Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology/Archive 8

Should biological articles be purged of teleological language?
An IP editor appears to be attempting to remove all traces of teleological language from biology articles such as Cicada and Mantis. Perhaps we need to consider what policy is or should be on the question, as more articles may become involved.

For context, phrases like "camouflaged TO evade predators" are often considered teleological, the "to" implying a purpose to the adaptation involved. Biologists admit to feeling discomfort with the use of teleology, real or apparent, as among other reasons it has a history related to natural theology and could today be related to intelligent design. However, many biologists use teleological explanations routinely.

Removing apparent teleology in explanations of adaptations, even if it is possible, is potentially cumbersome, as an account of how adaptation works through natural selection is likely to be longer, and repetitive. Some philosophers of biology think however that removing it is not entirely possible without damaging the intended meaning, in other worlds that teleology is inherent in (evolutionary) biological thought.

I'd be grateful to hear what position people think we should take on the matter. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:49, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I can see how it could be cumbersome in some cases, but I don't see why it's harder to write something like "have adaptations that camouflage them from predators" rather than "are camouflaged to avoid predators". Dinoguy2 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * CC, I have seen you around a lot on biology articles and you are an extremely good and valued editor. However, on this occasion, I must disagree with you and support the removal of teleological language.  The most basic principle of evolution is that it has no specific "direction" - mutations occur randomly and those adaptations which confer the greatest fitness are those which are passed on to the next generation.  To write in a way that suggests evolution has a direction is, IMHO, quite seriously misleading.  We can find ways around this. DrChrissy (talk) 21:22, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with replacing teleological language with more appropriate phrasing where possible. I wouldn't necessarily suggest that it's a top priority that it be purged, either, except in really egregious instances, but if somebody wants to do it and doesn't completely muck up the articles in the process, then good for them. It's not like they're wrong. Anaxial (talk) 23:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with what Anaxial said. Plantdrew (talk) 03:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, my view is that Wikipedia articles should reflect what is out there, not our own points of view. In biology articles, we should reflect what biologists write, and teleology in biology is certainly extremely common. It is not clear that teleological language can be removed - so I would agree with the "where possible" to the extent that, in general, it probably isn't possible, and will generally make the wording longer, more complex, more repetitive, and less direct than "to" (as in "to do xyz", "to evade predators"); it will also generally fail to solve the supposed problem.


 * To take Dinoguy2's example, "have adaptations that camouflage them from predators" is still implicitly teleological, the camouflaging from predators is a function, which can't help implying purpose, though biologists and probably all of us (as per DrChrissy), would deny any connection to natural theology. As for being right or wrong, Anaxial, the only thing that would be wrong here would be for an editor to change possibly thousands of articles to support their own editorial Point of View, something that is explicitly forbidden by policy. We shouldn't go there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Teleological language can easily mislead the public into a false understanding of how evolution operates. Wikipedia should lead by example and strive to remove all teleological language. It's not top priority, but I think that situations where the teleological wording is preferable is very rare. In terms of policy, I recon the most relevant is therefore WP:OVERSIMPLIFY. (nb, like most evolutionary biologists I am very bad at actually following my own advice on this an frequently need to check my writing for exactly this issue) T.Shafee(Evo&#65120;Evo)talk 11:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't feel there is a top priority to purging articles (perhaps gradual removal might be a better plan), but I certainly think we need to be careful about adding to teleology. I write mainly in the animal behaviour, welfare and senses subject areas.  This perhaps makes me more tuned in to teleology because we usually write very carefully to avoid anthropomorphism and anthropocentrism.  For example, to say that an animal has a peak visual sensitivity to a particular frequency "to enable it to detect prey X" may be nonsense unless we know what other frequencies the animal can also visually detect (many, many animals have not been assessed for their visual sensitivity to UV radiation). DrChrissy (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously claims need to be supported with reliable evidence, which in the case of adaptations is often lacking. Evolutionary biologists and philosophers of biology have for a century been worried about teleology in biology, but do not agree that it can actually be removed entirely. J.B.S. Haldane said it was like having a mistress - you don't want to be seen with her but you can't do without her. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely with Chiswick Chap's more relaxed approach. We have seen the various devastations wrought recently by scientific fundamentalists in medical areas on Wikipedia. We should not be encouraging purist rots such as these to spread so easily. They expand into forms of fundamentalist moral indignation, encouraging fervent adherents that revel in launching tiresome, blinkered and obsessive crusades. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:21, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Epi, you may have forgotten I have been caught up in those and suffered two topic bans for daring to challenge them - I agree with you entirely. This is an issue which needs to be dealt with by reason and discussion. DrChrissy (talk) 19:17, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * By coincidence, I had been thinking of this issue in a slightly different context, i.e. how do we know in Batesian mimicry that species X is mimicking ("teleological phrasing") species Y?  The 2 species might look similar to each other to us humans, but this is limited by the human sense of vision.  I'm sure we have all seen those picture of flowers in UV light which make them look very different compared to when viewed in white light - do we take this into account when we declare a species to be a Batesian mimic? DrChrissy (talk) 16:41, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * At the very least, we should, but even that is only a proxy for actual evidence that a predator confuses the mimic with the model, and that the mimic is in fact not distasteful. At that point, one is perfectly justified in talking about function (such as mimicry) and adaptation. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I just don't think those studies have been done. (I'm thinking out aloud here, so I could very well be wrong - please do not hesitate to correct me.)  Have we seen preference tests indicating attraction and/or aversion of predators to the sight/taste of the mimics? By the way, please don't think I am about to head off and start purging as this thread-title indicates...I'm simply chatting with like-minded people. DrChrissy (talk) 18:42, 1 August 2016 (UTC)#
 * Exactly, all such studies are difficult to do - they have rarely been done in cases of camouflage and mimicry (for example), so a great deal of talk is just that. On the other hand, when there is good evidence of function, I really can't see why we shouldn't say that something is an adaptation or has a function - it's incredibly cumbersome to avoid, and for imperceptible gain. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm probably staying rooted in my own subject of animal behaviour, articles of which can become totally ripe with teleological lay-person interpretations about why animals behave the way they do. (e.g. "my cat rubs its chin on me because he loves me" - whereas it is more likely he is scent-marking) I'm happy talking about adaptations, after all, if something exists and can be observed, it would be nonsense to deny this.  However, we also need to remember that science can not prove a hypothesis about a function, the results can only be consistent or inconsistent with the hypothesis, they can not "prove" it. DrChrissy (talk) 19:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Another point is that "have adaptations that camouflage them from predators" is simply wrong if it is attempting to imply that the camouflage is purely accidental. The steps which led to the result were accidental, but the whole point of evolution is that a bunch of random steps can lead to a helpful result (see Evolved antenna). Human observers are rarely certain about anything in a field as complex as biology, so it's conceivable that the camouflage that we see is not the beneficial adaptation, but writing "camouflaged to evade predators" would often be an accurate summary of authoritative views. Of course more elaborate examples of teleological language suggesting a design plan should be rewritten. Johnuniq (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * More than just making "another point", Johnuniq has shown up the central issue, which is that when teleological language is a shorthand for "this feature came about through millions of years of evolution by natural selection acting on a population containing diverse alleles created by mutation, .... etc etc, and organisms with this feature survived and reproduced, most likely, as shown by Doe, Buggins and Gradgrind (2016), because it helps camouflage them from predators", then well-chosen words like "to", "function", and "adaptation" are to put it mildly sensible and helpful. Purging them in that situation is, well, misguided. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:38, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

As the ip editor Chiswick originally posted about, I would like to make clear that my edits in wikipedia are modest and occasional, mainly minor corrections and rephrasings, with occasional longer contributions which have survived, some for years. I do usually carefully rephrase minor examples of teleological or anthromorphic language and always strive for a NPOV. In discussing evolution, evidence, or the ability to test our hypotheses, can be hard to come by. For me, his implies that we need to conduct ourselves like Heinlein's Fair Witness. We may be reasonably sure about the the functionality we deduce, but if we are to be scientific, our descriptions of what we know need rigour. Adopting the phrasings of teleology because is convenient, and because everybody else does it, I would suggest is a bad habit, which sets a bad example. Rephrasing should be acceptable, not as a campaign or a particularly high priority, but because teleologically phrased descriptions are open to very simple objections, which was the case for my edits to Cicada and Mantis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.3.255.103 (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Category move for discussion
There is a proposal being discussed for moving (or renaming) Category:Science organizations by topic to Category:Organizations by academic discipline. The discussion is here (at CfD). Steve Quinn (talk) 03:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Species and specific names and epithets
I am confused by the mess of articles on species name. One includes genus and species: Botanical name, which Specific name (botany) and Specific epithet (botany) redirect to. The other only includes species: Specific name (zoology). There is a section in the Genus article on words used as names for genera, but no section in Species on words used as names for species across all forms of life (the second, not the first, part of the binomen). And there is an article on Binomial nomenclature, which is basically the same concept as Botanical name, except wider. And there is an article on species name, which is also the same concept as Binomial nomenclature and Botanical name! And then there is Scientific name, which usually refers to genus and species, but redirects to the even broader concept of.

I feel like the species epithets for all forms of life should be covered in the one article. The grammatical features of the epithet are shared between plants, animals, and the rest of the forms of life. From my observation, a species epithet is usually a Latin/Greek/macaronic nominative noun, nominative adjective, or genitive noun.

But I'm not sure where this description should go or what term would be most broadly applicable across different subdisciplines of biology. Which of the many articles on related concepts should it be put into? It's bewildering. — Eru·tuon 23:48, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * You might have better luck asking about this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life. As to where to put information about the grammatical derivation of epithets, it could go in several of the articles you mentioned, as well as List of Latin and Greek words commonly used in systematic names. Plantdrew (talk) 00:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Mammal for GA
I've nominated Mammal for GAN. Please start the review if you feel like it. Thanks  User:Dunkleosteus77 &#124;push to talk 02:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Taxoboxes and taxa lists with unresolvable reference links
Today, I went looking for Johnston, 1865 with regard to the taxobox in Serpulidae.

This reminded me of an earlier one: Louis, 1897 in the list for Diadematidae at Pedinothuria (which recently unlinked).

For those of us who are not sufficiently trained in biology, these tags are a bit of a mystery. Is there a central authority where these initial identifications of taxa can be looked up, using just these (name,year) tags? I recognize a few famous names among the tags, Agassiz (which someone figured out was Alexander, not Louis), Linnaeus, Mortenson; and, in general, someone has taken care to point most of the links to their respective scientists' articles, but no other references are left behind to substantiate these identifications. I see via Google searches that this system is widely used, but have not yet stumbled upon the key.

While I'll accept a response of "go away, we'll take care of this", but I would like to help and also to point out that the "Louis, 1897" one had been tagged as needing disambiguation all the way back in November 2011 with the only resolution being to unlink it nearly 5 years later.  &#8212;jmcgnh  (talk) (contribs)  04:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)


 * For Pedinothuria, Louis, 1897 might be a mistake. Online directories, such as and  list the reference as Gregory, 1897, p. 119, with the full work as
 * Gregory, J. W. 1897. On the affinities of the Echinothuridae, and on Pedinothuria and Helikodiadema, two genera of Echinoidea. Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society, London 53, 112-122.
 * I think it would be best to list out these (name, year) tags as full citations in the References section, especially if the taxon does not yet have its own article with more detail. --Mark viking (talk) 06:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The thing is, they are not reference tags. They are an integral part of the taxonomic system.  Listing the authority after the taxon is done for both the ICZN and the ICBN.  There is no central database of authorities however, and it usually requires digging to identify the author of older taxa.-- Kev  min  § 12:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
 * You are correct, of course, these authorities aren't just Harvard style citations. But without any references backing an asserted taxon-authority link, it is hard to know if it is correct. Another example from above is Serpulidae. The taxobox asserts Johnston, 1865 as the authority. But the WoRMS online database says the authority is Rafinesque, 1815, as does this Zootaxa paper. It looks like another mistake, or at least a disagreement and for those it is best to have sources. --Mark viking (talk) 13:49, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations
This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Baracktrema obamai
I have created a stub for Baracktrema obamai in the wake of today's announcement of its discovery and naming. However, Biology articles are not exactly my area of expertise, so I will leave any further article development to somebody else. Might want to keep an eye on it over the next day or so, as I am sure it will be the target of unwanted attention, in the wake of the media announcements. Safiel (talk) 20:32, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

"Biogeographic realms" and "ecozones"
There is a proposition to change the use of the term "ecozone" in Wikipedia, see Talk:Ecozone.Zorahia (talk) 17:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Red cell antigens
Participants in this WikiProject are invited to participate in a discussion to determine the use for the term/redirect Red cell antigens. The discussion can be found here. Steel1943 (talk) 19:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Help with an article?
I recently came across an article &mdash; Globoszoospermia. It was quite a mess, which I have somewhat settled. But I'm quite concerned that this subject does not return a single result on Google other than the Wikipedia page itself. It has a number of offline sources which I cannot verify, I will assume good faith that the content is true as soon as I can confirm that the subject actually exists and is not coined by the creator. Thanks!  Jim Car  ter  16:37, 28 September 2016 (UTC)


 * How odd. The search globozoospermia -wikipedia just returned "About 13,500 results". That is not to mention the papers cited in the article, which also appear to be genuine, at least the ones I tried. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Strangely, This gives not a single result. And this gave a 404 error. Thanks for helping here .  Jim Car  ter  16:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Mmm. Glad to have been of help. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge of High-altitude adaptation and Organisms at high altitude
Please feel free to join in the discussion at Talk:Organisms at high altitude. —hike395 (talk) 14:28, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Running Amuck: Cryptozoology Concerns
Hello folks. As veteran editors will no doubt be aware, some years ago there was a time when cryptozoologists ran amuck on Wikipedia, using the site as their own monster hunting index and flagrantly violating every core Wikipedia policy along the way. This has been an issue on a lot of biology-related articles and remains a problem on a lot of folklore-related articles. Of course, cryptozoology is a classic pseudoscience, rejected by both biologists and folklorists for any variety of reasons.

Unfortunately lately we've seen something of a resurgence of these types while I've attempted to spearhead a cleanup of this material all of over the site. Largely relegated to obscure corners of the internet these days, cryptozoologists are not pleased that their main source of advertising won't be promoting their concepts anymore. Given how much this overlaps with biology and the implications of the word cryptid popping up on an otherwise scientific and well-researched article, you might be interested in what's going on over at the talk page at list of cryptids, for example. &#58;bloodofox: (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

RFCs on citations templates and the flagging free-to-read sources
See Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:13, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Village pump (proposals)
 * Village pump (proposals)

Taxonbar
There is a discussion about the usage of taxonbar, here: Template talk:Taxonbar --Tobias1984 (talk) 21:18, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages
Greetings Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:


 * Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, — Delivered: 17:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Peculiar prioritization of persons
There are no persons in the Top category. The following are in the High category:
 * Alexander von Humboldt
 * Paul Berg
 * Jagadish Chandra Bose
 * Melissa S. Cline
 * Anne B. Newman
 * Jane E. Parker
 * Nicolas Rashevsky

Of these, only von Humboldt is close to merit a place in this category. Let's discus who should be there. Should we even put some in the Top category? Here are some names I thought of. But obviously I don't claim this is even near the optimum choice.


 * Linus Pauling
 * Barbara McClintock
 * Gregor Mendel
 * Linnaeus
 * Charles Darwin
 * James Watson
 * Francis Crick
 * Rosalind Franklin
 * Herbert Spencer
 * Craig Venter
 * Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

For further ideas we can look in for example List of Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine and History of biology. --Ettrig (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Plainly it's pretty random, having only ever been considered at the local level, one person at a time. Most of your first list people are obviously not at the top level; most of your second list people are shoo-ins for Top status, but Herbert Spencer doesn't belong there, and even calling him a biologist is quite a stretch. And Linus Pauling got his Nobel in Chemistry not Biology, he can be top over there but not here perhaps.

If we're thinking about the history of biology then perhaps:


 * Aristotle (top, founder of biology)
 * Theophrastus (top, founder of botany)
 * Dioscorides (top, founder of pharmacology)
 * Galen (top, pioneer of medicine)
 * William Harvey (top, circulation of the blood)
 * Georges Cuvier (top, systematic zoology)
 * Louis Pasteur (top, vaccination, fermentation, pasteurisation)
 * Alexander von Humboldt (top, definitely, don't hesitate)
 * Alfred Russel Wallace (top, evolutionary biology with Darwin)
 * Henry Walter Bates (top, pioneer of mimicry)
 * August Weismann (top, evolutionary biology "2nd after Darwin")
 * Robert Koch (top, founder of microbiology)
 * Claude Bernard (top, physiology, homeostasis)
 * Thomas Hunt Morgan (top, genetics, chromosomes)
 * R. A. Fisher (top, pioneer of mathematical biology)
 * J. B. S. Haldane (top, evolutionary biology)
 * Niko Tinbergen (top, ethology)
 * W. D. Hamilton (top, gene-centred evolutionary biology)
 * John Maynard Smith (top, evolutionary biology, signalling)
 * Hans Krebs (top, biochemistry)
 * Theodosius Dobzhansky (top, modern evolutionary synthesis)
 * Ernst Mayr (top, evolutionary biology)
 * Lynn Margulis (top, symbiogenesis)

must all be close to the top.

I'm sure there are more. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think you mean that these should be in High category. That is, your list plus my second list, minus Spencer. Humboldt is in your list and the others from the first list are pushed to Low. How about Aristotle, Mendel, Darwin, Watson and Crick for Top? We will never get this right. But at least it would be a great improvement. --Ettrig (talk) 11:11, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Our intuition and knowledge are all we've got. Biology has thousands of excellent scientists from the past couple of centuries. I'd say we should have a few dozen Top-rated biologists among them. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:45, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have down-prioritized all but Humboldt in the first list and added Darwin and Mendel to Top.

Missing topics list
My list of missing topics about biology is updated - Skysmith (talk) 13:54, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

RfC on Masturbation
There is currently an RfC on whether or not to include a reference to NoFap in Masturbation. Interested editors can join the discussion here. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:41, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Userboxes
Userboxes identifying user mitochondrial DNA ancestry are available here. Thewellman (talk) 22:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Likely COI
A user, Dockabo, who started editing last month, December 2016, has added claims to articles such as Biology, Organism, Morphogenesis, Homeostasis and around a dozen others cited to papers which include the names of two scientists, Maël Montévil and Guiseppe Longo. A note about possible COI on the user's talk page was swiftly removed. What if anything would project members suggest should be done? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If we are discussing the behaviour of another editor, I think it is usual (probably required) to ping the user - so here it is . DrChrissy (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I was just wondering if we needed to do anything on the articles concerned, or their talk pages. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:45, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure here. Even if the user is one of the authors, they are allowed to cite themselves with certain restrictions.  From what I have seen so far (which is admittedly not very much), they do not appear to be edit-warring or making highly controversial claims.  If it is the number of times they are possibly editing their own research into articles, I think this is a very grey area.  It might seem like a hammer to crack a nut, but maybe this should be reported at AN/I, not with a view to sanctions, but with a view to a warning about possible COI. DrChrissy (talk) 15:55, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We can do that without AN/I, if you feel like reverting the user's deletion of my COI notice, but perhaps we should wait to hear what other editors think and we can give a collective view. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think input from others would be useful here. DrChrissy (talk) 16:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, well i did not intend to do something illicit. If you feel that some quotations are not required or if you have better references feel free to use them. However, many of my edits are not limited to added citations and i try mostly to make entries more coherent and add viewpoints from well established but less known literature. Dockabo (talk) 20:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Maël Montévil is a young Parisian postdoctoral fellow who is getting established in theoretical biology. Giuseppe Longo, an Italian mathematician and epistemologist, was his supervisor. The papers that are being inserted into Wikipedia are centred around the results of recent collaborations between the two. They contain mostly commentaries on biology which come from rather abstract system thinking. Their citation counts are low. Perhaps in a few years there might be an explosion of citations and reviews of their work. But in the absence of such a development, I think the additions that have been made to Wikipedia are undue. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:11, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiJournal of Science promotion
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry
There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10
Issue 10 of the WikiProject X newsletter is here!

This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:



23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Biological role of nitrogen
is a redirect that currently points at a non-existent section of the main Nitrogen article. I've nominated this redirect for discussion at Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 9 where your comments are invited. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS shorcut updated
Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.


 * WP:CHEM now refer to WP:CHEMISTRY
 * WP:CHEMS now refer to WP:CHEMICALS
 * WP:CHM is deprecated

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Extension of 'Topic Page' review articles from PLOS Computational Biology to PLOS Genetics
T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 12:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

Caucasian race
Caucasian race is in need of attention and improvement, I am discussing how to improve the article with another user particularly regarding the currency of typological views of human races (as opposed to a genomic/population based view). Any input will be appreciated. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 20:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Request for Reviews....
Hello all,

I have made changes to my wiki draft on 'Species Branding': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis  ...This wiki could help find solution to the long running "Species Problem" of Biology... I will be happy to have Experts in the field Review my Draft...

Thank you, Joseph J PhD. Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 18:35, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Abbreviating scientific name
There is a proposal to change the MOS:ORGANISMS page. It is related to the abbreviation of scientific names. Please comment at WT:Manual of Style/Organisms. Thank you! RileyBugz (p) Yell &#124; Edits  21:09, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Reproductive biology article
Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Reproductive biology (a WP:Permalink for it is here). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Recategorizing all medicine and biology articles using the more specific MeSH hierarchy
I would like to have your opinion regarding this idea here.--Brainist (talk) 21:30, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

help on Ramellogammarus similimanus
Would someone take a look at Ramellogammarus similimanus? I've never created an article on a species before, it is certainly not my area of expertise. I am particularly worried that I have incorrectly completed the Taxonomy box. Many thanks! 78.26  (spin me / revolutions) 21:57, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Spandrel (biology)
There is a discussion in progress at Talk:Spandrel (biology) about whether Gould and Lewontin's 1979 paper on the subject was "influential", and whether we can call it that given the rules on neutrality and verifiability. Editors are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Lysibodies
Can someone please review Lysibodies? It is hard for me to tell whether it is valid science very poorly written, in which case it needs improvement, or whether it is bad science and needs deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I've linked a dozen technical terms. It's written in dreadful immuno-speak for insiders only. The main problem with it, however, is that it's based on exactly one very new paper (2nd of this month); the web reveals excited news reports from the past few weeks about the same discovery. It is therefore very soon for a WP article (single primary source, no review papers yet, neologism, toosoon, notnews, need I go on). On the other hand, PNAS is an impeccable science source and the discovery is certainly of interest. Chiswick Chap (talk) 04:29, 14 May 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Chiswick Chap. Possibly it could be parked in Draftspace until a review paper has been published? If the discovery is as notable as it appears to be, I'd suspect a few more papers by net year. On the other hand, draftspace can be a dangerous place to leave things for too long, given that I think drafts tend to be deleted after approx 6 months. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 00:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @Robert McClenon: well, there's an answer for you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 03:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, will post at /Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of. We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
 * The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
 * The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
 * The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to for his original, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Transporter Classification Database
The Transporter Classification Database is an important source for information about transporter proteins, and it is labeled as CC-BY. But in fact this database often copies content from copyrighted journal articles (likely in good faith, because the people who wrote the database entries also wrote the copyrighted journal articles--but a problem nonetheless). Just wanted to get the word out so that we don't accidentally import copyright violations from this source. See Contributor copyright investigations/Transporter Guy for more information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:00, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Colocasia esculenta vs. Taro
Are proposed to merge.  → User: Perhelion 12:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 1 – 14 June 2017
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:33, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Draft:C7orf61
Can you help a brother out over at AfC? Can someone with expertise in this area review this draft. Please ping me when you do.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of article title at Grasshopper
There is a new discussion of the appropriate title for the article (Grasshopper vs Caelifera) at Talk:Grasshopper. Editors are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion of appropriate images at Desert cottontail
A discussion is under way of how many and which images are appropriate for the article at Discussion of appropriate images at [[Desert cottontail]]. Biology editors are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:48, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Autonomic taxobox with same scientific name
Both Template:Taxonomy/Dendrornithes and Template:Taxonomy/Telluraves are link to Telluraves, but different parent taxon however, there may be something wrong. ---Koala0090 (talk) 13:16, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion about template "Template:Taxonbar"
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Taxonbar, which is about a template that is within the scope of this WikiProject. &#x0020;There is a proposal to use a Lua module as the basis for the template, which will result in some changes to the template's appearance. Thank you. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 21:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Lectins
The rise of the fad "lectin-free" diet means the lectin article is getting a huge surge in views recently. The page is currently tagged with a template, and focuses misleadingly on the toxicity of a small number of lectins. I'm trying to make it clearer to the lay reader (and make clear that the lectins in cooked food are not toxic and that the diet is potentially very dangerous), but it's a bit beyond my knowledge. Any help would be very appreciated. (cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chemistry) Smurrayinchester 11:13, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Deep Carbon Observatory looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar
Of possible interest to WikiProject members: The Deep Carbon Observatory (DCO) is looking to sponsor a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar. DCO is an initiative involving about 1,000 chemists, physicists, geologists, and biologists collaborating to study various aspects of carbon deep within Earth. The project's Engagement Team, which is based at the University of Rhode Island (URI), would like to facilitate improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to deep carbon by providing an experienced Wikipedian with access to 9,000 deep carbon-related publications as well as full remote access to the URI library's online resources (databases, ebooks, etc.). The Visiting Scholar will also receive a $3,000 honorarium and, if convenient, will be invited to URI for a visit (expenses paid). The Visiting Scholars program connects Wikipedians with educational institutions based on shared interest in a topic. Any editor in good standing is welcome to apply. Professional experience is not a requirement. For more information, see the Deep Carbon Observatory Visiting Scholars page. If you have questions, you can ping me here or leave a message on my talk page. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:53, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Updated. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Science Photo Competition 2017
FYI Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Science--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:	#7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 3 – 11 August 2017

 

Wikimania report
Interviewed by Facto Post at the hackathon, Lydia Pintscher of Wikidata said that the most significant recent development is that Wikidata now accounts for one third of Wikimedia edits. And the essential growth of human editing. Impressive development work on Internet-in-a-Box featured in the WikiMedFoundation annual conference on Thursday. Hardware is Raspberry Pi, running Linux and the Kiwix browser. It can operate as a wifi hotspot and support a local intranet in parts of the world lacking phone signal. The medical use case is for those delivering care, who have smartphones but have to function in clinics in just such areas with few reference resources. Wikipedia medical content can be served to their phones, and power supplied by standard lithium battery packages.

Yesterday Katherine Maher unveiled the draft Wikimedia 2030 strategy, featuring a picturesque metaphor, "roads, bridges and villages". Here "bridges" could do with illustration. Perhaps it stands for engineering round or over the obstacles to progress down the obvious highways. Internet-in-a-Box would then do fine as an example.

"Bridging the gap" explains a take on that same metaphor, with its human component. If you are at Wikimania, come talk to WikiFactMine at its stall in the Community Village, just by the 3D-printed display for Bassel Khartabil; come hear talk at 3 pm today in Drummond West, Level 3.

Link

 * Plaudit for the Medical Wikipedia app, content that is loaded into Internet-In-A-Box with other material, such as per-country documentation.

Editor. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * }

ISO 4 redirects help!
Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)


 * : "abbreviation=Cell Biochem. Biophys. refers to Cell Biochemistry and Biophysics |abbreviation=Cell Biochem. Biophys. would refer to Cellular Biochemistry and Physics" --- something wrong here, surely. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The second one was meant to be Cell. Biochem. Biophys., I fixed it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:12, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017
{| style="position: relative; margin-left: 2em; margin-right: 2em; padding: 0.5em 1em; background-color:	#7FFFD4; border: 2px solid #00FFFF; border-color: rgba( 109, 193, 240, 0.75 ); border-radius: 8px; box-shadow: 8px 8px 12px rgba( 0, 0, 0, 0.7 );"
 * Facto Post – Issue 4 – 18 September 2017

 

Editorial: Conservation data
The IUCN Red List update of 14 September led with a threat to North American ash trees. The International Union for Conservation of Nature produces authoritative species listings that are peer-reviewed. Examples used as metonyms for loss of species and biodiversity, and |theoretical discussion of extinction rates, are the usual topics covered in the media to inform us about this area. But actual data matters. Clearly, conservation work depends on decisions about what should be done, and where. While animals, particularly mammals, are photogenic, species numbers run into millions. Plant species lie at the base of typical land-based food chains, and vegetation is key to the habitats of most animals.

ContentMine dictionaries, for example as tabulated at d:Wikidata:WikiFactMine/Dictionary list, enable detailed control of queries about endangered species, in their taxonomic context. To target conservation measures properly, species listings running into the thousands are not what is needed: range maps showing current distribution are. Between the will to act, and effective steps taken, the services of data handling are required. There is now no reason at all why Wikidata should not take up the burden.

Links

 * What Makes a Good Collaborative Knowledge Graph: Group Composition and Quality in Wikidata (paywall)
 * Wikimedia and the free knowledge ecosystem by Maria Cruz
 * Another Year Again: 2017 this time (long), blog by Joe Wass of CrossRef
 * Attack of the 50 Foot Blockchain, blog by User:David Gerard
 * WikiTribune in beta

Editor. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * }

Medicinal plants
There is an ongoing discussion on the article's talk page about the place of the article Medicinal plants and its inclusion of materials on phytochemicals and defence against herbivorous insects. Editors are invited to contribute. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Audio files of animals
A volunteer (User:Stan3) has uploaded 1,750 audio files of animal sounds from BioAcoustica. The files can be found at Commons:Files from BioAcoustica; they tend to have someone explaining what the recording contains before getting into the actual animal sound so could either do with some trimming or |start= can be used when adding a file.

At the moment, audio files are being added to Wikidata items because it's then possible to produce a list of Wikipedia articles which would benefit from having an audio file added: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/missing_wp_animal_audio.php?wiki=enwiki

I wanted to let project members know that the above link gives you a nice way to improve articles on animals, and if anyone is interested in editing Wikidata matching up some of the audio files to items would also be very useful! I've also left a message at Wikidata's WikiProject Biology. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2017 (UTC)