:15, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEW BIO-BARNSTAR 

message: OMG the second sentence is ridiculously confusing. Can it be made simpler? We could probably leave off: "a derivative of logos [literally, word, but coming to mean one who speaks (in a certain way)]". --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 04:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I went ahead and edited this sentence.  i hope that is OK? David D. (Talk) 09:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It had already been edited. I think indicating logos as the origin of -ology is okay. Have part-reverted to this effect. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem just poking my nose in others business ;-) David D. (Talk) 19:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro on main portal page 

message: Presently there are two red links in the categories, Computational biology and :Category:Human Impact on the Enviroment/Human Impact on the Enviroment.  Should these be removed or are they requests?  If they are requests shouldn't they be in the request section at the bottom? David D. (Talk) 09:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Categories

message: The featured articles haven't been updated for a while, and I doubt this is due to lack of suitable material in Wikipedia. I think it would be great to resume adding new articles to the list. A lot of (probably most) biology articles are too specialised or technical to ever reach Wikipedia FA status. This portal is a good place to display well written comprehensive articles on biology that don't fit the general FA criteria. I couldn't find how articles have nominated here in the past... I believe we need some sembalance of a formal nomination procedure as well. Peter Z.Talk 00:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:51, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the general idea is for people not to put up their own picture submissions or articles they have extensively worked on without discussion. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually i did update the articles and biography recently, as they were stagnant. I assumed it would not be a problem since there appeared to be no activity, and for your info, i had not worked on either article. On the other hand, I kind of knew i should not use my own picture on the front page.  But i liked it so much i couldn't resist ;) Sorry about that. David D. (Talk) 19:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably have some kind of informal target of how often articles and pictures are meant to be updated. Also note there are previous threads on the talk page here that give lists of candidates, esp. for pics and bios. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 19:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed those after my bold edits to update the content.  At least I am more savvey to the process now. David D. (Talk) 20:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article revival

message: I've already posted this question on Talk:Lizard but thought that there is a high probability of geting a quicker answer from here. I am interested in finding the exact type of this lizard so that it could be used on the relavent page with a proper caption. Thanks --Oblivious 10:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I replied where you first asked. Regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which lizard is this? 

message: Can anyone with genetic expertise have a look at the discussion here? I'm in a dispute there with another editor who claims to be a biology buff. Now I need help to figure out whether my doubts are justified or not. Thanks! --Latebird 12:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genghis Khan's genes 

message: hello i am a 16 yr old biology student and im working on an assignement and i was wondering if u could help me with the pranesus ogilbyi (hardy head ) thanku —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.231.5.173 (talk • contribs) .
:This is the wrong place to ask.  May be the science reference desk? Or just google for a ton of information. David D. (Talk) 14:59, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  hey can u give me information please 

message: There is a new "related portals" section. I have not yet included the following portals, all of which are arguably related to biology: Portal:Chemistry, Portal:Food, Portal:Health, Portal:Sexuality. Any objections? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, no objections here as these topics are vast in content in themselves. --Siva1979Talk to me 19:42, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If you look at this diff,  you can see that changing the size made the pictures switch to be not above their labels and another user came along and had to fix them. For instance, the chemistry picture was above the Agropedia link. While whitespace will exist, there is no point having a large chunk of it between data. after data is fine. I know it will change, but there was nothing wrong with the original layout. pschemp | talk 04:20, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so I pasted things in incorrectly, I should have checked that more thoroughly and I apologise for being sloppy. Nevertheless, that edit is not specific to the portal layout.  You did not address my two observations above with regard to why the related portals should be at the bottom and not in the portal columns. I respectfully  disagree that there is nothing wrong with the layout. David D. (Talk) 04:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, the scrollbars really make for a horrible user interface. Design is not everything. I appeal for you to wait with further layouting suggestions until we've got all the material there that we need as per the FPC application responses. Otherwise my time will be spent reviewing your changes, and the job won't get done. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the edit summary i think it was pretty obvious i was not trying to ram something through. However, since there seems to be very little discussion here I thought such a change would at least lay something on the table.  White space seemed to be an issue and that was 'one option' available to solve the problem. Fine you don't like it. What are the other options?  By the way, if the changes to the portal are a work in progress you should have that mentioned somewhere.  David D. (Talk) 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: David, no problems, I just saw you making changes to several subpages and got concerned. There is a link to the ongoing peer review at the top of this talk page. I'm sorry that there is no date on the template to indicate its recency. The template, however, is not of my making. Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related portals 

message: *Portal:Mind and Brain
*Portal:Thinking
Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More finds

message: A draft of the major topics section can now be found at Portal:Biology/Major topics. I need your help to complete this, as I do not have complete knowledge of all areas of biology. Once we reach consensus on content and structure, we can format the page as in Portal:History of science/Topics. Note that the point here is not to get it 100% right, but to make it good enough that people can find their way through the subject. Best regards, Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major topics 

message: The other question is whether we should try to match, say, the biography with the FP and the selected article for each week. So we could have a botany week followed by a parasite week, followed by a cell cycle week, etc. etc. This may be a preferred way for people to absorb information. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea and we do not have to hold ourselves too it.  But, if there are two good related articles then it is definitely worthwhile. David D. (Talk) 23:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. --liquidGhoul 23:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody wanna think of a theme? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 13:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Carolus Linnaeus, and :Image:Bufo bufo couple during migration(2005).jpg (we can accept commons FP can't we?), but I don't have an article. I was thinking of taxonomy, but it is too short. Any ideas? --liquidGhoul 13:53, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cladistics is tangential. Molecular systematics looks good, but is under-referenced. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 14:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Molecular systematics is now a much shorter article, after removing a large section that was just regurgitating someone's paper on phylogeny of dogs in great detail. I have, however, made a merge suggestion that could help expand and reference the article to bring it closer to GA standard. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Could also have Charles Darwin or Alfred Russel Wallace or a number of biographies with evolution or natural selection, but again, I cannot think of a good FP. --liquidGhoul 13:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not the most original idea, but :Image:Peacock.detail.arp.750pix.jpg. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Themed content? 

message: So here's a suggestion of a combination of articles and images:
*SP: :Image:Alaska wild berries.jpg
*SA: Polyphenol antioxidant
*SB: Linus Pauling (controversially advocated consumption of large doses of vitamin C)
The last two need to be put through GA before we can use them. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why have I heard of Linus Pauling. Reading the intro, I can't think of what he did that I would know. --liquidGhoul 00:38, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's probably difficult not to have heard of him. Two individual Nobel Prizes and one of the last true polymaths. I think it is generally believed that if Watson and Crick had not found the structure of DNA, he would have done. Maybe you heard of him in that context. You are right, though, that he does not seem to have touched on either population genetics nor ecology in the least, the two areas that you and I would probably be most familiar with. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 10:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is either his work on structure of DNA or his work on hybrid orbitals. He may have been mentioned in chem lectures. --liquidGhoul 12:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theme: antioxidants/longevity 

message: Both the agreed queue (which must be followed, any probs, shoot yourselves in the foot or something) and proposed themes can now be found in /Proposed. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:50, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we put dates on the change dates? --liquidGhoul 11:51, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, if you think that helps. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Agreed queue, proposed themes 

message: LiquidGhoul, someone neglected to update the official FP list (which is where I went looking for a suitable FP). I just fixed that. You can check the deletion history to see that it was featured previously. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, I see that. Noone place the FP template on it either. --liquidGhoul 11:54, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfeatured peacock 

message: Hi,
I was looking for the WikiProject Biology page but
was directed here.
WikiCast is an attempt to do 'free' content radio 
with a focus on Wiki Content.
It was felt that your project, might be willing to
assist, either by suggestign ideas or by making
content.
Feedback would be very much appreciated 
ShakespeareFan00 22:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiCAst: A Request. 

message: Hi there. I nominated Enzyme for Featured article a while ago. I would appreciate feedback on this nomination and any suggestions on how to improve the article further. Thanks! TimVickers 17:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: FA nomination for [[Enzyme]]

message: Changed the top image twice today. The second proposal a little more radical than the first. I think whatever it ends up being, it should be a featured picture. And I find butterflies boring. It's been speculated that most species may be nematodes because whichever species of animal you look at, even beetles, they have at least one nematode as parasite or commensal, often several. My other ambition was to have something with water to reinforce the "blue theme". 2/3 of earth covered in salt water might suggest a marine species as ideal... - Samsara (talk • contribs) 16:48, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that although the nematode worm may most numerous, it isnt a particularly striking or interesting picture. I think having maybe a marine animal would interest more people, fish or a dolphin or something. chris_huh 22:10, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I've come up with an alternative that I'm willing to defend. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portal "icon" changed 

message: I've just changed the selected article and selected biography, can someone update the archives? Gotta run off for a bit, sorry! - Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History 

message: Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines is a proposed guideline which currently has support from both the physics and math projects. Presumably people from other sciences such as bio may wish to comment. JoshuaZ 23:36, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slightly off topic but seemed reasonable to bring up here.  

message: Hi there. I'd value people's input on this article. Thank you. TimVickers 05:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Peer review/Bacteria/archive1|Peer review of bacteria]]

message: Some science articles are starting to produce introductory versions of themselves to make them more accessible to the average encyclopedia reader. You can see what has been done so far at special relativity, general relativity and evolution, all of which now have special introduction articles. These are intermediate between the very simple articles on Simple Wikipedia and the regular encyclopedia articles. They serve a valuable function in producing something that is useful for getting someone up to speed so that they can then tackle the real article. Those who want even simpler explanations can drop down to Simple Wikipedia. What do you think?--Filll 23:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Simple Wikipedia is about using simple English, rather than explicitly making things more understandable, although usually, this arises as a by-product. I'd personally like to see that articles on the simple Wikipedia improved to a higher level. It would be a great exercise in writing and understanding. :) Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I also work in Simple Wikipedia as well and would like to see them vastly improved. I have worked on 100-200 articles on Simple Wikipedia as well as regular and introductory articles here. I think that the introductory articles can be intermediate between the Simple articles and the full articles. So that we address all levels: roughly at the level of elementary school students (Simple articles), the general public (introductory articles) and advanced articles (regular articles). This of course is only reasonable for very technical subjects, like quantum mechanics, general relativity or evolution. --Filll 23:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you did a good job in the introductory evolution article. Evolution is a bit of an unmanageable monster without real focus. I wonder how the introductory articles will fare in the long term. Some people will feel that they are forks of a sort and should not exist. I think they have a place, as long as we can make sure that the logic is fully explained, i.e. no loopholes left for creationists et al. Evolution is a tough topic to write about, not least because so many people are watching that article, and expect various different things from it! Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not sure what will happen eventually. However this has been addressed repeatedly over the last few years. There are now 7 articles that use the seeintro tag and you can see the list at this page. The decision has always been made to keep the introductory articles. If you look around you can see many of the discussions that are archived (I can point you to some if you are interested) I do not think all articles should have them. But speaking as someone who has put huge effort into the Simple Wikipedia articles, to write something using only 850 words in English and make it reasonably accurate is very challenging. I think it is very worthwhile, but one definitely needs something between Simple Wikipedia and regular Wikipedia articles for very technical subjects. I want someone who has minimal background and might not have much competence in English to be able to read an article on Simple Wikipedia, then be able to read an introductory article and then a regular article, and climb all the way from a grade 3 level of understanding to a postdoctoral level. All of these need good introductions and good references and clear writing.--Filll 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, I don't this that kind of ascent really works. In order to fully understand evolution, you have to have read not the simple version, but rather, some basic background in population genetics - hence the recent discussion about the term, "allele frequencies". Samsara (talk • contribs) 23:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed. As it now stands, the Simple version of most articles is very sad. In desperate need of improvement. However, I believe if one has a good solid Simple article with good references, this could help the reader be able to read an Introductory article, especially if the person read and digested the references. If the person in turn was able to absorb the introductory article and its references, I would hope that they would have a much better chance to understand the regular article, at least if the links and references are used. This of course would not be trivial. And probably no one would ever do it. However, its value is that a reader who heard something on the radio, or a parent who has to answer a question from their child, or someone who wants more than a dictionary definition, can get a bit more content, at the right level, to help them. And the regular evolution article alone is written for someone with at least a bachelor's degree already in biology, or at least college-level training. But almost none of the intended readers of Wikipedia will have that. And so...--Filll 00:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Simple Introduction