Talk:Laboratory

Other kinds of laboratory
This article seems to focus on chemical labs, or at least labs related to chemistry. There are other places called 'labs' that don't fit the description, e.g. computer labs. I suggest this article be renamed 'Chemistry laboratory' (or 'Laboratory (chemistry)') and 'Laboratory' be made a disambig. What do you think? Ddawson 09:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * That's fine, but there should be a generic "laboratory" article that does include the general nature of it's being a place for scientific investigation as well, not restricted to chemistry, biology, psychology, mathematics, computer science, history, sociology, et cetera. Courtland 20:34, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I completely agree with Ddawson's comments. I have worked in both evolutionary biology and physics labs.  Both are much different than the layout specified in the article.  I find the assumption that "lab" refers a room full of glass and chemicals to be detrimental to many disciplines and slightly offensive on a personal level.
 * There's only one kind of laboratory: The chemical laboratory! Everyone else is just posers.  Just kidding...perhaps there should be a disambig page for the various types of laboratories? --AtomicCactus 21:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I would prefer to see a well-written "generic" laboratory definition, with lead-ins and links to specific types of labs. I can help with public health laboratories. dcbeetle 17:16, 16 April 2007.
 * There should be a generic article, this one, and then each could have their own if and when the details on them are sufficiently extensive. Example(talk) 13:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauMartinez (talk • contribs)

Action!
G'day all, Unfortunately, I'm not cluey enough to figure out how to make a formal request for a clean-up/collaberative effort etc, however anyone who comes across this message, please tag as appropriate.

In my personal opinion, I think that this should really be a catagory, with the specifics of particular laboratories confined to their own articles. In which case, this article (as it currently stands) would have to be moved to something like "Laboratory_(Chemistry)". Any thoughts?

My particular specialty here is that I work in a Civil Engineering lab, which is so far from what this article (currently) describes, that it almost is insulting to the profession! And as such, there's almost no direction that I can take with regards to incorperating what I know with this article, as it would require an EXTREME re-write. And if that's to occur, then all fields need to be represented otherwise a complete re-write will have to occur again, and again, and again, and again!

Any thoughts out there wikipedians? Cheers --Sjkebab 12:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't we move the current article to the name "Wet Laboratory", redirect queries such as "chemistry lab" to there, and rewrite the general labortory article to be less specific. Sound good?

Sounds good to me - I haven't done any work on my side of this yet, as I've been on holidays. Although, is "Wet Lab" the correct title? No idea personally... --Sjkebab 06:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

While I'm not opposed to moving the current article, I do question whether separate articles are warranted. There are thousands of kinds of labs, both "wet" and "dry", corresponding to the many different purposes of individual labs. There is a lot of overlap; for example would an electrochemistry lab be covered by "Laboratory_(Chemistry)" or "Laboratory_(Electronic)"? Articles for each would risk being repetitive and boring. Yet all labs have the common purpose of providing a controlled environment for scientific study. Safety is paramount in all labs, both for the public (harmful agents must be contained, whether biological viruses in a microbiology lab or computer viruses in a malware lab), and for the human occupants (both staff and, in some types of labs, subjects). --Rick Sidwell 16:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)


 * There are real differences between the type of lab described in this article and many actual labs, so I think some different classifications are in order. But we shouldn't try to enumerate every type, especially ones that might combine several classifications.  In my experience, the "wet" and "dry" dichotomy is the broadest classification scheme, with most every scientific discipline utilizing both types to varying degrees.  Of course, the problem is that these terms are a bit too colloquial.  While used frequently in practice, are they appropriate for encyclopedia article titles?  Does anyone have any better suggestions?

Lab is not always chemical. Physical laboratories may have little or no dangerous chemicals.


 * I agree that this article focuses too much on chemical laboratories. I think it should be moved to a specific article on chemical labs, and rewritten in a more generic manner. A comment about the safety issue: I am used to work in physics labs where we care most about handling radioactive stuff, which has nothing to do with chemistry. --Philipum 11:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Teaching laboratories
 * Chemical Laboratories
 * Wet labs
 * Dry labs
 * academic Labs
 * clandestine lab
 * medical lab
 * computer lab
 * film lab
 * psychologist or economist lab
 * metallurgy lab
 * physics lab
 * food lab
 * pharmacology lab?

Are all not covered properly. Please don't delegate anymore articles out. Sure some we have enough info on to write separate articles but I don't see the possibility a massive outpouring of academic students to flesh out a "Metallurgy lab" article, ever. We need to cover them all with their own section. We need book sources as well.--I'll bring the food (Talk - Contribs - My Watchlist) 04:05, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

1 November 2006 rewrite
This article was really bothering me. I rewrote it to take a more generic approach and removed the cleanup and globalize templates, replacing them with the expand template (as the article is still incomplete). The material from the old page should probably be incorporated back into this article or into other more specific articles (especially wet laboratory) but I don't have time to do this right now. Maybe I can work on it bit-by-bit later. Hopefully this new article provides a better basis for improvement... --User:Ajwitte

this song is fast u bye..haha —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.47.62 (talk) 13:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Baho niyo sulat niyo nalang.. xD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.127.219.13 (talk) 10:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are not in a lab you are forbidden to study with explosives and you are most likely able to get jail time. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.227.222 (talk) 22:02, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Red links in the See also section are based on the following....
--222.64.25.74 (talk) 00:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=biological+laboratory&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

Quarantine spec, or biosafety spec, expand are based on the following...
--222.64.25.74 (talk) 00:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/imported_assets/content/pw/q/quarantinewa_reg_prem.pdf
 * http://www.agric.wa.gov.au/PC_93008.html

I don't know which term is more appropriate --222.64.219.241 (talk) 00:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC) --222.64.219.241 (talk) 00:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.google.com/search?num=10&hl=en&q=allintitle%3A%20biosafety%20specification&sa=N&tab=sw
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=10&hl=en&q=allintitle%3A%20biosafety%20specification&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=ws
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+quarantine+specification&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0
 * http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A%20quarantine%20specification&sa=N&tab=sw

"Reagent Bottle" Entry Created - Please Add!
I just created the entry for Reagent bottle. If you have more useful and knowledgeable information, please do add it. Radical Mallard (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved: insufficient support. DrKiernan (talk) 09:30, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Laboratory → Laboratory (scientific research) – Current name is confusing since laboratory is really a generic name for multiple uses as made clear in the article lead. I see two options. Since this article is mainly focused on research, move it to the Laboratory (scientific research) of more simply Laboratory (research). Then create at the main name space a dab page or, as suggested above, a generic article about laboratories in general. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose under WP:COMMONNAME. When most people say "laboratory" they mean "scientific research laboratory". -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Or they mean the clinical lab that they go to for blood work or drug tests. I think it will be hard in this as to show which use is the common name.  Of course with the advent of the CSI based shows, crime lab could be more common or maybe drug labs (Meth etc).  Vegaswikian (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose This seems to be a good case for WP:DABCONCEPT. I largely agree that research laboratories are the primary usage of an unqualified "laboratory," but other uses have similar forms and functions such that this move would be splitting hairs. --BDD (talk) 19:14, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Laboratory equipment be merged

 * Oppose I'll go on record as opposing this unless it can be shown that the content of that article can only be applied to the content of this article and not used in any other type of lab. If it can be used in other types of labs, then having a separate article would be the best solution. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Laboratory History
I already added some information about history of laboratories. If anyone wants to add more information please do it, but please do not forget to check that the information is from reliable sources. -- Nalatpohn

protective lab coat
The beautiful Geneticist Riin Tamm is not wearing properly her protective lab coat in the image... — Preceding unsigned comment added by BenPaulJonas (talk • contribs) 09:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need a note to readers not to confuse Laboratory with Lavatory?
Is this really necessary? Do I have agreement to remove it? Skullcinema (talk) 15:56, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As no one objects I will take it out. Skullcinema (talk) 17:41, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Chemistry
illustrations for apparatuses 154.229.129.151 (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Short description
The current short description for this article reads "". That's hopelessly long (115 characters as against a maximum of about 40 per WP:SDSHORT). It misunderstands the whole purpose of short descriptions, improperly attempting to define the subject matter, contrary to WP:SDNOTDEF, rather than providing "a very brief indication of the field covered by the article" or "a short descriptive annotation"

I've made two suggestions so far, "Facility for science or technology" (34 characters) and "Facility providing controlled conditions" (40), but have been reverted twice, in each case back to the hopelessly long text which repeatedly puts the article back into the "excessively long SD" tracking category Category:Articles with long short description which I and other editors at WikiProject Short descriptions are trying to clear out.

Bearing in mind that we shouldn't go above about 40 characters, "Facility for science or technology" seems good, but I'm open to alternative suggestions. MichaelMaggs (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I also think the current short description is unwieldy. Regarding the two suggestions edits; as per the reversion text "Facility providing controlled conditions" encompasses cold-stores and grain silos, which are not really laboratories; "Facility for science and technology" is better but it is really still a bit vague, wouldn't The Science Museum fit this description?
 * Note that information page WP:SHORTDES indicates that the description should be 40 characters or less ideally, but 2 of 3 of the images of Examples of short description use on the page have examples of longer short descriptions. Given that the aim is to distinguish the article from similar articles, looking at the mobile search results for Labor... any confusion would seem to be with Laboratory mouse and Laboratory rat, which I think you would struggle to have a problem with.
 * We could follow the model that the editors of Laboratory mouse used and just adopt "Laboratory", which would be compliant with 2 out of 3 Purposes stated on the information page.
 * But in the spirit of fellowship, how about "Workplace for scientific investigations"? I caution though that those who use media, computer, language or clandestine labs aren't going to recognise this description of their place of work. Ultimately the root problem here is the English language. Skullcinema (talk) 11:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that in this case there isn't a need to distinquish from similar articles, which means the SD should supply a very brief indication of the field covered by the article or a short descriptive annotation. It's not useful simply to repeat the title, as that adds no further information (we have "None" available for cases where a SD is really not needed). "Scientific investigation facility" would work. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd like to not use the word facility as it implies an institution rather than a place (ie institution/building/room - see Wiktionary). Also the tension between science and non-science related uses of the same descriptor remains (both having their roots in the mediæval Latin use of the word laboratorium, simply 'place to work') and it is going to be a tall order to condense both usages into 40 characters or less I'm afraid. Obviously this raises the solution of separating the two meanings via a disambiguation page and re-writing this article and others, but that seems a bit extreme. Skullcinema (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Workplace for scientific activity would be OK — GhostInTheMachine talk to me 16:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I would still prefer "facility", but if a majority of editors prefer "workplace" that's fine. No stong views on "investigation" versus "activity". MichaelMaggs (talk) 19:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that is as good as it is going to get, it covers about two-thirds of the article. 'Activity' is better than 'investigation' as it is wider. The base issue is that the article is based on a 'word' rather than a 'thing'. It's like trying come up with a short description of fluke; not really possible. Skullcinema (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)