Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 5

Sodium in biology
Sodium in biology appears to be a new article. It may be an unintentional content fork (I don't know for sure). Also the title may not reflect the content of article. I don't work on biology articles and I thought this project would be interested in this article. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 16:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Did a quick look through of the article in question and the one on sodium. The article is currently mostly a content fork, but I think that many more biological aspects of sodium regulation and use could be put into the article. Perhaps, the sodium article can have a main article template in the biology section. This will encourage other users to expand the topic with stuff that will not fit in the sodium article. (Disclaimer: not given this much thought though)Staticd (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Vertebrate trachea needs work
The Vertebrate trachea (pointed to from the trachea disambiguation page) needs work. I suggest using the Bronchus page as a guide. Sorry, this is the first time in years that I've posted that other people should clean something up, I'm just busy this week. If you'd like to contact me, please do so on my talk page, thanks. :) Banaticus (talk) 07:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's History Month
Hi everyone. March is Women's History Month and I'm hoping a few folks here at WP:Biology will have interest in putting on events (on and off wiki) related to women's roles in Biology's history, society and culture. We've created an event page on English Wikipedia (please translate!) and I hope you'll find the inspiration to participate. These events can take place off wiki, like edit-a-thons, or on wiki, such as themes and translations. Please visit the page here: WikiWomen's History Month. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing events take place! SarahStierch (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Biophysics project
Hi all, I'm working with User:Dcrjsr to run an editing workshop for biophysicists in a couple of weeks. We anticipate a large audience -- perhaps 50-75 working scientists who want to help edit. I am thinking about starting a new biophysics WikiProject to provide a workspace for them and future biophysicists... alternatively, I might just start a task force page in the physics wikiproject.

Thoughts? Would there be interest in this community in working on a dedicated biophysics project? There is certainly enough to do on various biophysics articles, which of course are highly interdisciplinary. cheers, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is to be a WikiProject Biophysics, would it be more suitable directly under Biology, or as a subproject under Molecular and Cellular Biology? Feedback? Dcrjsr (talk) 15:04, 12 February 2012 (UTC)


 * If more people are coming to this area, I would be willing to help as time allows. Right now this is almost a desert. The recruitment of scientists may be difficult. I have seen several interesting strategies here:
 * 1) Bringing information resources from your lab to wikipedia (Rfam).
 * 2) Asking your graduate student to make his PhD project for wikipedia (ProteinBoxBot)
 * 3) Asking students to study certain subjects in the literature, write down a brief review of something they have learned, and place it to the wikispace (MicrobeWiki).
 * Unfortunately, methods 1 and 2 can only be used by someone who works in the area of Bioinformatics, rather than Biophysics. Other ideas? Biophys (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the Society for Neurobiology has been successful in getting their members to work on a Wikiproject Neurobiology, so we want to try the same thing. On reflection, I do believe it should be directly under Wikiproject Biology, not under Molecular and Cellular Biology or in Physics.  A task force might be more practical, but I think a Wikiproject would be much more effective in motivating people.  Does anyone have further advice?  At any rate, if this goes forward, we'll indeed ask for your help - thanks very much. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:07, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You may wish to look at recently created WikiProject_Computational_Biology and related discussions, . This looks like interesting idea. Speaking more generally, anyone can donate their already exiting texts or illustrations to wikipedia or wikisource under appropriate copyright conditions, rather than create everything from scratch. Biophys (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those tips! Dcrjsr (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Biophysics has now been started, with a skeleton main page, and we will be recruiting new participants at next week's Biophysical Society meeting. Any interested Wikipedians would be extremely welcome!! Dcrjsr (talk) 18:28, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional fossil article improvement
I've done some edits to the Transitional fossil article today, but it still needs a lot of work. For whatever reason the article seems to have been neglected until now. I have added it to the Evolutionary Biology Wikiproject and given it top importance. With some work we can get it to FA status. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Transitional Fossil peer-review

 * Peer_review/Transitional_fossil/archive1
 * Transitional fossil

It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. A large section of the article discusses Archaeopteryx and the origin of birds. Input from members of this wikiproject would be highly valued. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Paleontology
Infobox Paleontology has been nominated for deletion. 70.24.251.71 (talk) 08:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Circadian matters
I am about to embark on improvements to articles relating to circadian clocks, with a particular interest in improving content related to plant circadian clocks. So far I have edited the lede for circadian rhythm, and have moved circadian oscillator to circadain clock. Anyone with any sort of background or interest in chronobiology or circadian clocks in any way, feel free to give me a hand =) the state of affairs at the moment is a bit dire! Gorton k (talk) 21:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ontogeny and Phylogeny

 * Hi Everyone, I am some one who likes to read and then do something with what he has learned. In this case adding to Ontogeny and Phylogeny (now known only as phylogenetics) after reading Freud's Wolfman. At this moment both articles are purely biological/genetical in nature. However, the terms apply to both physical and mental properties. IMHO both should have one article on the general outline of the terms, with links to the more specialistic fields. However, one more experienced editor reversed my additions. I am now wondering how other people feel about this issue. So, my question to all of you is how to proceed to be of most service to all eager seekers? IMHO a disambiguation page would benefit people less than one general introduction page.
 * Your opinions, please.
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 15:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I am going to stop following this page After some deliberation with 2 more experienced editors a solution has been found.
 * --Fan Singh Long (talk) 09:39, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Biodiversity of New Caledonia, paleobotany forgotten
Hello, could someone to work on this article Biodiversity of New Caledonia. It is very important in Paleobotany and evolution. Could you to work on this article, please?. It is a very important archaic species group in Paleobotany and evolution.Curritocurrito (talk) 17:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

C-value enigma
Has the C-value paradox and the C-value enigma been completely solved, or is some of the enigma still unsolved?

I agree with the discussion at Talk:C-value enigma that the article C-value enigma currently seems self-contradictory. Various parts of the article seem to imply that the "paradox" has been completely solved, other parts imply that the "enigma" is still mostly unsolved.

Some editors  seem to think that noncoding DNA completely resolves the paradox and the enigma. Other editors seem to think there is still something left that is not completely explained in the article. For example, why does almost every cell in almost every human have more-or-less the same C-value -- 1.5% protein-coding genes and 98.5% non-coding DNA? Why don't some humans have two or three times as much non-coding DNA per cell? Alas, I don't know if there is something left that is completely outside the current state of human knowledge -- and therefore worthy of the unsolved tag -- or if most biologists agree on a "solution" to this enigma, and that Wikipedia article simply needs a few more details of that solution filled in. --DavidCary (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The total sequence difference between humans is less than 1%. This is because of both the rate of mutation and the fact that many major mutations are deleterious and don't spread. So it's unlikely that you will find people with gross differences in the non coding regions. However, more of the variations are in the non coding compared to the coding. This is because a good amount of non Coding DNA is truly junk. The CV enigma AFAICT is considered entirely settled by invoking


 * The presence of varying amounts of Non coding DNA( that are either junk, or semi-junk; where by semi junk I mean that the same function can be acheived by a smaller stretch of DNA)
 * Varying numbers of genes(relatively small contribution). The numbers of genes themselves are subject to a similar N value enigma.
 * The first solution to the NV-enigma is that with slightly more genes and enough regulatory(non coding) DNA you can get a way more complex network of interactions. Naively, as a toy example consider a system where the genes can be on or off (binary) - 12 genes will give 4096 states, 14 genses will give 16,384 states. Other sources of complexity include alternative splicing, post translational modification etc. Staticd (talk) 07:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam
HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research. —Wavelength (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Paleogenetics article in need of attention
Hi all,

I came across the article Paleogenetics and found it in pretty sorry shape—short, substandard writing quality, lack of strong and up-to-date sources. I've made some preliminary minor copyedits and removed some particularly bad bits, but the article is still rather shoddy. I have some knowledge of the anthropological aspect of it and would be happy to help out with that bit, but I am busy with other things at the moment and cannot guarantee much in-depth support for the next month or so. I was hoping that I'd find some editors around here who would be able to help improve this neglected article, which deals with a field that is quickly growing in prominence, especially with recent work on the Neandertal and Denisovan genomes by Svante Pääbo and others. Thanks, Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 06:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Life form
I expected to get at least a short explanation of this notion (e.g. in the context of biological life cycle), but redirects to an article without anything particularly useful. Let us fix the article list of life forms, or convert "life form" to somewhat useful stub not a trash redirect? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the difference between a "life form" and an organism (which is where "life form" redirected until recently)? List of life forms seems like a random collection of articles somehow related to the concept of life, not like a useful encyclopedic article. Ucucha (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Probably, the difference is the same as between state (polity) and form of government. An organism may become another life form through metamorphosis. Such explanations IMHO should not be placed in the organism article, but links to relevant articles. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting more watchers
I looked through the revision histories for Flora and Fauna, and found some instances of content deletion during vandalism reverts. The pages are a constant target of vandalism and test edits by IPs throughout the years, and I requested for semi-protection, but it was declined due to low activity. It looks like these articles just don't have enough users watching them, so if some users added the pages to their watchlist, then the content-replacement vandalism can be easily reverted once it happens instead of being completely removed by other IPs. Thanks - M0rphzone (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Expertise needed on a single cell protozoan called Collodictyon
It's a highly trafficked article in terms of pageviews in the thousands but knowledgeable people are needed since there are contrasting views (probably something seriously wrong). Is Collodictyon an early ancestor of humans? Does it live only in a Norwegian lake or elsewhere (probably elsewhere)? Is it one of the world's oldest living creatures, ie, hundreds of millions of years old? Seeking guidance, thanks.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to add the additional note that this is possibly going on Wikipedia's front page via WikiProject:In The News, if it can get some cleanup. (Comments are welcome on its nomination here.) Would any biology experts be willing to take a look? Khazar2 (talk) 01:38, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Expert eyes are needed. My non-expert sense is that something is amiss with the article, and there have been contributors trying to help get the article shipshape, but my sense is not to put it on Wikipedia's front page until people knowledgeable about this stuff fix up collodictyon.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As nominator for having this story on the front page of Wikipedia, I can only weigh in with my encouragement that expertise assist in this matter, i.e. both in making the article unambiguous and succinct, and also in sorting out if this does indeed justify a spot at WP:ITN presently. __meco (talk) 07:07, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Expertise required on AfC submission
Could someone knowledgeable in genetics please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chromosome 16 open reading frame 13 and let me know their thoughts on its notability and all round suitability? Thanks in advance. Pol430 talk to me 21:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Outdated articles?
Comments on Village_pump_(idea_lab) will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Triploidy, Quarploidy
What does anyone make of this statement in Biota_of_Tokyo_Imperial_Palace where it suggests that a) there are a lot of triploidy and quarploidy (no article yet) fish in a moat; b) they appear to be reproducing, which I thought was impossible for wrong quantity of genes; and c) that they appear to be reproducing identically, not just similarly, to their parents, and d) efforts have been made over a long period of time to exclude pollutants from the area?

c) and d) may be beyond the scope of a casual question here. It clearly puzzles the scientists studying it.Student7 (talk) 12:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Quarploidy" I assume is tetraploidy (i.e., 4-ploidy). Polyploidy is known in some fish, and I don't know why polyploids wouldn't be able to reproduce. Ucucha (talk) 12:43, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * they must be reproducing by ameiotic parthenogenesis which would make them clones of their parents.Staticd (talk) 08:00, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks! Exactly what I was looking for! Student7 (talk) 18:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation endorsing Access2Research
Hey all

The Wikimedia Foundation has decided to endorse Access2Research and its petition to make research funded by the US government publicly accessible. This will be done by way of a blog post on Friday morning PST; as noted, we are not trying to speak on behalf of the community, but just the Foundation itself. You can read more in the FAQ, and leave any comments or questions you might have on its talkpage.

Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 19:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

'Life' article PR request
Hello,

I've done some work on the Life article and put it on the Peer Review stack, with the review page located here: Peer_review. Since I'm not a subject matter expert, some knowledgeable input would be greatly appreciated. Please take a look if you have an interest. Thank you! Regards, RJH (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Endemism articles
I am not happy with: Both of these articles describe endemism within the political boundaries of a continent. Endemism should be discussed in terms of biogeographical regions rather than political jurisdictions. Deleting the two articles would be an improvement because I suspect it will be quite some time before we get some decent articles on endemism for specific regions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * List of species endemic to Mendocino County, California - it is a simple, unreferenced list without references
 * Endemic Species in Slovakia - the article name is wrong but more importantly it is also unreferenced
 * Take your case to WP:Articles for deletion. Leave us a note here if you do saying that you have done so. Chrisrus (talk) 06:16, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Biology and political orientation
Hello - I think it is admissible to post an alert here to this AfD regarding a biology-related topic. —MistyMorn (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Chrisrus (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Laws of science Biology anyone?
Hello, Biologists are very welcome and helpful to edit laws of science: please add anything you think would constitute "Laws of Biology". No need to be quantitative, anything qualitative is fine (and expected). Thank you! (I'm an up-and-coming mathematical physicist, and hopeless in Biology... all I could add to the article was the obvious Mendelian inheritance...). F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 22:51, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * for those curious and with access a nice read is
 * Staticd (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Anatomy of a Grasshopper
Hi, I just vectorized which shows the anatomy of the mouth of a grasshopper. The vectorized images is. In the original image the colors of the mandible and labrum seems swapped in the frontal and bottom view. This is wrong right? I tried to fix it in the vectorized image. Cheers! — westeros91 (talk) 16:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * good work. The original image had the colors right but the labels interchanged. The correct order should be (top to bottom) labrum, mandibles, labium. Will you fix it or should I? Staticd (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

George has confused me
Need a friendly taxonomist here: queries raised by the death of Lonesome George. There are apparently individuals that are a cross between Chelonoidis nigra abingdoni and C.n.becki. These individuals are, one must assume, likely to be fertile. Presumably they are equally members of both subspecies, and therefore fully members of neither. In which case: what are they? As I understand it, a new subspecies cannot be declared to have emerged overnight, so are they simply C.n x, or C.n abingdoni x becki, or C.n ssp.? If they then reproduce within the local population, which must be assumed to be overwhelmingly C n becki, what are the offspring to be described as? Eventually, I guess, we end up with C n becki animals with a small admixture of C n abingdoni DNA, or do we?. If the genetic material of C.n abingdoni continues within the same species, can the subspecies be genuinely declared "extinct", or is it regarded as somehow "subsumed". As you will guess, this is not my area of expertise. Kevin McE (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Heya I responded to this at Talk:Chelonoidis_nigra_abingdoni. Send me a message for more info. Cheers, Faendalimas  talk 19:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Biology prefixes and suffixes
Category:Biology prefixes and suffixes has been proposed to be renamed to Category:Affixes used in Biology -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Categories for discussion
There are discussions for the categories: Biology prefixes and suffixes, Bird terminology, Biology terminology & Ecology terminology, that could do with your input. Brad7777 (talk) 16:02, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Cell Biology Textbook
Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Wikipedia community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book Saylor.org's Cell Biology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Azinheira (talk • contribs) 17:29, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A-class
So: let me just throw this out. Is anyone here interested in building an A-class review process? The process would be similar in some ways to peer review, but, if it works, it would do a better job of pushing articles along the path to FAC. We've had a lot of successful biology articles at FAC lately. At Wikimania, I was talking with one of the Smithsonian's Encyclopedia of Life people, and she was complaining that their people wanted to do more with Wikipedia but were often frustrated and confused by our processes; I think if they're dealing with an A-class process, that could in theory make a better impression and smooth over some of the difficulties. - Dank (push to talk) 18:34, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to help out with reviews. (Might want to advertise also at WP:Tree of Life) Sasata (talk) 18:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. - Dank (push to talk) 19:16, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Before commencing this, do we have reason to believe the current GA/FA processes are insufficient? I find most biology articles are reviewed pretty readily....? Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know; how many writers of biology articles do we have who want to bring articles to FAC and think they could make it work with more collaboration and more reviews? If there are more than a handful, then I'll volunteer some copyediting time. - Dank (push to talk) 03:14, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My view is that the GA process (not FA) is pretty much the A-class process used across most wikiprojects. If it's GA, it's A-class.  That's my recommendation, and no sense getting A-class solo without GA too.  The extra eyes, frankly, can occasionally be a pain, but the goal IS to write for a general audience, not the in-project clique.  Montanabw (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I've found A-class to be helpful because it brings more knowledgeable eyes onto an article rather than just one random GAN reviewer (no disrespect intended to those who review there&mdash;they do very hard work). I haven't gone through GAN for years because of that. Just my 2 cents. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:08, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * When both exist, like MilHist WP, it can be useful. However, my take is that the same criteria should be used for both A-class and GA.  I suppose there is something to be said for a project passing something as A-class before it goes to FA, but I've seen several GA noms have multiple reviewers, though less so than for FA. I know in some articles, the problem of creating something readable to the layperson is an issue that warrants eyes outside a project.  I've also had trolls show up in all of the above, so no protection from that sort of thing. (sigh)   Montanabw (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comments on David L. Spector (cell biologist) article
Hi,

A new article was just added on the cell biologist David L. Spector of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. Please feel free to take a look at the article make comments, edits, corrections, or to add content.

Jjjjjjjjjj (talk) 02:13, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ProteinBox ECnumber
Template:ProteinBox ECnumber has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 05:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Society of Biology Wikipedia workshop
Wikimedia UK is running a workshop on editing Wikipedia for the Society of Biology in London, next Wednesday 29 August 2012.

Details are at Society of Biology Wikipedia workshop.

At present we have 10 attendees signed up for the event, including both academics and press/communications officers. All of them will have registered wikipedia accounts by the day, and I will be discussing Wikiprojects, particularly WikiProject Biology, during the training sessions.

It may be that we'll be (lightly) editing some articles that interest the attendees, or it may be that they don't get beyond their sandboxes, but I'd ask you to keep an eye open for their efforts and welcome them if you get the chance. If you wish, I'll supply you with a list of their usernames after the event, so that you can follow up and perhaps encourage them to join WikiProject Biology.

Please ping me if you need further information, or if there's anything else I can do to help your project. --RexxS (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It might help you notify the more active daughter projects of WikiProject Biology. This WikiProject is really just an umbrella "mother"-project. Much of the membership and activity are at the lower tiers - WikiProject Tree of Life, Animals, Plants, Genetics, Microbiology, Paleontology, etc. -- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  23:38, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We'll do what we can (I'm also taking part). Given the audience I think there would be interest in biographies of UK biologists that need attention, among other topics. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

ammoniotelic / ammonotelic - Need two articles? Redirect? Rename?
We have an article at Ammoniotelic.

The article Dinosaur says:


 * "at least some modern birds (such as hummingbirds) can be facultatively ammonotelic"

Google gives 13,400 hits for "ammonotelic" and 2,000 for "ammoniotelic".

- If these two terms describe two different things, then could a knowledgeable person please create a stub for ammonotelic

- If they are alternate spellings for the same thing, then we should have a redirect, and apparently the main article should be at ammonotelic

Thanks.

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a misspelling or a rare alternative (and recent) spelling. I have moved the article. Published sources exclusively use "ammonotelic".-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  15:36, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've corrected and expanded the articles.-- O BSIDIAN  †  S OUL  16:21, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

biology classes editing Wikipedia, need help from experienced editors
There are a number of biology-related classes working with the Wikipedia Education Program that are starting up around now, and several could use the help of experienced editors. If that sounds like something you want to do, you can become an Online Ambassador. If you're interested, let me know, or if you've got questions about the role, please ask. In any case, the work done by students in these classes may be of interest

I listed some classes at WikiProject Medicine and WikiProject Neuroscience. In addition to those, here are the most relevant:


 * Conservation Biology
 * Prokaryotic Diversity (needs an Online Ambassador or three)
 * Readings in Environmental Studies
 * Tropical Wildlife (no course page yet, needs an Online Ambassador or three)
 * Behavioral Ecology (needs an Online Ambassador or three)
 * Evironment and Society (needs an Online Ambassador or three)

You can see the other courses in the United States and Canada programs here: Canada, US.--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 16:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Astrobiology Portal
The project's biologists may wish to comment at Village pump (idea lab). -- John of Reading (talk) 06:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

RFC: Talk:Levomefolic acid
Levomefolic acid → L-methylfolate – I think an exception to naming guidelines to prefer the INN name (Levomefolic acid) needs to be granted because all modern research that I've seen, including the naming of the drugs made from Metafolin, are using the name l-methylfolate. Google Scholar ghits since 2008 for "l-methylfolate" are 227, ghits for "Levomefolic acid" are just. This RFC has been up for over two weeks and has few comments. I posting this here because l-methylfolate was first identified and named as a biological substance, not a drug. '''Please post your comments on the article's talk page so they can be seen be by all. Thank you. - Stillwaterising (talk) 14:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

FAR
I have nominated Barbara McClintock for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dana boomer (talk) 16:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Portal idea: Microbiology
Hi! I notice that the French Wikipedia has fr:Portail:Microbiologie but we don't yet have Portal:Microbiology. Would anyone like to start that portal? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 17:09, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Women in science
Sarah Stierch (talk) and Keilana&#124;Parlez ici have started a new WikiProject, WikiProject Women scientists. If you have any questions, feel free to ask one of us on our talk page. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:45, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Entomology taxonomy
I recently started the article Robert Cooley (entomologist). I was looking for mentions of Cooley in Wikipedia, and addded a link to the tick Ornithodoros kelleyi. There are several mentions of Cooley and his colleague Glen Milton Kohls as taxonomic authorities on the following pages: Ixodes, Ixodes pacificus, Dermacentor. How are such mentions handled? Is it normal to link the taxonomic authority or not, and how is it mentioned on the biography of the researcher if one exists? Also, there is the tick Ixodes cooleyi - what is the best source to find out/confirm if this was named after Cooley? I did find some sources on Kohls, but maybe not enough for an article: picture here, and two sources here. It seems an obituary of Kohls appeared in "Clifford & Keirans, 1986. Proc. ent. Soc. Wash. 89: 375-383". Would that be easy to get hold of? Carcharoth (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Authorities should be linked if the authority is notable, so you should feel free to link Cooley anywhere he is listed as an authority.
 * How to handle it on the biography itself is a matter of judgment. You need to decide whether the fact that he named a particular species or other taxon is a notable aspect of his work. Often it will be, but it would hardly be useful to name any particular one of the hundreds of species named by Oldfield Thomas.
 * Usually, the best way to verify that a species is named after someone is to look at the original description of the species (which you can often dig up from sources like the Biodiversity Heritage Library) and obituaries. The Proceedings of the Entomological Society of Washington is one of the journals available on BHL, and you can find Kohls's obituary at . Ucucha (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found at least four ticks presumably named after Cooley: Argas cooleyi Kohls & Hoogstraal, 1960, original description here; Haemaphysalis cooleyi Bedford, 1929, Report Director Veterinary Services Pretoria, vol. 15, pages 493-499; Ixodes cooleyi Aragão & Fonseca, 1951, ; Ornithodoros cooleyi McIvor, 1941, . Aragão & Fonseca mention that the species was indeed named after Cooley ("como homenagem ao Dr. R. A. Cooley, de Montana"), but McIvor does not mention an etymology and I don't have access to the other original descriptions, so I'm not positive they were named after Cooley. There is also a Rickettsia genotype named after him . Ucucha (talk) 21:01, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for that. The BHL hosting of scans of various journals is something I wasn't aware of, and it was great to be able to read the obituary of Kohls. Two pages, but enough for a well-rounded couple of paragraphs at some point probably, plus the list of publications. I'm going to add those links, and then think about how best to add the other stuff. Please feel free to add some of this yourself, as that would give me an idea of how best to phrase this sort of thing. If you have access to Cooley's obituary as well (details are included in the article), or know if that is online anywhere, that would be great as well. Carcharoth (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Genera category names
FYI, there's been a proposal put forward that all genera categories should be undisambiguated. However, the discussion this is occurring for have multiple genera with the same name, so WP Biology involvement is probably a good idea. See the discussion for Category:Orania -- Orania, Category:Phoebe -- Phoebe, Calamus -- Category:Calamus, Gaussia -- Category:Gaussia, Arachnis -- Category:Arachnis, Eucharis -- Category:Eucharis, Hypolepis -- Category:Hypolepis ; these names are used for both plant and animal genera. -- 70.24.248.246 (talk) 05:27, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

Model Organism Protein Expression Database
I wrote the database article, and another article, SPIRE which is also flagged for deletion. These protein/gene analysis resources are being used by researchers in the field, and although MOPED in particular is a recent development it is being cited. Other similar resources are in wiki (Peptide Atlas, TPP, PeptideProphet), and so if an article is not the right way to go about documenting the resources please help me determine what is the right way. Should they be subsidiary pages of Seattle Children's Research Center as some other resources are of the Seattle Proteome Center? Thank you Eastewart2010 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Pair bond
Would it be possible to improve the above article, so that it has more information, with better sources. At the moment, it mentions birds, mammals, humans and fish, while not saying a great deal about any of them. I believe that there is a lot of research on birds, and if just that was covered in more detail it would be useful. The research on primates would be useful too, to contextualise any speculation about hominids and humans that should be in the article. Thanks if anyone is able to do this. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedian in Residence: Natural History Museum, London
Hi all,

Just to let you know that the Natural History Museum in London is advertising for a Wikipedian in Residence, working jointly there and at the Science Museum next door; it's a paid post for four months, and applications are open until 10th February. I've worked with Ed Baker at the NHM to define the scope of the program, and it looks really promising - there's some real opportunities for interesting projects here. Details are available on the National Museums site, and there's some details about other upcoming WiR programs here.

Please pass this on to anyone who might be interested, and feel free to get in touch with me if you've any questions. Thanks, Andrew Gray (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Viruses
Portal: Viruses has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.246.233 (talk) 06:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Microtome - referenced figure is missing
There's a confusion that I think needs a simple fix, but I'm not familiar with WP procedures, and am hoping someone who knows their way around can easily take care of it.

Like at least one other reader (16 December 2010), I wondered about the missing figure to the left, (where) the principle of the cut is explained. Then I found where this text had been imported "(loosely) translated de:Mikrotom content" on 31 October 2009 by a now-retired editor, but omitting the referenced figure, I'm sure it's not worth redoing the figure to substitute English for the German labels, but perhaps the figure could be referenced either by an endnote or external link, and let readers deal with the German as they are able. Milkunderwood (talk) 07:34, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
 * http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Prinzip_Mikrotomschnitt_(Rotationsmikrotom).svg.


 * You can download the SVG file and open it in a simple text editor. Search for the German words such as "Zustellung" and translate them.  Give the new file an English name and upload it to Commons together with a link to the German version.  I could do it if you translate the words.  Alternatively, add the German image to the article and translate the German words in the image caption. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 13:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I used Inkscape to convert the text in the image, and uploaded it to Commons as File:Microtome principle.svg, and then added the diagram to the microtome article. Anybody who would like to make improvements is free to do so.  Note that there is a bit of layout-borking due to Wikipedia's difficulties with SVG fonts, but I think the quality should be acceptable. Looie496 (talk) 18:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That's great! You guys are amazing. Thank you. Milkunderwood (talk) 19:35, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Infant
see talk:Infant where the title of the article is in question -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 15:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Collaboration with Project Noah?
Dear biologists,

I've quite often stumbled over "Project Noah" (www.projectnoah.org), and always asked myself, why there is no collaboration between Wikipedia and Project Noah. Since they are trying to document/photograph as many life-forms as possible, and Wikipedia is basically doing the same, only more in written form, it seems only logical to share information. So I wrote an email to project Noah and indeed they would in general be interested to collaborate:

Hi Simon, we would be excited to collaborate with Wikipedia & are happy to share data & photographs from Project Noah on the basis that both the photographer and www.projectnoah.org are attributed. If you are involved with Wiki & could broker an introduction for us that would be appreciated. Kind regards Karen Loughrey

My question now is, if Wikipedia indeed is interested in such a collaboration (and if it's possible under the terms that Karen stated?) or is it just me thinking that's a good idea? And who would actually be the decision maker for such things here in Wikipedia? Cheers --Rockwurm (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

File:Chromosome location of CCDC113.gif
File:Chromosome location of CCDC113.gif has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:14, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Multiple Normal Tissue Expression of A1BG.jpg
File:Multiple Normal Tissue Expression of A1BG.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:06, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

AfC submission
Just a heads-up in case anyone wants to review this submission. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like it hasn't yet been submitted for review -- if it was, I would accept it immediately. Looie496 (talk) 23:59, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Abiogenesis
Hi! Could someone review the recent changes to Abiogenesis? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 15:13, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Minimum free energy.PNG
File:Minimum free energy.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 07:09, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Another Afc submission
Here's an interesting one: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Human Olfactory Data Explorer. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 22:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

New Wikidata task force
A new task force is working on taxonomy d:Wikidata:Taxonomy task force. --Tobias1984 (talk) 12:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

ORCID identifiers
ORCID, the Open Research Contributor ID is an identifier for contributors to academic journals, and other such publications, including Wikipedia. It's the equivalent for such people of an ISBN for a book. I would encourage all editors, but especially those who also contribute to scientific papers, to register for an ORCID. If you know any biologists (or other scientists or academics) who are the subject of a Wikipedia article, please ask them to do so, too. ORCIDs can be added to articles, or user pages, using the Authority control template. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

NanKang Biotech Incubation Center.png
file:NanKang Biotech Incubation Center.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.79.6 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Size comparison diagram discussion at Goblin shark
See discussion at Talk:Goblin_shark - discussion over whether this diagram should be in the taxobox, elsewhere or not in the article at all. All input welcomed. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

The Strange Case of the Glenn of Imaal Terrier
This is very interesting:

There's a problem with reporting the straight facts about the Glen of Imaal Terrier. On the one hand, we have a) the known history and b) the fact that it looks, behaves, and basically is a perfectly normal not particularly exceptional terrier (see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Glen_of_Imaal_Terrier).

On the other hand, we have the enormous weight of this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/fig_tab/nature08837_F1.html#figure-title, which seems to contradict all of that, and is signed onto by a very long list of experts, some of which I know in the dog world are quite famous and well-respected, and published by no less than The Journal Nature. Or maybe it doesn't; I'm no expert; that's why I'm here. I keep rubbing my eyes and looking at it but I can't see it any other way, and so I have decided to come here to ask for more expert eyes than mine to tell me if I'm wrong; but it seems to be saying that the Glen of Imaal Terrier shares a more recent common ancestor with the molossers, such as for example, pit bulls, than it does with any of the other terriers our eyes and recorded history tell us it is related to, such as, for example, a Yorkshire Terrier?

How can we be expected to write a coherent article about this dog with such incoherent facts?

So anyway, here's the point:

Does anyone here have 1) the ability to get past the paywall and read the Nature article that goes with the graphic, 2) the proper background to understand the article?

and 3) Am I reading this wrong or can we reconcile this graphic with everything we see and believe about the history, nature, and origin of the Glen of Imaal Terrier?

Chrisrus (talk) 04:47, 2 July 2013 (UTC)


 * It's questionable to interpret those plots in terms of most recent common ancestry. The problem is that dog breeds are not genetically isolated.  Most breeds can be bred with most other breeds and produce viable offspring.  The plots should really be interpreted in terms of genetic similarity rather than necessarily in terms of ancestry, I believe.  For example, it seems possible that somewhere in the process of creating the breed a few Norwich-type terriers were mated with bulldog-type terriers.  (Disclaimer:  I don't know much about dog breeds, so I apologize if I've said anything silly.) Looie496 (talk) 05:06, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * There is nothing particularly contradictory about looking like a normal terrier and being genetically slightly more similar to some mastiff-like dogs. What an animal looks like is often not a very good indication of its evolutionary position, and I suspect that's even more true for domesticated animals that are bred to look a particular way. You should look for other sources on the history of this particular breed, particularly those explicitly discussing genetics. The paper you link to cites (in Supplemental Table 4) the position of the Glen of Imaal as concordant with historical evidence for admixture between mastiff-like dogs and terriers. Ucucha (talk) 07:27, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * "Somewhere in the process of creating the breed, a molosser or molossers must have been used." Is that safe to say, or is there any other possibility? Chrisrus (talk) 15:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * That sounds like original synthesis to me. I know virtually nothing about dogs; you should go find sources that talk about this and summarize them in the article. Ucucha (talk) 18:34, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, like I say, we still have the traditional sources we always had, which tell the old story, and then this one that seems say something else. Now we have to put it together in a coherent way. Chrisrus (talk) 19:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

You suggest finding sources that talk about this and summarize them in the article. Here is the one and only source that talks about this: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v464/n7290/fig_tab/nature08837_F1.html#figure-title There is no more, but this couldn't be a more reliable sourse. How would you summarize what it says about the Glen of Imaal Terrier? Chrisrus (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit dispute at goblin shark
Another edit dispute has arisen regarding this article. Please add your opinion to Talk:Goblin shark. -- Yzx (talk) 01:26, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Removal of material on biological contamination of Earth from Mars
This probably needs some introduction first.

Origin of the concerns
Carl Sagan was concerned about back contamination of Earth, and all the official studies since then have confirmed his concerns.

The main concern is that in the worst case it could cause environmental disruption of the Earth. This is thought to be a very low probability possibility, but can't be ruled out. As a result the conclusions of studies by the European Space Foundation, and the National Research Council, is that a great deal of care should be taken for any Mars sample return.

Legal issues and need for public debate
Due to the international nature of the low probability worst case scenarios, there are also many legal issues including internationally and the domestic policies of countries other than the launching nation, and the need to involve the public in debate world wide.

Mainstream view
This is the mainstream view. There is an organization ICAMSR which is an advocacy group opposed to any return of a sample to Earth. They shouldn't be confused with this mainstream view that accepts the concern and says a return to Earth is possible but needs great care, changes of law and worldwide public consultation.

Some space colonization advocates such as Zubrin take the view that these concerns have no scientific validity but his is not a mainstream view.

All the material I contributed on this removed
An editor has removed all the material I contributed to wikipedia discussing these issues. My material was heavily cited and carefully researched. He did it on authority of an AfD of an article I wrote, which was improperly carried out in many ways.

He seems to have support of most of the other editors who have got involved in the debate so far, so am posting to other related projects, to see if I get more sympathy elsewhere where perhaps there will be editors with different views on it all.

Links to follow up more
This is a short summary of it from previous version of the back contamination issues page: Back contamination from Mars

Here is a longer treatment which I keep in my user page because I can't add this to the main space in wikipedia at present:

Mars Sample Receiving Facility and sample containment

This is about irregularities in the AfD. Previous AfD

This is WPs most recent proposal to remove everything on interplanetary contamination issues from wikipedia except for one article (plus a short page about the extreme views of the ICAMSR).

Merger Proposal III

Why I posted here
I'm not sure what to do, and am posting to any place I might get sympathy and help about what to do next. Robert Walker (talk) 09:52, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(replaced previous post here as realised the topic needs an introduction for people not familiar with the issues, and because of updates in what WP proposes)


 * I'm not sure what this is about. Are you proposing to create a new article, or to alter some existing article in some way?  Can you clarify what you are hoping to accomplish by putting this material here? Looie496 (talk) 15:01, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * I hoped to find some way to restore this material to wikipedia which has been deleted by an opposing editor who is of the opinion that it should not be included in the encyclopedia. It is well cited and notable, and surely should be included in wikipedia somewhere, seems to me, was hoping some of you here might agree. I haven't been topic banned, just had one article deleted in an AfD and this seems to be taken as reason to not include anything on this topic in wikipedia.


 * Does that answer your question? Robert Walker (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * After looking it over, I believe that the material you added to the interplanetary contamination article actually does belong there. But you're really shooting yourself in the foot with your approach to this -- your posts (like the one here) are so long and so intricately structured that other editors have great difficulty understanding them, and that naturally gives rise to hostility.  If you could find a way to communicate using short, terse messages, it would be much easier to make progress.  If you're prepared to do that, I'm willing to back you up on the article's talk page.  I obviously don't guarantee that my support will change anything, but I'm willing to try. Looie496 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks I appreciate it. I can try and perhaps you can warn me if I say too much. It's different when I feel you want to help.


 * Should say, an admin Robert McLenon has been helping me, and he had many insults fired at him for assisting me, so expect fierce opposition if you intervene. I'm posting here because I feel he isn't doing anything. This is what he said User_talk:Robertinventor and why I feel I no longer have his help.


 * Note that since I posted here, the editors have merged Back-contamination and Forward-contamination to Interplanetary contamination and they now propose to merge it all to Planetary protection. Back-contamination is where I added the material originally. I know I'm not good at "diplomacy".Robert Walker (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As a result of the latest events is clear that this topic is not welcome anywhere in wikipedia. I have decided to reuse the articles I wrote for wikipedia on other sites where this well cited notable scientific material is welcome, under CC By SA. Those articles of course are released under the same license. So, the content can be used here in the future if the climate of opinion on this matter changes. Robert Walker (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * As regards WPs allegaton that I was deliberately lying to mislead you - I meant just that I added it to Back-contamination originally before that article got redirected, not that it was my first use of the material in wikipedia.


 * You said to be brief and I can't explain all the complexities of what happened in a single sentence. It is partly why I have ended writing these long "walls of text" because if I try to be brief he immediately picks on some detail like that and insults me for it. I did nothing wrong, just re-used material from an AfD in another article which is permitted as an AfD is not a topic ban. With a bit more conversation I'd have explained it in as much detail as you wanted. Anyway now he has entered this conversation is probably not going to go anywhere productive but see what you think. Robert Walker (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * If anyone wants a fuller history: the first place I added the content to was Manned mission to Mars, where there was a request to expand the Concerns section because the article was thought to be biased without it. Later when that section got too long I was going to trim it down and merge relevant content with the rest of wikipedia and cite those back in Manned mission to Mars. There is a long story about what happened after that, trying to find the right page for it, as clearly notable, and should be here somewhere. I tried part of it as a section in Mars sample return but it was too long so needed short summary and agreement on the talk page that it needed a separate article. So made that separate article but it was deleted in an AfD. Then, all my contributions to Project Mars on contamination issues removed. Finally ended up putting a short summary of some of the material on Back-contamination but that then got removed as well and merged away. Have finally concluded that this material is not welcome anywhere in wikipedia. Though it is notable, and well cited, following standards of good scholarship, and encyclopaedic, it is just not desired here at present. My opponents in this dispute adopt a revisionist approach that certain things in the source material shouldn't be mentioned at all here in wikipedia, and don't want to see an extensive treatment of it anywhere here either as a separate article or part of a larger article. If you include that material, especially any mention of environmental disruption or need for international public debate, attributed to anyone except the ICAMSR,  either as quotes or exact summaries or anything, then the content is deleted from wikipedia, although clearly stated in the cited sources for anyone to read. Robert Walker (talk) 19:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)


 * BatteryIncluded and Warren Platts are the two main editors who opposed me throughout and due to many strange bizarre coincidences that happened I suspected them of being sock puppets or meat puppets, but who can tell on wikipedia. E.g. how did they both find this page within 10 minutes of each other? This sort of thing has happened often. Robert Walker (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * @ Looie496: you have no clue what you're about to step into. Robert is already lying to you: Back-contamination is not the "original" place he added cut 'n' pasted stuff from his AfD article, that was deleted because it was an editorial rant. It also appeared here, here, here--that I know about. Losing an AfD is not an invitation to cut 'n' paste the deleted content to other articles. It is the most POV-pushing fringe view (that Planet Earth is in grave danger because of Mars exploration) I have seen since Apollo Moon hoaxers. He has spammed his published opinion pieces in at least one place here. His POV-pushing walls o' text have proved to be extremely disruptive. He cares NOTHING for wasting other people's time. He is extremely self-absorbed and paranoid, making absurd allegations of sock puppetry in multiple places: but one example here. He should not only be topic banned, he should be site banned because even a formal topic ban from project WP:MARS articles will not stop him: next he will be cutting and pasting his propaganda to Earth environment and biology articles; when he gets chased away from there, he will start cruising philosophy and ethics projects. Feel free to waste your time--you'll soon see.... Warren Platts (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Hello Looie496. Briefly: Walker's article was removed (and only the relevant content merged elsewhere) as the consensus was that it was not neutral and that he tortures the references to state his own POV. It seems he is now attempting a point of view (POV) fork (WP:Content forking), to avoid neutral point of view guidelines and to highlight negative viewpoints or facts. (e.g., Mars, there be dragons). Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 18:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not attempting a POV fork. I have attempted to add notable well cited material summarizing the results of the official studies and the views of the Office of Planetary Protection. It has become clear over the last few weeks that this material is not welcome on wikipedia. In particular no mention at all of the Mars Receiving Facility proposals is permitted except to say that there are plans to build such a facility, and it is not permitted currently to say that one of the motivations for this facility is to prevent contamination of the Earth capable of causing environmental disruption. Only the most minimal treatment of forward and backward contamination is now permitted in wikipedia, despite an extensive literature on the subject. It is clear that POV bias is not the main objection as I have offered to rewrite this material with the aid of a collaborator who I respect with the diametrically opposed POV to me, and this offer was not accepted.

My opponents in the debate regarded my edits in Back-contamination (now removed in a merge) as a POV fork because it includes this forbidden material and their treatments of it in the Mars sample return mission article does not.

On this page, the discussion of any international legal issues or need for international debate is no longer permitted on wikipedia though well cited as you see User:Robertinventor/Mars_Sample_Return_Legal_Issues_and_International_Public_Debate

Pretty much this entire page is not permitted: User:Robertinventor/Mars_Sample_Receiving_Facility_and_sample_containment. Mentions of the Mars receiving facility can say no more than that NASA plan to build a biohazard 4 laboratory to receive the materials.

It is not permitted to mention that the proposed facility would be required to be far more than biohazard 4, as described on that page, or to mention that it has as one of its design goals the aim to prevent biological contamination that could in the worst (unlikely) case cause environmental disruption of the Earth.

A currently open RfC on the Mars sample return mission talk page makes it clear that this is the considered opinion of many editors, and is a near consensus with only myself opposing it. Though that RfC is about a single section in a larger article, my objections to that section cover the main points of diference, so it also gives a clear idea of the general tenor of opinion on this matter.

So there seems to be nothing that can be done about it. I of course accept this near consensus view, that the material is inappropriate here, as this is due procedure on wikipedia.

As a result I have started to release it elsewhere instead, under CC by SA. Since it is under CC by SA, it is under the same license, and can be used back here in the future if the opinion here changes. Robert Walker (talk) 10:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)