Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Proposed project of interest - organismal biomechanics

Hi all, I'm trying to start a Wikiproject to cover Organismal Biomechanics, and I was wondering if anyone else would be interested? Articles such as animal locomotion. gait, muscle, and similar would be our targets. See my userpage for a list of what I'm planning to work on, including some truly awful articles in desperate need of attention. See proposal page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject Organismal Biomechanics. I'll keep anyone who signs up updated via their userpages until I get a project page made. Help of all kinds is appreciated, from brain dumps to wikifying, grammar and dealing with references. Mokele (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for help from WP:MEASURE

I've been doing some article assessment at WikiProject Measurement recently and I came across the article Apothecaries' system (not one of mine) which seems pretty good. For the time being, I've rated it as A-class on our project quality scale, but I would welcome further comments so I have opened a peer review here. If there are editors with any knowledge or interest in the subject, I'd be grateful if they could read through the article and tell us if there is anything important which should be in there but which isn't at the moment. Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 11:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Astronomical historians

FYI: There is a discussion under way to determine the best name for Category:Astronomical historians. Cgingold (talk) 22:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 06:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation from a related project

Hurricane Kate (2003)- Good pic.jpg Please accept this invitation to join the Tropical cyclones WikiProject (WPTC), a WikiProject dedicated to improving all articles associated with tropical cyclones. WPTC hosts some of Wikipedia's highest-viewed articles, and needs your help for the upcoming hurricane season. Simply click here to accept! Hurricane Isabel 18 sept 2003 1555Z.jpg

Juliancolton | Talk 05:22, 7 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Statistics portal at Featured portal candidates

Portal:Statistics is being considered for featured quality status, at the Featured portal candidates process. Comments would be appreciated at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Statistics. —G716 <T·C> 01:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Input requested at Glass transition

The Glass transition article has been protected over an edit war that seems to have been building for some time apparently based on disagreement between 2 versions. (The current version is the one that happened to be live at the time of protection: no preference implied). Input is required from editors who are familiar with the subject to bring the article back on track. Please discuss on the Talk:Glass transition page. Thank you. Exploding Boy (talk) 02:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just wanted to invite interested people to the newest science-related wikiproject, WikiProject Forestry. Guettarda (talk) 13:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Elements in Earth's crust

Abundance of elements in Earth's crust could use some work. It draws information from five sources, but those sources aren't immediately apparent. For example, source [5] is a section of the Jefferson Lab website "It's Elemental — The Periodic Table of Elements". But that site apparently [1] draws its information from the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (77th edition). [4] is cited as "Israel Science and Technology Homepage", but the actual source is F. W. Clarke & Washington (1924) [2].

I found a copy of the 90th edition of CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics and will update [5] to the 90th edition. But I'd like to give reputable references for this page so readers can choose sources they trust when there is a conflict. My thought was to put a short description in the table rather than just a number, e.g. "CRC[5]" rather than "[5]". Any thoughts or sourcing suggestions?

CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on the Rorschach test: fresh eyes needed

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. Should Rorschach test display all ten images used in the test and the common responses, or should we act on psychologists' concerns that doing so undermines the test? SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New behavioral guideline: Wikipedia:Editing scientific articles

See discussion here Count Iblis (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Laboratory equipment

Laboratory equipment has recently been expanded with a "List of laboratory equipment supply companies". In this version (14:16, 3 August 2009), it was a simple stub. Any thoughts on whether such a list is appropriate? I guess it's ok, but it seemed unusual so I thought I'd ask. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to link WP:MTAA from WP:NOT PAPERS

I find the current version of WP:NOT PAPERS both reductive, containing some redundancy, and rather poorly explained (in particular the ban on "academic language" at dictum 7). It also fails to defer to the guideline where the finer points of those issues are discussed. I've made a proposal to address these shortcomings. Actually, I had already implemented it, but I've been reverted by someone insisting that I "get consensus", although that editor had to comments on the substance of my edits. So, this notice is an attempt to get the interested parties to form a consensus. Pcap ping 16:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Digit grouping style (notice of discussion)

In case anyone is interested, a discussion about digit grouping styles is taking place at Village Pump (policy), related to this question:

On Wikipedia, should the selection of digit grouping styles depend upon regional and topical conventions used in the English language?

Please refer to that page for details and discussion. TheFeds 03:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disputes and controversies

How should we cover scientific theories which - at least in the media or in public opinion polls - are widely disputed? Evolution and global warming are, apparently, the "scientific mainstream", but 5% of scientists disagree with evolution, and 40% to 85% of the American public rejects "unguided evolution". As of this moment, we don't even have articles defining the scientific mainstream or describing what unguided evolution is.

  • Are we supposed to cover contrarian or skeptical viewpoints, or just those which are popular?
  • Should we consider whether economic incentives or political pressures affect what scientific papers are published?
  • Does reporting a viewpoint which opposes the mainstream automatically give it "equal validity"?

I'm looking for a place in this mammoth project where all these questions are answered. Otherwise, I don't feel I can contribute anything on intelligent design, global warming, the DDT ban, the Alar scare, Passive smoking, asbestos abatement and so on. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular pages

I have requested a list of popular pages for this project at [3]. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 21 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some expert input would be greatly appreciated here. Thanks. Pondle (talk) 09:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Religious stance on Template:Infobox scientist

I've started a discussion on Template talk:Infobox scientist (see here) about the possible removal of the "Religious stance" field from this template. Comments will be appreciated. Cheers, Ben (talk) 22:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Academic Journal information

I recently created {{Infobox Journal}} and have applied it to a couple of articles. Would there be objection to my adding a section to this page for "Scientific publications" and include both comments on the formatting of academic journal entries in Wikipedia as well as a couple of notes on other publication types? Courtland July 1, 2005 09:25 (UTC)

I saw your info box at Science (journal); great idea, run with it. --Memenen 1 July 2005 12:49 (UTC)
Looks great. Maybe include publishing country though? Isn't there a prestige rating system for scientific journals based on references from other papers? If anyone has a link to the list, it might be a good idea to work from the top down. --AAMiller 5 July 2005 06:14 (UTC)
This project needs more room! I'm opening our own project guidelines and project journal sections as suggested by the latest version of Template:WikiProject and the Community project. Quinobi 8 July 2005 17:42 (UTC)
Thanks for the positive feedback :)
  • publishing country: yes, this could be added. Maybe as a parenthetical after publisher so that an entry would look like "Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press (United States)"? Or do you think that a separate field would be better? (see American Naturalist as an example of the parenthetical approach Courtland 03:10, July 13, 2005 (UTC))
  • there is a "prestige rating system"; it's called the Impact Factor and is based on an algorithm run and maintained by ISI. I say something about this in the Talk page for the template. I added today more information on this as I collected information for Genome Research and added it as a plot at the bottom of the Infobox. The figure was uploaded to Wikipedia rather than Commons due to the dubious copyright situation around the sources from which I gathered the information; the exact numbers from each of the sources are included in the Image page. If this looks good as a semi-standard addition to the Infobox, then I would suggest standardizing the plot on the same scale across all journals; I thought on this possibility when doing the plot for Genome Research.
Courtland 02:47, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the field "ISSN" and a subfield "country" to the template, with additions to the usage notes. I've also added some brackets to the template to assist in suggesting where links (internal and external) might be put. I've also added a section to the bottom of the Talk page that relates major changes, the date, and the person conducting the change ... I'm thinking that this type of log should be included for all templates as it is sometimes truly a problem to tease out how a template has changed over time. Courtland 02:35, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Just wanted to draw attention to this inactive WikiProject. Can it be adopted or cannabilised? Hiding talk 19:52, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Science to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr. Z-man 00:53, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you! It is very useful for us. NCurse work 06:52, 1 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Since several couple of Wikipedia-Books are science-related, could this project adopt the book-class? This would really help WikiProject Wikipedia-Books, as the WP Science people can oversee books like Applied science and Philosophy of science much better than we could as far as merging, deletion, content, and such are concerned. Eventually there probably will be a "Books for discussion" process, so that would be incorporated in the Article Alerts.

There's an article in last week's Signpost if you aren't familiar with Wikipedia-Books and classes in general. If you have any questions just ask. Thanks. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 01:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can any spare scientists have a look at this article? I proposed it for deletion, reasons given here, it's since been undeleted but my concerns remain unassuaged. Rather than immediately proceed to AfD I'd appreciate some more eyes on it. Thanks.   pablohablo. 23:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ecolig - comments

I understand it means a remarkable contribution to semiotic research as well as to human computer interaction scenario. The presentation, information and references are very rich and follow the Wikipedia standard and best recommendations. About the notability, I understand it means an old definition for a new protocol (Samiplis (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC))Reply[reply]

meh; now available for your perusal at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecolig.   pablohablo. 22:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe the subject reflects a new concept concerning the interaction between human and machine. It is probably the begining of a new area involving this interaction and an excellent support for the researches being developed around this field of studies. I would say that taking this deletion ahead would be a mistake for people involved with computer-human interaction researches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodrigo im (talkcontribs) 23:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well various humans are discussing it here, whilst simultaneously interacting with computers. Perhaps you'd like to make your second ever edit there. Saimplis, you too, except third edit in your case.  pablohablo. 23:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you help at this page?

The page Surface tension-driven nanoelectromechanical relaxation oscillator could use lengthening; it seems rather short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Article required: Scientific opinion

This currently redirects to Opinion. I've been collecting source material at User:Jaymax/Scientific Opinion. But I'm no good at starting this - I'm a born editor/improver/arguer, I don't function so well with a clean slate. This seems like a sensible project to take it on... ‒ Jaymax✍ 11:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Member

I'm new to the Project, just thought I'd introduce myself. Sean (talk || contribs) 04:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cat rename

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23#Category:ISI highly cited researchers. Pcap ping 10:33, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SI system categories at CfD for renaming

A bunch of SI categories have been nominated for renaming, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 7. (talk) 09:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New WikiProject

I was thinking about a new WikiProject or possibly some sort of task force that would be specifically aimed at science writing, in particular popular science and science journalism, as opposed to all publication like Wikipedia:WikiProject Science pearls or journals. I think much of Category:Science books could come under this. It could potentially also include textbooks. The reason I think this project would be beneficial is that most of these articles are classed under WP:BOOKS, and that having a more specific project would help to improve the quality of them. Jhbuk (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's already Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals, Wikipedia:WikiProject Journalism, Wikipedia:WikiProject Books, Wikipedia:WikiProject Magazines ... (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But they have extremely general subject matter and cannot focus on these articles in particlular, which are not really artistic or political like most books/magazines/journalism. That's like asking why we need WP:WikiProject The Simpsons when we have WP:WikiProject Television, or WP:WikiProject Biochemistry when we have WP:WikiProject Biology and WP:WikiProject Chemistry. Jhbuk (talk) 16:36, 12 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure The Simpsons should have a wikiproject, seems crufty (WP:WikiProject Evanescence, about the band, is moribund, showing such a small focus is not necessarily a good thing, even if it weren't crufty (which in the case of the band, it is)). WP:WikiProject Science writing seems like a catchall, since writing a research article is different from popscience article, or a thesis paper, a popscience book is different from a textbook. (talk) 07:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The project wouldn't focus on journals, as I think they are suitably covered by WikiProject Academic Journals; my point about the others is that there is nothing that concentrates on these specifically, Category:Science books is enourmous and would be the primary source of articles. Jhbuk (talk) 11:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Green smoothie

I would welcome assistance with the article Green smoothie, from people with more expertise. There are many issues with this article; it survived AfD, but remains, with 'fact' such as, "Chlorophyll, the molecule of which resembles that of human blood", "God or Nature intends humans and related animals to eat this way", and recipe information. Thanks, to anyone who can take a look.  Chzz   ►  14:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article appears to suggest that Tipler's theories are supported by mainstream physics rather than considered fringe. Expert opinion sought at WikiProject Physics, but could use more eyes on it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please note that Portal:Star has been renominated for featured status. --Extra 999 (Contact me + contribs) 16:50, 3 August 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chinese science journals

If China follows through with this project, we may be seeing more published papers by Chinese scientists in the future, presumably in English, which might be potential sources for Wikipedia articles. Cla68 (talk) 07:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have nominated World Science Festival 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.

FYI, World Science Festival is currently being discussed as a featured article removal candidate. Nageh (talk) 08:16, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science of hadith

I believe that this article should not be part of this project, as it isn't science, but that why there's a discussion to move at Talk:Science of hadith#Requested move. The opposition to the move counters that it is a science (defined broadly). — kwami (talk) 21:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal:Biology has been nominated for a Featured Portal Review

The biology portal is one of the Featured Portals, but I don't think it matches the standards required of portals these days. I've therefore listed it for review and possible defeaturing at Wikipedia:Featured portal review/Biology. If you can help to improve the portal, or you have any comments to make about it, please join in the discussion. Thanks, Bencherlite Talk 12:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scientism edit war

Didn't really know where else to put this. There seems to be an edit war over the Scientism page. A few anonymous editors have tagged the article as Original Research and questioned its Notability, and the regular editors argue that an anonymous person can't "just slap" a tag into their article, and called it vandalism. Perhaps they are right, but I wanted some better opinions on the matter. It seems reverting it is pointless, because the regulars always come back to remove the tag after it's been inserted. After looking at the article itself, it doesn't seem like most of the provided sources even link to anywhere. (talk) 21:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The reversions of the tagging are justified. Here is a recent version of the article with tags claiming multiple issues: original research, notability, truthfulness. However, there have been no edits to the talk page for two months. I have no opinion on the article (I have never seen it before, and only had a very quick look at the lead now), but it is not satisfactory to tag an established article without detailed explanations on the article talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 01:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Source of Japanese academic papers

Apparently, this website provides access to papers written, in both Japanese and English, by Japanese academics. FYI as possible sources for articles. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I made this edit cause in Italian Wikipedia we use so; it's the same in en.wikipedia, too? --Aushulz (talk) 23:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to participate!

Hello! As you may be aware, the Wikimedia Foundation is gearing up for our annual fundraiser. We want to hit our goal, and hit it as soon as possible, so that we can focus on Wikipedia's tenth anniversary (January 15) and on our new project, the Contribution Team.

I'm posting across WikiProjects to engage you, the community, in working to build Wikipedia not only through financial donations, but also through collaboration in building content. You can find more information in Philippe Beaudette's memo to the communities here.

Please visit the Contribution Team page and the Fundraising page to find out how you can help us support and spread free knowledge. DanRosenthal Wikipedia Contribution Team 18:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science policy

There is a discussion going on at Talk:Science policy about a reorganization/expansion of articles in that field including Science policy, Research funding, and Science policy in the United States. Any feedback would be appreciated! Antony–22 (talk/contribs) 05:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Fringe}} has been requested to be renamed, see template talk:Fringe. (talk) 12:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fathers of Vector Algebra

Notwithstanding the remarkable achievements of Heavyside and Gibbs, I would think that Grassmann with his book "Ausdehnungslehre" was THE father of vector algebra and should be mentioned here.

Andreas Dress —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:Bad science guideline needed re false-RS cites

A WikiProject Wine editor has taken their campaign to redefine North American geography and ecological science so as to support a British Columbia wine region's claim to be the northern extension of the Sonoran Desert, citing scads of travel and wine articles as "reliable sources". There needs to be a guideline on WP:Bad science and/or WP:Bad geography and the like to deal with situations like this. There will be cites out there, too for "the world is flat" and "the sun revolves around the earth" and "there are monsters under my bed", but it doesn't make them true either. I dno't mean to WP:Poll, I'm just wondering if there's a particular guideline out there about bad science/bad geography as "unreliable sources"....this ongoing catfight is getting to be a real waste of time, and it also calls into question the viaiblity or utility of current definitinos of reliable/verifiable sources. If a cite says something that is patently untrue, how can it be either reliable or verifiable?Skookum1 (talk) 00:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there an answer to this question? IvoryMeerkat (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikipedia:Fringe theories covers this. Fences&Windows 06:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey everyone, there's a small debate going on over the naming of the article Spark (fire) at its talk page. Any helpful and accurate input is much appreciated. Thanks so much!--Yaksar (let's chat) 14:05, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The usage of {{pi}} is under discussion, see Template talk: pi . (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was bluffing. I am entirely incapable of fixing the lead. Does anyone have large brain and five minutes? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

π (pi)

The usage of Π is under discussion, see Talk:Pi. (talk) 01:30, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could really use some help at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback

Greetings, as of the last month or so I'm the main guy holding down the fort at Wikipedia:Requests for feedback, and I could really use some additional help. RfF has been an outstanding experience in providing editing help to new editors who really want help and, in the majority of cases, are quick to incorporate feedback and really add to the value of their articles. We've had a number of requests for feedback on biology/botany/physics articles, and I'm not really familiar with that world or with that aspect of Wiki.

RfF doesn't require any fixed time commitment, and many feedbacks can be knocked out in literally five minutes or less, so even dropping by once or twice a week for five minutes would aid considerably in answering as many requests as possible, and consequently both encouraging new editors (who may become long-term serious editors) as well as maintaining high Wikipedia standards.

If anyone is willing to step up and drop by even a few times a week for just a few minutes, I would be profoundly grateful, as that would allow me to answer more requests for topics I specialise in (history, art, religion). Thanks! MatthewVanitas (talk) 20:24, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renewable energy portal at FPC

Portal:Renewable energy is currently a Featured portal candidate. Any contributions and/or feedback appreciated. --Elekhh (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is confusion in this article about the distinction between biology and the life sciences. What is their relation to each other. Isn't the name for the whole branch "Biology"?

Are the branch of science known as biology, and the life sciences, one and the same thing?

Please see Branches of science. The Transhumanist 05:55, 31 July 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One for a quiet half-hour

Science journalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a barely disguised (and only marginally grammatical) personal essay. Please have a go at it, and prune the linkfarm. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Some particularly obscure material in its introduction was (until it encountered my editorial machete) sourced to this website. Oh dear. Yes somebody who (unlike me) is equipped with books on the subject could indeed turn this into a very different article, one that's actually worthwhile. -- Hoary (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The scientific (or perhaps not)

The Tartu-Moscow Semiotic School:

is a scientific school of thought in the field of semiotics that was formed since 1964 and led by Juri Lotman. [...] Since 1980s, its approach can be characterized as post-structuralist, which is connected with the introduction of the concept of semiosphere by Juri Lotman and the relatedness to organicism.

(My emphasis.) Ummm . . . does this look scientific to you? -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:00, 15 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Future of Earth FAC

Future of Earth is up for featured article candidacy. Please add a review if you have an interest. Thanks. Regards, RJH (talk) 16:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Comment: Capitalization of common names of animal species

Editorial on science education in the United States

This article argues that American science education is not causing lesser numbers of Americans to appear in university research positions, but instead the way the science job market is structured. WhisperToMe (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal to change a section title

There's a proposal to adjust one of the main section titles used in "Wikipedia's contents", which will also affect the order in which the section titles are presented. See Portal talk:Contents#Proposal for main section title adjustment.

A discussion has emerged pertaining to the placement of "Formal sciences". The Transhumanist 02:23, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Science GA/FA push

An effort has begun to improve science to GA and, with luck, to FA status -- see Talk:Science if you are interested in participating. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:41, 18 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New WikiProject proposed: Open Access

Hi, I would like to ask your opinion on how matters of Open Access should best be handled. As a basis for discussion, I have set up Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Open Access but if you think it would all fit into WP:AJ or WP:SCIENCE, then I would be happy too. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Location of history section

In the proposed structure of articles, the history of the subject is always placed last. This is unlike the typical organization of textbooks, which generally place it right after, or in, the introduction. RockMagnetist (talk) 22:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorising eathquakes in science

"Category:XXXX earthquakes" is in "Category:XXXX in science" (eg Category:2011 earthquakes). This does not seem right. "Category:XXXX in seismology" (if such a category series were created) would be appropriate but not earthquakes. Thoughts? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:33, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

XXXX in science doesn't seem very heavily populated. If we take the category at face value, nothing happens most years in most of the natural sciences, social sciences and so on. Given gaps like that, how likely is "Category:XXXX in seismology" to be populated by anything besides earthquakes? Of course, if you find a lot of material for such a category, there is nothing stopping you from creating it. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This section should probably be repurposed. WikiProject Science does not have any children in the sense of Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide. Maybe it should just be a list of science WikiProjects. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 18#Category:Seismological history. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Foresight proposal

Dear WikiProject Science members, User:John_b_cassel and myself have started a proposal for a WikiProject on Foresight and Futures! Please come and take a look on the WikiProject Council proposals page [4] if this sounds interesting to you! We appreciate any tips and help! Zhanli2012 (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Big Bang#RFC: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Big Bang#RFC: Religious interpretations of the Big Bang. Polyamorph (talk) 09:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big Bang Theory

There is a discussion about the primary topic of Big Bang Theory. Currently it is an american TV show. You are welcome to comment at Talk:Big_Bang_Theory_(disambiguation)#Primary_Topic_RFC. Hipocrite (talk) 13:32, 14 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
Wavelength (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tab structure

Northamerica1000 has been doing a lot of work on the pages of this project and we are beginning to see a distinct improvement. Thanks, Northamerica1000! I am concerned about one change, however – I don't think that the science portal should share the tab structure with this project. That is potentially confusing and results in some redundancy because it adds yet more lists of pages to the many that this project already has. I have undone that change. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on religious opinions in article on the Big Bang

You are invited to comment on an RfC about religious opinions in the article on the Big Bang here: Thank you. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These two are coincident articles, there is no reason for Scientific law and it should be merged into laws of science. Please comment at this thread. I havn't the time right now, if there no objections I'll just do it myself. Thanks, F = q(E+v×B) ⇄ ∑ici 09:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

People have already objected. Please don't rush into this. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maltose vs Lactose

Is there a simple test other than "Osazone test" to differentiate between Maltose and Lactose ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest you try asking this question at the science reference desk. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure will, Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:58, 9 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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) 19:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Globalization proposal

Hi WikiProject Science members, Several of us are trying to get a WikiProject Globalization up and running. Members of this project would work together to improve the quality of articles on Wikipedia on Globalization, global issues and related topics. If you're interested in globalization, please come by and check out our proposal. We'd appreciate feedback about our ideas, and of course your support if you were interested in lending it. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related - The article Globalization has undergone major re-structuring. WikiProject Science members are invited to review and comment on the article and add relevant missing information or sections in which your project may have an interest. Also, you may be interested in reviewing the updated Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Globalization proposal for a new WikiProject. Regards, Meclee (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New WikiProject Globalization

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Globalization is a new project to improve Wikipedia's coverage of aspects of Globalization and the organization of information and articles on this topic. This page and its subpages contain their suggestions and various resources; it is hoped that this project will help to focus the efforts of other Wikipedians interested in the topic. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. Meclee (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello, would someone with a degree in science, please review the following article for accuracy: Bath salts (drug) any corrections with citations would be appreciated. Thank you. JunoBeach (talk) 10:58, 1 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we get some help at Time?

I have recently come upon the article Time and found that the lede definition (the very first sentence) was written strictly from the POV of experimental physicists, essentially saying that time is a measurement. The lede said nothing about how time is normally experienced by humans (and other beings) as, for lack of better words, our sequential progress in our existence. This is what is in the primary definitions of all three major English dictionaries. It's highly POV to require the lede definition of time to be defined only in terms of measurement. As if time has no meaning outside of measurement. Especially when it ignores the dictionary definition and especially when there exists a Time in physics article.

Primary definitions from 3 English language dictionaries: (obviously drawn from AH)
a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration: a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval: ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes: checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 a.m.
e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned: solar time.
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
a : the measured or measurable period during which an action, process, or condition exists or continues : duration
b : a nonspatial continuum that is measured in terms of events which succeed one another from past through present to future
American Heritage Dictionary
a. A nonspatial continuum in which events occur in apparently irreversible succession from the past through the present to the future.
b. An interval separating two points on this continuum; a duration:a long time since the last war; passed the time reading.
c. A number, as of years, days, or minutes, representing such an interval:ran the course in a time just under four minutes.
d. A similar number representing a specific point on this continuum, reckoned in hours and minutes:checked her watch and recorded the time, 6:17 AM.
e. A system by which such intervals are measured or such numbers are reckoned:solar time.
Oxford English Dictionary (1971 Compact Edition)
1. A limited stretch or space of continued existence, as the interval between two successive events or acts, or the period through which an action, condition, or state continues.

Can we get some help there at Time? (talk) 14:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Credo Reference Survey (your opinion requested)

Credo Reference, who generously donated 400 free Credo 250 research accounts to Wikipedia editors over the past two years, has offered to expand the program to include 100 additional reference resources. Credo wants Wikipedia editors to select which resources they want most. So, we put together a quick survey to do that:

At this time only the initial 400 editors have accounts, but even if you do not have an account, you still might want to weigh in on which resources would be most valuable for the community (for example, through WikiProject Resource Exchange). If you have any questions, you can leave me a note on my talk page or email me at Cheers! Ocaasi t | c 20:33, 10 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, I'm going to fill it in. NCurse work 06:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed changes to WP:NOT

Please see the recent notifications at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical, ethnic, and religious conflicts#Proposed changes to WP:NOT and Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Proposed changes to WP:NOT as it effects all religion editors: "There is currently discussion at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not#Is wikipedia a devotional compendium? regarding a proposed addition to that policy page. As topics of this nature tend to spawn some of the most heated and contested discussions we have, any and all informed, neutral opinions are more than welcome. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)" Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability of learned societies with weak coverage

You may find this discussion of interest. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in technology and engineering edit-a-thon 2012

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Women in technology and engineering edit-a-thon 2012. -- Trevj (talk) 09:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Generic Abilify Online

My opinion may not be important, but I say it was interesting and useful to all of what you said. Thank you very much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:38, 30 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal:Geography at peer review

Portal:Geography is now up for portal peer review, the review page is at Wikipedia:Portal peer review/Geography/archive1. I've put a bit of effort into this as part of a featured portal drive related to portals linked from the top-right corner of the Main Page, and feedback would be appreciated prior to featured portal candidacy. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion to restore pseudoscience and antiscience as part of definition in Alternative medicine article, using sources Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, etc.

A discussion involving retoring content from sources describing alternative medicine as being based on pseudoscience, antiscience, tradition, and bad science, including the first 14 sources of this version, such as Carl Sagan's The Demon Haunted World:Science as a Candle in the Dark, Journal of the Association of Medical Colleges, Annals of New York Academy of Sciences, Academic Medicine, Nature Medicine, etc., to the Alternative medicine article is now going on here. ParkSehJik (talk) 02:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

feminist critiques of science

There is a discussion about feminist critiques of science being in criticism of science Criticism_of_science#Feminist_Critiques, at Talk:Criticism_of_science#feminist_critique. IRWolfie- (talk) 22:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notice of Peer Review Request

Peer review has been requested and reviews will be appreciated for the article Globalization. Meclee (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]


We need to decide on a consistent depth for the children of this project in the Parentage section. The biology goes down two levels; if that were done with all the other projects, the tree would be enormous. It may be best to list only the top-level projects. RockMagnetist (talk) 18:31, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support: list only the top-level projects. Child projects can be found when following the project links. SchreyP (messages) 20:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I decided to be bold and delete the subcategories. I have also added more children based on Category:Science WikiProjects (as far as I know, children are defined by the categorization). However, there are some questionable entries in this category that should probably be children of lower-level projects. I have been recategorizing some of them. RockMagnetist (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think the categorization of WikiProject categories follows the proper parentage. If anything, Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory is a much better hierarchical overview of the WikiProjects. A WikiProject can do what it wants and defines who its parents are. A WikiProject higher on the hierarchical tree cannot necessarily name child projects. Theoretically, a WikiProject does not even need to have parents. The directory is an easy way to find projects, and might be a good place to start if you are interested in re-organizing all of the WikiProject categorization. Now that I think about it, rather than putting WikiProject categories within other WikiProject categories, maybe it would make sense to have a category for each heading in the directory. So Category:Science WikiProjects would contain all of the projects listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Science, Category:Biology WikiProjects would contain all of the projects listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Biology, Category:Medicine WikiProjects would contain all of the projects listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Science#Medicine, etc. --Scott Alter (talk) 05:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an interesting idea. If I wanted to re-organize the WikiProject categorization (no thank you!), the Directory would be a good starting point. However, it does not always reflect parentage. For example, there is a Geosciences section but no WikiProject Geosciences. Also, many projects only put themselves in one table despite claiming multiple parents. It's more trouble (and less obvious) to add to the directory than to add parent categories. Finally, the directory flattens out the hierarchy a bit. For example, WikiProject Rocks and minerals is a child of WikiProject Geology but they both appear at the same level in the Geosciences table. Given all that, I think that the categories may reflect parentage better than the directory. RockMagnetist (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess I'm thinking that categorization by topic (as listed in the Directory) might be better than categorization by parentage within a eponymous category for a WikiProject. It's already partially done if you look in Category:WikiProjects. Since this requires a larger discussion, I started a new topic: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#WikProject category categorization. --Scott Alter (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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 UK residency 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)Reply[reply]

Portal:Geography for featured portal consideration

I've nominated Portal:Geography for featured portal candidacy, discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Geography. Thank you for your time, — Cirt (talk) 21:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The usage of realism is up for discussion, see Talk:Philosophical realism -- (talk) 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Biography/Science and academia

Shouldn't WP:WikiProject Biography/Science and academia also be signed onto {{WPSCIENCE}} banner as it is with {{WPBIO}} ? Just as {{WPBIO|s&a-work-group=yes}} works, {{WPSCIENCE|scientist=yes}} could be used -- (talk) 02:46, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{WPBIO|s&a-work-group=yes}} is specifically for the Science and academia task force within WikiProject Biography, and it would only be confusing to use two banners for the same thing. RockMagnetist (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{WPMILHIST|Biography=yes}} activates the same workgroup as {{WPBIO|military-work-group=yes}} and it isn't confusing there, so I don't see why it would be here. -- (talk) 03:45, 27 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Infobox engineer

{{Infobox engineer}} has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Re-assessment

The article Bad Astronomy has been substantially improved by Joshuafilmer please consider re-assessing it. MrBill3 (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Acetic acid FAR

I have nominated Acetic acid 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. FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ORCID identifiers

ORCID, the Open Research Contributor ID is an identifier for contributors to academic papers, 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 scientists 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 15:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cooperative WikiProject

WikiProject Globalization, with assistance from Outlines WikiProject, has drafted an Outline of globalization. We welcome your input, additions, and comments. Meclee (talk) 17:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Basile Bouchon / binary numeral system

Basile Bouchon does not seem to have anything to do with binary numeral system — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoohoolian (talkcontribs) 02:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

50 images from the Science Museum collection


The Science Museum in London have agreed to release 50 of it's images (at a medium resolution) under a Wikimedia compatible license. Do you have anything in particular Wikimedia needs that they have? Feel free to give me a list if you like. The 2 websites that the images would be available from are:

I'm hoping this is the start of something larger but could just be a one off so am trying to come up with a most wanted list.

Mrjohncummings (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The year 1512 in science and technology included an entry: “Pharmaceutics Hieronymus Brunschwygk's "Big Book (of Distillation)" describes medicinal herbs and the construction of stills for processing them.”

The Hieronymus Brunschwig link leads to his page which states:

Brunschwig's Liber de arte distillandi simplicia et composita (also known as the "Little Book of Distillation") was one of the earliest books ever written concerning the subjects of chemistry and pharmacology. Printed by Grüninger in 1500”

…but says nothing about a “Big Book.”

There should be a corroborating entry. Hoohoolian (talk) 17:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Aquatic Ape Hypothesis

The article on Aquatic Ape Hypothesis can use a few more eyes on it. Thanks. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:18, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been featured

Articles for improvement star.svg

Please note that Food science, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by Theo's Little Bot at 07:18, 5 July 2013 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI teamReply[reply]