Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10 ← Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:
year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

  • 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
  • 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
  • FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles
All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

  • Biology
  • Physics and astronomy
  • Warfare
  • Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

  • Literature and theatre
  • Engineering and technology
  • Religion, mysticism and mythology
  • Media
  • Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area
FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O)
Topic area Delisted Kept Total
Reviewed 		Ratio
Kept to
Delisted
(overall 0.62) 		Remaining to review
for
2004–7 promotions
Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19
Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67
Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2
Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7
Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0
Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8
Education 22 1 23 0.05 3
Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5
Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3
Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22
Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1
Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5
Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6
History 27 14 41 0.52 38
Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3
Law 11 1 12 0.09 3
Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24
Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3
Media 14 10 24 0.71 40
Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31
Music 27 8 35 0.30 55
Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2
Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24
Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9
Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8
Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44
Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39
Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11
Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23
Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31
Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536

Noting some minor differences in tallies:

  • A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for.
  • B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

  • Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
  • Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
  • Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
  • Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
  • Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Biology: Other

  1. Amanita phalloides
  2. Charles Darwin
  3. DNA
  4. Ediacaran biota
  5. Evolution
  6. Exosome complex
  7. History of biology
  8. Metabolism
  9. Proteasome
Other FAs from the Biology content area last reviewed from 2004 to 2007

Also posted to individidual WikiProjects

Biology: Birds

  1. American goldfinch
  2. Bald eagle
  3. Barn swallow
  4. Bird
  5. Black vulture
  6. California condor
  7. Common raven
  8. Flight feather
  9. Kākāpō
  10. Mourning dove
  11. Peregrine falcon
  12. Red-tailed black cockatoo
  13. Red-winged fairywren
  14. Splendid fairywren
  15. Superb fairywren
  16. Turkey vulture
  17. Variegated fairywren

Biology: Dinosaurs

  1. Acrocanthosaurus
  2. Albertosaurus
  3. Allosaurus
  4. Archaeopteryx
  5. Compsognathus
  6. Daspletosaurus
  7. Deinonychus
  8. Dinosaur
  9. Diplodocus
  10. Iguanodon
  11. Lambeosaurus
  12. Majungasaurus
  13. Massospondylus
  14. Parasaurolophus
  15. Stegosaurus
  16. Styracosaurus
  17. Thescelosaurus
  18. Triceratops
  19. Velociraptor

Biology: Fish

  1. Ocean sunfish
  2. Oceanic whitetip shark

Biology: Mammals

  1. Beagle
  2. Blue whale
  3. Bobcat
  4. Cougar
  5. Elk
  6. Hippopotamus
  7. Humpback whale
  8. Javan rhinoceros
  9. Knut (polar bear)
  10. Platypus
  11. Pygmy hippopotamus
  12. Thylacine

Biology: Plants

  1. Ailanthus altissima
  2. Banksia epica
  3. Banksia ericifolia
  4. Banksia spinulosa
  5. Banksia telmatiaea
  6. Pinguicula moranensis
  7. Verbascum thapsus

Biology: Reptile

  1. Olm

Joseph DeRisi Career Draft

Hello! I'm looking to improve the biochemist Joseph DeRisi's Wikipedia page. I've composed a new Career section for his page, which builds on what's already there by revising certain passages for clarity, adding new information about his professional life, and trimming away a handful of less-than-encyclopedic details. I've currently got an edit request active on Mr. DeRisi's Talk page, which further explains what my draft seeks to accomplish. You can see that request at this link, and the full Career section draft is available for review on a sub-page of my user page.

To be transparent, I'm a COI editor working on behalf of the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub to propose improvements to Mr. DeRisi's page. You can view my full COI disclosure on my user page. If anyone at this WikiProject could help me implement my edit request, or provide notes on how I might improve my draft, that would be immensely helpful. Thank you! Patricia at GMMB (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Organ Redirects

Some organs are known in most way as a word (ex Pulmonary) but the organ itself has another name (ex Lung). The possible spelling based of the former could be a redirect, for example:

-Cerebre

-Pulmon

-Cardio

I think those are all. Oixyplanet (talk) 07:31, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Task forces

Hi all - I know this is a 'meta' discussion but I was wondering if there is any appetite for formation of some task forces in the model of WP:TV to inherit some inactive descendant projects as task forces rather than have a diaspora of smaller projects? (for those who don't know, many TV shows had their own wikiprojects prior to many, but not all, TV show-specific WikiProjects being rolled in to WikiProject TV as task forces)

My overall opinion is that this does take a bit of effort (which I am happy to coordinate) but does offer some benefits in the form of centralising maintenance and deduplicating bits and bobbs. Such a process would of course need consent from the smaller project pages: I thought it may be worth asking here prior as an initial step. Tom (LT) (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. There are so many pages out there that nobody's watching, though as you said, it will have to be done with care. As a side note, "deduplicating bits and bobbs" is a phrase that I will try to integrate into every conversation I have. SchreiberBike | ⌨  12:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Biogenic magnetite

I created a draft for Biogenic magnetite. Any help with expansion would be appreciated. Thank you, Thriley (talk) 12:53, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Epigenetics

This interrelated series of articles is one of the most disoriented, contradictory and factually compromised sets that I've encountered on our project in quite some time. Moreover, the overlapping nature of content and lack of adequately unambiguous central navigation is confusing, even for someone who has existing familiarity with the general topic. I'm not certain of how much available manpower WikiProject Biology has to offer at the moment, but I'd like to get the ball rolling on a collaborative effort of some sort.   — C M B J   04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Plants used as herbs or spices

The page (plants used as herbs or spices) finally went live, and if any knowledgeable people care to add to the, well, biology-ness of it, I'd appreciate it. <g> Tamtrible (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Physiology, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 21 August 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Removal of Influences/influenced from the scientist infobox

hey, here's a proposal to remove Influences/influenced fields from the scientist infobox. It was done for the philosopher infobox, and bacause these fields often have too many unsourced / unnecessary entries never covered in text it might be a good idea for scientists as well. Please see and comment there: Template_talk:Infobox_scientist#Influences/influenced. Artem.G (talk) 16:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Request for input on Talk:Sex

There's a discussion on Talk:Sex that may be of interest to this WikiProject. Loki (talk) 19:59, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Talk:COVID-19 lab leak theory#Request_for_comment

An editor has started an RfC about whether the announcement by the FBI and the U.S. Department of Energy that they support the COVID-19 lab leak theory should be in the lede of the COVID-19 lab leak theory article. Editors are invited to contribute. TarnishedPathtalk 01:54, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Definition of biological sex in all sexually reproducing species

Please see Talk:Sex#Suggestion for Leading sentence and section. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

RFC relevant to this WikiProject

Hello! I'm posting here to notify this WikiProject that an RFC that may be relevant to it has started regarding the definition of sex. Loki (talk) 07:58, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

bicavea radiata

Amusingly, as a totally unexpected consequence of Cote, West Sussex (AfD discussion), we have Gaster's paper on bicavea radiata for you. Uncle G (talk) 08:48, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for comment, deletion of dubious species

Should we, or should we not, delete articles about species that are not properly accepted?

The context for this RfC is a number of recent AfD debates on deletion of articles about species that have been described, but whose names have never been properly accepted, for example Stomopteryx splendens. WP:SPECIES advises that we should keep articles on valid species, but it doesn't give any advice on what to do about non-valid species. Elemimele (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

To start the discussion: I believe we need to consider why we have articles on species. If they aim to help the reader establish the status of species names, whether they exist (or not) and who described them, then we should probably keep the non-valid names; readers still need to know that they're not valid. But if stubs on species with little information are kept because we hope they'll grow into more detailed articles, then we should probably delete those non-valid species that have never generated enough literature to create an article; they presumably never will. Obviously we should keep, or redirect articles about names that have created a decent quantity of literature. This RfC only applies to species names that aren't notable by GNG. Elemimele (talk) 18:24, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
@Elemimele:, you're using some words that have a technical meaning in taxonomy that makes it difficult for me (with my awareness of the technical meanings) to understand exactly what is being proposed.
Valid name (zoology) basically means (in the context of WP:SPECIES) that a name isn't regarded as a synonym (taxonomy). If a name is regarded as a synonym (invalid), it typically doesn't get deleted because it can just be redirected to the accepted name. Articles on names regarded as synonyms get redirected all the time by taxonomy editors without them initiating a discussion. The redirect target should mention the synonym (which shows that the name exists). There is no need for articles about names that are definitely invalid (but redirects are appropriate).
A dubious name (nomen dubium) doesn't have a good type specimen; the type specimen may have be missing or destroyed, or may be a fragment (such as a single tooth) that lacks the characters needed to distinguish it from similar species. It can be possible to write a somewhat detailed article about a nomen dubium (e.g. Clasmodosaurus known from three teeth, or Pyxicephalus cordofanus with no known type specimen), although such an article is necessarily more about the name than an organism per se. Since nomina dubia can't be confidently identified, they can't be definitively synonymized with anything else, and thus there isn't a good place to redirect them if an article is unwarranted. I wouldn't encourage anybody to write articles about nomina dubia, and some of the articles Wikipedia has for nomina dubia might best be deleted.
Of the deletion discussions that prompted this, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyxicephalus cordofanus (a nomen dubium) was initiated by a taxonomy editor, with the delete/merge !votes coming from taxonomy editors. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stomopteryx splendens was initiated by an editor who doesn't work on taxonomy articles and who started deletion discussions for some other species articles that were ultimately kept; several taxonomy editors commented without making a !vote. Stomopteryx splendens is valid (not a synonym) according to the source used in the article, although the nominator claimed it was not valid; it does appear that Stomopteryx splendens may be a synonym, but it not clear what the valid name is.
I think that "species with little information are kept because we hope they'll grow into more detailed articles". People who only want to "establish the status of species names, whether they exist (or not) and who described them" are better served by taxonomic databases than Wikipedia; Stomopteryx splendens is possibly something that may "have never generated enough literature to create an [detailed] article". Plantdrew (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I basically second Plantdrew here. We are largely writing articles about taxa (more or less natural groupings of organisms), which we conveniently label with names; in general, we should strive to title those articles with names consistent with the provisions of the relevant nomenclatural code, and with the taxonomic placement best supported by reliable authorities. When we have nomina dubia, names that we can't confidently attach to a taxon, there will rarely be material sufficient for an article, and we should usually be deleting or redirecting standalone articles on same. (Lsjbot did a great disservice by spewing nomina dubia, synonyms, misspellings, unpublished names, etc. from poorly-vetted datasets over the Wikipedias in which it operated, but I digress.)
I think it's reasonable, in a well-fleshed-out article on a higher taxon (genus, tribe, subfamily, etc.) to include in the taxonomy section a list of the nomina dubia that can be associated with this taxon but not with any lower one. (This could also be a section in "List of X species" articles.) That said, I would probably save that for nomina dubia that have explicitly been discussed in reliable sources. If there are 5,000 nomina dubia (to invent a number) about which the most we can say is that they belong to Geometridae, I'm not sure a giant list article enumerating them is terribly useful. Choess (talk) 00:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
As stated by Plantdrew words such as valid, dubium and available have specific meanings in zoology and botany and unfortunately not necessarily the same meaning in both. So what is being asked here is a little confusing. However, if I am reading it right I will say the following.
If a species has a page that is now considered in the synonymy of another species yes that taxon should be removed, but not outright. Consideration should be given to merging. I would also argue that the synonym would serve well as a redirect to its current senior name if it was under the mainspace name of its scientific name. The current nomenclature of life is a dynamic situation. No species has to stay the same it can be recombined, synonymised or further split dependant on the current scientific knowledge which is forwever changing. No one should expect any species name to be immutable. That is even true of our own species with it being recombined, split and synonised in recent years.
I would suggest that you may want to use a tag on any species page that should be examined for its current nomenclature and if its still a used name, this way it can be discussed how best to take advantage of what information is on the page, ie maybe merge it, rather than delete maybe comment it all out and turn it into a redirect after all it may get resurrected again in the future and this preserves its page even if its not readily viewable. I think preserving information for potential use later is not unreasonable. I tried that once with several turtle species but the commented out info was later deleted by others.
The tag to me would serve well if it flagged the page, encouraged an rfc on its talk page, and notified relevant projects. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 03:13, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to avoid getting into the multitude of ways in which a species name can be less-than-perfect, and also to avoid the fact that zoologists, botanists and microbiologists all go about taxonomy in slightly different ways, each with their own meanings for technical terms.
To clarify what I was asking: WP:NSPECIES tells us we should keep anything that has a correct name (botany) or valid name (zoology) but periodically people turn up at AfDs with names that are (1) missing from whatever database/publication is considered definitive; (2) validly published but not formally accepted as "correct" (botany; which I think is equivalent of "available" in zoology?); (3) nomina dubia in various ways. I was trying to get clarity about whether these should be deleted.
I'm wondering whether it's too complicated to make a simple rule. For example, I think I'm right that palaeontology is riddled with nomina dubia because of the fragmentary nature of fossils, but many of these things are of interest to encyclopaedia readers, widely written-about, and there isn't actually a better name at the moment. Similarly bacteriology has ambiguous names, where the same name has been used for two different species, and it's really quite important that readers with an interest in bacteriology should know this has happened! Even worse, there are the cases where the ambiguity creates a hazard to health, something which an encyclopaedia might have to document. An ambiguous bacterial name might be a lot more significant than a botanical name validly-published in 1850 and never mentioned again! Not sure what to think... Elemimele (talk) 12:02, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Your point that "(2) validly published but not formally accepted as "correct" (botany; which I think is equivalent of "available" in zoology?)" not quite, a name in zoology that is meant to be in current usage ie the botanical correct name is a valid name. In zoology a synonomy is headed by the currently accepted valid name, all other names are available. Valid means must be used, available means could be used. In paleontology, yes many fossils are fragmentary and often you will see the term incertae cedis after a name. Of course fossils are rarely complete, it is the nature of this and just has to be dealt with. Nomina dubia technically refers to a species whose type specimen cannot be assigned to a taxon for some reason, it may be incomplete, it may be missing. If its missing researchers can set a Neotype and repair the situation, but if the type exists no matter how bad, only the Commission can set the neotype which tends to slow this down. If nomina dubia are old, ie more than 100 years, they tend to just be declared nomen oblitum and left as forgotten names. This is all up to the researchers working on the group though.
The reason I suggested using a tagging system was because of the complexities, sure some are simple and an outright decision can almost be made but some are far more complicated and probably warrant significant discussion to proceed. Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 00:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
Maybe this is my own hairsplitting, but I'd interpret that quotation from NSPECIES to mean that if you have a species (a group of organisms related in particularly close ways, cf. species concept), and there is a suitable name to apply to that species, you can presume notability. A nomen dubium is a name, not a species; definitionally, we don't know which species it applies to, if indeed to any. Names could wind up as parts of set index articles, as redirects to sections and in-article lists, or sometimes as standalone articles when sufficiently notorious that GNG applies. I'm not sure we have to try to craft a comprehensive rule for this as long as we understand NSPECIES protects articles about taxa, not about names. Choess (talk) 01:47, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is hairsplitting at all. Articles are definitely about taxa, not about names. (Long ago, we had a plant editor who insisted on starting articles with text like "X y is the name of a species ..." This was firmly rejected.) If there is reliable evidence that a taxon is accepted, then we can have an article. What the title should be is a secondary question, given the general flux in taxonomy in the molecular phylogenetics era.
I'm more concerned about the quality of the evidence that a taxon is accepted. In almost all cases (all cases?), this requires at least one secondary reference, not just the paper that proposed the taxon. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:32, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
To be honest, that approach fits very well with the concept that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not an index, which means our traditional role is to take subjects on which many have written, and produce an overview summary. If there's only one document, no "overview" is necessary; the reader might as well just read the one document that exists.
Going a bit off-topic, it also fits with biomolecules and genes; new ones appear at a frenetic rate, but probably don't need an article until they get mentioned in reviews, or discussed outside the context of the primary paper that first described them.
The discussion above has cleared up a big question to me: we automatically accept articles about a species even if there isn't much to say about it yet, in recognition that they are likely to grow to be bigger articles in time. It's also helped me understand that the article is about the species, not the name, which is further reason not to have articles about names that shouldn't be used. We should have articles about the name only where the name itself is independently wiki-notable, perhaps widely used in popular culture, or the subject of a huge scientific bust-up, or whatever. Elemimele (talk) 11:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
yes this is an encyclopedia, not a checklist. Wikispecies is about names and those who name them for the most part. Wikipedia has another purpose. I would prefer taxa were not accepted without some secondary review, however I recognise thats not always possible. But at least give the scientific literature time to respond to a new taxon. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 13:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Grant abstract as reference

I was cleaning up Reuben Shaw just now and noticed that there was an issue with a journal citation without a journal listed. It turned out to be a link to a grant abstract from grantome.com, and I couldn't remove it without leaving a substantial part of the article without a reference to a pretty specific claim. So:

1. How should a grant abstract be cited to not leave errors?
2. Should a grant abstract even be cited in an article? From my perspective it's a lot less useful than a primary source/journal article that draws the conclusions the grant author is relying upon. Only 70 articles on Wikipedia, the majority of them short biographies of scientists, cite this specific website.

Thanks. Reconrabbit (talk|edits) 15:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Grants are written for a specific purpose, to obtain money as such, although I won't say they are fiction, they have ulterior motives to the science being discussed. I do not think they should be a citation unless it is a page about the applicant for the grant or the granting body. Generally if you can get the grant proposal it should have in it any references they used, then if necessary those could be sout out and used instead. Or if an older grant application its possible it has since been published as finished work and this would be a better citation. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 23:45, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

"rehabilitation" of Aristotle?

Hey all, there's a discussion about Aristotle's standing in current biological science going on here. I'm pretty sure this is wp:fringe or wp:undo, but I'm not trained as a scientist. Input from anyone who is would be most welcome! Cheers Patrick J. Welsh (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Fossorials!

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I have just created a new WikiProject, WikiProject Fossorials. If you can, please join, as we are in desperate need of members! Fossorials are animals that spend much of their time underground, so if you are interested, please join!

Thank you, UserMemer (chat) Tribs 00:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Carbon source (biology), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 25 December 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology/Archive_14&oldid=1215353543"