Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleBiology has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
August 11, 2006Good article nomineeListed
September 2, 2006Good article reassessmentDelisted
January 10, 2010Good article nomineeListed
Current status: Good article

Time to split[edit]

At 285kbytes, this article should be split. One starting point is to remove the (generic) chemistry section. Another possible aspect might be to contract or cut the sections focused on animal anatomy. --Smokefoot (talk) 20:38, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support split with section summaries and links to split off content with hatnotes. Gusfriend (talk) 22:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Smokefoot This edit is pretty bold. I'm not opposed to condensing the discussion of chemistry, but biochemistry and molecular biology are important topics to cover. Can you figure out a way to keep some discussion of the chemical basis for life while removing the bloat? The void century (talk) 18:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello The void century: Yes, I realize that my removal of the chemistry section was possibly overly bold, or at least very assertive. If you or others think that the action was ill-advised, then go ahead and revert. Here are my thoughts: First we need to pare Biology down to about 40% of its length for readability sake (by my reading of the guidelines), so I decided to start with what I felt was obvious: lopping off chemistry. Second, our article on Chemistry does not begin with an overview of physics (by my reading), it just dives in. As someone who works on the chem-biochem border, I do appreciate the key role of biochemistry in life sciences. But I dont think that readers needs to understand chemical bonding to appreciate core themes in biology. The more difficult part is actually ahead: where do we massively cut and compress further? My thinking, preliminarily, was to start at the other end of the article, ecology. Thanks for taking the time to message me and think about this issue. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I agree. The chemistry article mentions physics and has a brief summary of physical chemistry, but like you said, it's not taking up a ton of space. Similarly, this article could have a shorter summary of biochemistry and molecular biology. I like the way Brittanica's article begins with "Basic concepts of biology" after the lead section. The void century (talk) 02:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Time to split. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose on the principle that proposing a split based on the size of the wikisource, which is completely irrelevant, is stupid. The article is 20,000 words, which is quite long, but I'm not sure that's inappropriate for a topic this important and ramified. Fact is, many or most of the sections already start by linking to a Main article, so maybe all that's needed is to pare down the summaries in this article a bit. EEng 14:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "Stupid"? Really? To a colleague? --Smokefoot (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I mean it with great affection, of course. But yeah, c'mon, the wikisource size is utterly irrelevant to anything. The prose size is 127k or 20k words, and that's what matters. And to repeat: complex topics need long articles. EEng 15:38, 27 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I completely agree. This article should not be split as it serves as a broad overview to other related sciences. Also, Wikipedia articles can be as long as possible only if the added discussion of text is of necessary relation to said article. In which case it is, or at least seems to be. Chemistry and taxonomy are a part of biology and needs to be discussed; however, I do agree that it should be a summary and not a lengthy tangent. Senomo Drines (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I want to point out that the article is not too long. Readers can still read it comfortably. Cwater1 (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's pretty long, but the prominence of biology necessitates a long article. The void century (talk) 18:00, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I just cut the word count by 2% in 40 minutes (including a bathroom break and helping the elderly widow upstairs with her remote control) by tightening and cutting discursive material. That's what needs to be done. EEng 18:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree that condensing the summary sections in the article is the way to go. A full-on split is unnecessary. I also cut the word count significantly by condensing the chemistry section a few weeks ago The void century (talk) 17:57, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Building on your start, I cut it to the bone. EEng 22:21, 18 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't see any consensus to split here, rather a feeling that the structure is correct, as are the "main" links in the subsections, but that the summaries in those subsections are rather too long and should be cut down. The discussion has been allowed several months to run. As such, I'm closing this now with "no consensus to split", and an invitation to editors to do some condensing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:22, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Update: I've cut it down by half, and it looks a lot cleaner. Just realized it's a GA ... I think I never did a slash-and-burn on a GA before, but it certainly needed it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hatnotes: Part II[edit]

I understand that this subject has already been discussed once before, but my claim here is distinct from the last. You see, I have noticed a sort of unorganized template being used in these hatnotes, that being the beginning text. Some of them have “see also”, other ones have “further information”, and the last being “main article”. These 3 are used incorrectly. As stated in main article, “Use of this template should be restricted to the purposes described above. It is not to be used as a substitute for inline links or further template.” That means that these 3 cannot be used interchangeably. The first of these I want to discuss on is “see also”. An example of its incorrect use is in speciation, which links to a see also on… speciation. The reason why this is invalid is because see also RELATES to other articles. It is not THE article. In other words, see also is used when articles are somewhat connected to the subject but NOT when it is the subject. Secondly, with further information, this is a little more difficult to explain, but essentially, it deals with the connection between the subject in the article and another subject of another article. What makes this different from the template main article? Main article simply talks about the subject in general, and as one can infer, most of the paragraphs in this article are general. Therefore, most if not all of the hatnotes in this article should use “main article” and nothing else. Maybe a few “see mores” here and there, but almost no “further information” templates shall be used. Thank you for reading. Senomo Drines (talk) 11:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I support changing to main article template where appropriate. I think i added "see also" templates instead of "main article" to stay consistent with what had previously been used for other sections in the bio article, but I agree they should really be main article. The void century (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The intention, now that the article has been cut down, is that each section SHOULD BE a very short summary of its topic, so that a MAIN link will be appropriate. If the remaining summary does not summarize the linked article, well, the summary should be tweaked, without making it any longer. Hope this is clear. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:48, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022[edit]

“Biology is defined as the study of living organisms, their origins, anatomy, morphology, physiology, behaviour, and distribution.”

Life is teeming in every corner of the globe – from the frozen Arctics to the searing Sahara. And with over 8.7 million species documented till date, the earth is the only planet in the universe where life is known to exist.

Advancements in technology have opened up even more insights about life and its constituents. For instance, discoveries such as viruses have scrutinized traditional definitions and pushed scientists to look at life from a whole new perspective.

Branches of Biology Biology caters to these intriguing aspects through various sub-disciplines or branches. Some branches are intertwined with other disciplines of science.

For instance, theoretical biology is a branch of biology that encompasses mathematical models to investigate certain principles that affect life.

Quantum Biology deals with biological processes that are quantum mechanical in nature – such as the conversion of energy into more usable forms. Other branches of biology are as follows:

Divisions of Biology Anatomy Anatomy Biotechnology Biotechnology Botany Botany

Ecology Ecology Genetics Genetics Immunology Immunology

Microbiology Microbiology Physiology Physiology Zoology ELUKOTI M B (talk) 10:24, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MadGuy7023 (talk) 11:37, 14 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2023[edit]

Bold textI would like to edit this page to add something that I learned that isn't in this artical that I feel as if people should know. TownvilleWidgets12 (talk) 16:58, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not done: if you have a specific request, like change "xyx" to "abc" then please say so. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:00, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]