Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology

Potential significant change to species notability
Over on Wikipedia talk:Notability‎, several editors are working on a draft proposal to replace our current notability guidelines for species (all species are notable) with something much more restrictive (only species that go beyond certain limited pieces of information would be allowed their own articles). If you have opinions on this issue, now would be a good time to weigh in there. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also now at Village Pump (Policy): Village_pump_(policy) Crossroads -talk- 01:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Narwhal
Hi guys, can you help me combine the two phylogenetic trees? Thanks, Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 08:17, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Nature
Nature has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

RetractionBot
I posted this story from the Signpost last month. Things have evolved a bit and now Retraction bot handles Erratum, Expression of concern, and Retracted. These populate the following categories:


 * Category:Articles citing retracted publications
 * 1) Arsenic biochemistry
 * 2) Bioeconomy
 * 3) Biotechnology
 * 4) Hypoxia-inducible factor
 * 5) Stephen Jackson (biologist)
 * 6) Liposome extruder
 * Category:Articles citing publications with expressions of concern
 * 1) Fish intelligence
 * 2) Human genetic enhancement
 * Category:Articles citing publications with errata
 * 1) Alexander Silberman Institute of Life Sciences
 * 2) Biomarkers of aging
 * 3) Epiphenotyping
 * 4) Rubicon (protein)

If the citation is no longer reliable, then the article needs to be updated, which could be as minor as the removal/replacement of the citation with a reliable one, to rewriting an entire section that was based on flawed premises. If the citation to a retracted paper was intentional, like in the context of a controversy noting that a paper was later retracted, you can replace with / with / with.

I put the list of articles within the scope of WP:BIOL in sub-bullets. Any help you can give with those are greatly appreciated. Feel free to remove/strike through those you've dealt with. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 02:57, 21 July 2024 (UTC)