Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Biology and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
 | There is a discussion in the archive of a consensus how scientific names are displayed in the lead of species articles listed under common names. |
Protandry/Protogyny: suggestion to make standalone or disambiguate rather than redirect
editHi. Until yesterday I had not noticed, despite years editing Wikipedia articles, that the terms protandry and protogyny both redirect to Sequential hermaphroditism. This strikes me as extremely odd and even inappropriate, since out of the four most common uses of the terms (see here), that particular use is probably the third. "Protandry" is, I think, most commonly used in ecology, and also used commonly in botany in cases that do not involve sequential hermaphroditism (to quote the article: "Sequential hermaphroditism in plants is very rare"). It is likewise a very small portion of the world's animal fauna that are sequential hermaphrodites, nearly all of them being fish, and I can't imagine why that rare phenomenon would be the ONLY use of the terms protandry and protogyny that are discussed in Wikipedia, except that people have written so many articles about fish, and nearly every fish that exhibits sequential hermaphroditism has protandry linked. What is especially odd is that other editors working on articles discussing ecology and botany do appear to use these terms and wikilink them, but they are all getting unknowingly redirected to an article that has literally nothing to do with what those editors had in mind (e.g., Speyeria mormonia). This is a serious problem, in my opinion, but I'm not sure how best to address it. Should there be a single article that discusses, in sections of that article, the four most common definitions, or should it be a disambiguation page that points to separate articles related to each definition? Offhand, given how many hundreds or thousands of links exist presently, the latter approach is not practical, because a link to "protandry" won't automatically point to the disambiguation article. Thoughts? Dyanega (talk) 14:52, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for noticing this, Dyanega. Protandry is currently a redirect page; if you click on it, and then the "(Redirected from Protandry)" link at the top of the Sequential hermaphroditism article, you will be able to edit it to point to a disambiguation page for both terms. A disambiguation page called Protandry and protogyny seems the best idea to me. HLHJ (talk) 04:11, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
Notability of accepted nothospecies
editAn discussion to adopt a guideline regarding the notability of species has been opened at Wikipedia talk: Notability (species)#Proposal to add nothospecies. Ivan (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Victor Ambros and Gary Ruvkun articles need expert attention
editHi, there are a few sentences in these two articles pertaining to their research that remain uncited. As these are some highly technical subjects, someone who is more familiar with the literature is needed to find and evaluate the sources. I've moved the tags into the most specific sections that need citations. Thanks! Liu1126 (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Ludwig Franzisket
editI am looking for more information on Ludwig Franzisket's academic career. Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:08, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
NIH BIO art
editThis collection of freely licensed clip art was just pointed out to me: https://bioart.niaid.nih.gov/. Some of these could be useful for illustrating articles. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)
Category:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for deletion
editCategory:Endangered species by reason they are threatened has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you.
About 70 subcategories, the oldest from 2015, are also being proposed for deletion. There is debate about whether it is possible to list some threats to a threatened species without oversimplification and omissions amounting to misinformation. Comments from anyone with expertise in conservation biology would be particularly welcome. HLHJ (talk) 04:02, 17 November 2024 (UTC)
In Talk:Current sources and sinks we are discussing to move the article to a better name. As it seems like a neurobiology topic I cannot tell what would be the best name. Any help is appreciated. --ReyHahn (talk) 14:28, 26 November 2024 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Lipid bilayer
editLipid bilayer has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 22:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)