Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 8

Template:Convert hijacks C and F (the symbols for coulomb and farad) for °C and °F, and conflicts with Template:val

Please consider this thread. Is the utility of hijacking these symbols worth the irregularities and frustrations it introduces? — Quondum 02:02, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Could use some eyes on Acupuncture. Some editors are trying to elevate some unsupported or poorly supported explanations to the level of "theories". A lot of the material in the section on "Proposed mechanisms of action" is not supported by sources complying with WP:MEDRS, and the most widespread explanation, the placebo effect, is played down, probably violating WP:NPOV. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:50, 2 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question about current accuracy of accelerator mass spectrometry vs. beta counting for radiocarbon dating

I'm working on radiocarbon dating, trying to get it to good article and possibly even featured article level. I have a question; I posted it at the article talk page but I thought it might be good to ask here too. Discussing the relatively accuracy of accelerator mass spectrometry and beta counting, in Science-based Dating in Archaeology, Aitken says "...for the present at any rate, the highest precision of all ((± 0.25% or better, corresponding to less than ±20 years in age) is obtainable by beta counting -- in one of a few special high-precision laboratories." This is from 1990, so I don't know if it's still true. The Belfast lab, one of the most accurate in the world, now uses AMS, so I suspect it's no longer the case that beta counting can outperform AMS. If anyone knows what the current state of affairs is, and has a source I can use in the article, I would really appreciate it. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 10 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, there's a note at WT:PHYSICS about a discussion at template talk:Science concerning Template:Science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- (talk) 06:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Come and join The Wikipedia Library

The Wikipedia Library is an open research hub, a place for organizing our amazing community of research and reference experts to collaborate and help improve the encyclopedia.

We are working together towards 5 big goals:

Connect editors with their local library and freely accessible resources
Partner to provide free access to paywalled publications, databases, universities, and libraries
Build relationships among our community of editors, libraries, and librarians
Facilitate research for Wikipedians, helping editors to find and use sources
Promote broader open access in publishing and research

Sign up to receive announcements and news about resource donations and partnerships: Sign up
Come and create your profile, and see how we can leverage your talent, expertise, and dedication: Join in

-Hope to see you there, Ocaasi t | c 14:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Missing topics page

I have updated Missing topics about Science - Skysmith (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Invitation to WikiProject Invention

Pod lípou návrhovou cs znak.svg
Hello, WikiProject Science.

You are invited to join WikiProject Invention, a WikiProject and resource dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of inventions and invention-related topics.

To join the project, just add your name to the member list. Northamerica1000(talk) 01:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images from the Science Museum collection

Hi All

The Science Museum have released 50 images (some more to be added tomorrow) for use on Wikipedia, I've added them to commons, please take a look, they're really great.

Thanks --Mrjohncummings (talk) 18:45, 3 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

about "Müllers"

Dear Editors!

I noticed that in enwiki articles (and therefore in other Wikipedias as well) in some of the infoboxes of animals not the proper zoologist's name is shown.

For example in the article List of authors of names published under the ICZN.

Salomon Müller (1804–1864) is shown as "S. Müller", while Johannes Peter Müller (1801–1858) is simply "Müller". However, in many articles the "Müller" link points to "Salomon Müller".

I think that the link "Müller" should refer to "Salomon Müller". There are two examples for it: Exilisciurus; Celebes Dwarf Squirrel.

The following zoologists can be found in their list:

DenesFeri (talk) 08:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My real question is, in this page [1] that Müller is Salomon Müller or Johannes Peter Müller or another person named Müller? DenesFeri (talk) 09:05, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal Society

The Royal Society is appointing a Wikimedian in Residence. Applicants from members of the community would be most welcome. Jonathan Cardy (WMUK) (talk) 11:38, 13 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Article in progress

Hey, all. I'm puttering in userspace on an article about Star Trek's influence on science and technology. Trying to shy away a focus on how they're depicted in the fiction, I'm instead interested in good information about professionals and products that were directly inspired by the franchise. If you can suggest any leads, existing articles with good citations I can harvest, or feedback on the focus/scope/structure, etc. about the work-in-progress itself, I welcome it. I'll keep this talk page bookmarked for awhile, but feedback directly on the draft's talk page would be most useful for me. Thank you! --EEMIV (talk) 15:55, 18 September 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blog critiquing Wikipedia

Just thought I'd alert you to this new blog, Bad Science, which critiques some of poorly written science articles on Wikipedia. They go into a very detailed dissection of articles which really leads to larger questions of how articles are pieced together from an assortment of sources, how there is original research even just interpreting those references and the wisdom of having a Good Article review from individuals who have no knowledge of the subjects they are reviewing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • S/he actually has some good points, worth reading. Nevermind a few hyperbolic expressions - say, all and every admins don't care (we do care), and such; all too normal when somewhat upset - Nabla (talk) 00:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal technology for featured candidacy

I've nominated Portal:Technology for featured candidacy. Comments would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Technology. — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion discussion for

Comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_26#Category:Solitary_Animals for the deletion of a category about animal species that don't exhibit gregarious behaviour. Diego (talk) 08:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI, Aeronautics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been proposed to be merged into aviation, see talk:aviation -- (talk) 23:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

International Year of Crystallography 2014

UNESCO proclaimed the "International Year of Crystallography 2014". It can be an important opportunity for wikipedians to contribute in an international initiative, spreading the scientific knowledge, in particular about crystallography.
These are my proposals to participate to this event:

  • to create the page International Year of Crystallography 2014 in all the Wikipedias
  • to improve substantially during this year the page Crystallography, Crystal and other important pages about crystallography, in all the Wikipedias
  • to create and translate pages related to crystallography
  • to create a Portal:Crystallography
  • to organize better the pictures in commons:Category:Crystallography and encourage the creation of new pictures
  • to contact all the Wikipedias, other Wikimedia projects, Wikimedia Foundation and the organizing committee of the "International Year of Crystallography 2014" (here you can see their contacts) to communicate our adhesion to this initiative.

Do you have any other opinion or suggestion? --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed page reorganization

All, I've proposed a reorganization of Citizen science on its talk page. As this is my first experiment in reorganizing a page, I'm not sure of the process, whether a single page reorg requires a full WP:RFC. Since the page in question is listed on its talk page as affiliated with this Project, I thought I'd at least point to that discussion from here, so that folks here are aware. Please direct any comments on the reorg of the page to that talk page, and any advice on the process to my talk page. Thanks 1bandsaw (talk) 20:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've started a list peer review for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, feedback to further along the quality improvement process would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Peer review/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1. — Cirt (talk) 11:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Template:Val2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion -- (talk) 05:23, 15 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Closure of Canadian science libraries

It has been reported that some materials from closed Canadian science libraries would be digitized upon request.

Wavelength (talk) 20:49, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it has also been reported (in those same articles) that since that (false) promise, they have been dumped in landfills, burned, or taken by private research companies. Sure, would have been nice to get them all into WikiSource, but when the country's major university and public libraries weren't even asked if they'd like them, it's pie-in-the-sky if you're suggesting that they be brought into Wikipedia. They're already gone, poof; into the dump, turned to ashes, or coopted by companies who were given the tip-off that they could be gotten for nothing and are now out of public reach. Including Wikipedia's. Your point in posting this was...??Skookum1 (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PS, I raised this for inclusion in the respective article at Talk:Environmental policy of the Harper government but I do not keep that watchlisted so am not sure who has added anything, if anything, so far. Since you have posted this on three different WikiProjects, might I suggest that any further discussion take place at that one spot?Skookum1 (talk) 21:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


FYI, aeronautics has been proposed to be renamed to aeronautical science, see talk:aeronautics -- (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!

  1. List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!
  2. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1

I've started a Featured List nomination for List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!.

Participation would be appreciated, at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Penn & Teller: Bullshit!/archive1.

Thank you for your time,

Cirt (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Menas Kafatos needs some help

Any physicists want to take a crack at Menas Kafatos - its over my head (or complete BS, I cannot tell). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archived some threads

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 09:06, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The scope, name and usage of State of the art (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is under discussion, see talk:State of the art. This was an article prior to 2 February 2014, when it was overwritten by a disambiguation page previously found at State of the art (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) -- (talk) 08:33, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia Junior for science entries

I am going to be teaching a science communications course in May at a college in Toronto. One of the things I wanted to have the students do is write simplified entries for some of the Wikipedia science sites. I am a long-time science journalist who finds numbers of these venues too complex for my easy understanding.

My idea would be to create the Wikipedia equivalent of the Encyclopedia Britannica Junior. I would like the students to be able to mount their entries in way that linked to the main Wikipedia science sites. To increase accuracy before submission I would run the students' versions past some scientists in the field.

Is there any possibility of doing something like this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenstrauss (talkcontribs) 16:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikimedia UK and Cancer Research UK to recruit Wikipedian in Residence - you can still apply

Dear all,

It may be of interest that Cancer Research UK, an organisation based in London, UK, is looking for a Wikipedian in Residence to deliver a six month full time project. The application closes tomorrow, 12th February. I hope those of you interested in helping in this project will be able to apply. Details are here:

Many thanks, Daria Cybulska (WMUK) (talk) 10:48, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 05:24, 23 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Saltwater Battery

Does anyone have any suggestions as to what to do with Saltwater Battery. From the reference it seems to be no more than a high school lab experiment on a simple galvanic cell using copper and aluminium in a salt solution. --Derek Andrews (talk) 18:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 4th and 5th !!!

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.

I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Four-paragraph leads -- a WP:RfC on the matter

Hello, everyone. There is a WP:RfC on whether or not the leads of articles should generally be no longer than four paragraphs (refer to WP:Manual of Style/Lead section for the current guideline). As this will affect Wikipedia on a wide scale, including WikiProjects that often deal with article formatting, if the proposed change is implemented, I invite you to the discussion; see here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#RFC on four paragraph lead. Flyer22 (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Portal:Paleozoic up for featured portal status

Today I nominated the Paleozoic Portal for featured portal status. Your comments and criticism are welcome at the nomination page. Abyssal (talk) 05:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are physicians scientists?

See discussion at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_scientists#Are_physicians_scientists_-_Guardian_article. XOttawahitech (talk) 15:23, 6 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just an update: Since I last posted, engineers have been removed from scientists. XOttawahitech (talk) 14:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are researchers scientists?

Please voice your opinion at: Talk:Research/Archives/2014#Are_researchers_scientists.3F.Thanks in advance, XOttawahitech (talk) 15:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Total free access to Royal Society History of Science journals for 2 days on March 25th and 26th !!!

As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am again pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 25th and 26th. This is in conjunction with the Diversity in Science Edit-a-thon on 25 March. The event is held by the Royal Society and there are currently a couple of places available, as well as online participation which is very welcome, as are suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Diversity in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.

The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 25th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 26th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:

The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events in May, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 17:33, 24 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Awesome news thanks John!Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 17:29, 25 March 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion about which image to include in the Science section of the United States article.

All input welcome. /Cheers walk victor falk talk 06:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Still well worth applying here! Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 10:18, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Royal Society offer

As Wikimedian in residence at the Royal Society, the UK's National Academy for the Sciences, I'm trying to organize a release of some images in various categories from their Picture Library. One of the categories is historic (out of copyright) natural history books, mainly for the illustrations. Are there particular books or other holdings that people would like to see images from, or particular images? Unfortunately much of what they have is not digitized and much of what is digitized is not presently online at the last link. The main library catalogue search page is here. Before asking, please try to see if decent quality images are not available elsewhere, as they often are, from the Library of Congress etc. Thanks, Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 09:58, 7 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Those of you working in science may be interested in ORCID. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikipedia editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at As well as including your ORCID in any works to which you contribute, you can include it in your user page using {{Authority control}} thus: {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0001-5882-6823}} (that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). ORCID identifiers can also be added to biographical articles, either directly or via Wikidata. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Should we have a category for recipients of honorary degrees? (It was recently deleted)

If you are interested in this topic, please see my post at Talk:Honorary_degree#Deletion_of_recipients_of_honorary_degrees. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong category name?

Please express your opinion here. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Leaflet for Wikiproject Science at Wikimania 2014

Project Leaflet WikiProject Medicine back and front v1.png

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

The deadline for submissions is 1st July 2014

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:

Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

signal corruption

Hello I'm looking forward to create an article about signal corruption factors that causes mobile signals in cellular network wasted over many areas, sometimes due to mountains and other physical factors. If anyone is interested, let me know to start the article. A.Minkowiski _Lets t@lk 17:37, 28 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

European Sleep Apnea Database deletion discussion

European Sleep Apnea Database is undergoing a deletion discussion, AFD page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Sleep Apnea Database. — Cirt (talk) 03:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation hiring an experienced science editor

Wiki Education Foundation is hiring two experienced Wikipedia editors for part-time (20 hours/week) positions: Wikipedia Content Expert, Sciences and Wikipedia Content Expert, Humanities. The focus of these positions is to help student editors do better work, through everything from advice and cleanup on individual articles, to helping instructors find appropriate topics for the students to work on, to tracking the overall quality of work from student editors and finding ways to improve it. We're looking for clueful, friendly editors who like to focus on article content, but also have a strong working knowledge of policies and guidelines, and who have experience with DYK, GAN, and other quality processes.--Sage (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RfC on Scientific opinion on climate change

Please comment on Talk:Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#RFC_Controversy_about_the_policy_section where the topic is in dispute but there are few contributors currently. Dmcq (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

npp for category tool

Please comment. Gryllida (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The FAC reviewer gave his support after reviewing the article, and suggested the following ...ask relevant WikiProjects on their talk pages to drop by the review. Following is the link: [2] Your time will be greatly appreciated. AtsmeConsult 15:51, 12 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Association induction hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Could someone who is knowledgeable in science go through the word salad of this article with a machete and clean to remove the obvious nonsense, blatant WP:SYN and/or determine that it is more appropriate as a redirect? Thanks! -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of the various branches of natural science

Many of the natural sciences do not have history coverage on Wikipedia. That is, for many of them, there is neither an article on the history of the branch, nor a history section in the main article for the branch.

To see which branches do not have history coverage, look for the redlinks at Outline of natural science#History of natural science.     The Transhumanist 02:53, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject Academia?

Please see here: Talk:Academia#WikiProject Academia?. Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 02:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Free 'RSC Gold' accounts

I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics. Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCup 2015

Hi there; this is just a quick note to let you all know that the 2015 WikiCup will begin on January 1st. The WikiCup is an annual competition to encourage high-quality contributions to Wikipedia by adding a little friendly competition to editing. At the time of writing, more than fifty users have signed up to take part in the competition; interested parties, no matter their level of experience or their editing interests, are warmly invited to sign up. Questions are welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Thanks! Miyagawa (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikiproject Cosmology, come join a new project

If you are interested in physics and astronomy, join this new project. It still needs some improvement on the main page but maybe you can give us a hand. Thanks! Tetra quark (don't be shy) 02:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiProject X is live!

WikiProject X icon.svg

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact?

See Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis.2FTheory as fact. Bladesmulti (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

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 Community portal 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 Evad37 [talk] 01:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI teamReply[reply]

Hard Choices, new article about book on climate change in Canada

I've created a new article about the book on climate change in Canada, titled, Hard Choices: Climate Change in Canada.

Help with suggesting additional secondary sources would be appreciated at the article's talk page, at Talk:Hard Choices (Coward book).

Thank you,

Cirt (talk) 02:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please see relevant discussion. Thanks, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I haven't visited this page before and don't know how much participation it gets, but it seems like the appropriate place to draw attention to this new article, which contains useful material but is very unbalanced. What is the right way to handle it? Could the useful content be merged into another more encyclopedic article? Looie496 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Very Important discussion that may lead a statutes for Indian FNAS, FIAS, FNAAS, FISCA, FINAS

Some important discussions are ongoing here on these afds 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Please join the discussion and opine, since this will create a precedent for other such Indian articles on WP existing now, and created in future. Please dont miss out! Educationtemple (talk) 14:11, 16 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal on meta: Reddit Science AMA + PLOS + Wikipedia

FYI m:Grants:IdeaLab/Reddit Science AMA + PLOS + Wikipedia--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

AfD (possible hoax)

There is currently a discussion regarding an article that may be of interest to members of this project. Concerns have been raised that the article may be a hoax. Interested editors are encouraged to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manahel Thabet. Thank you. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 22 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

History of science / Natural events, category discussion

See here. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 25 May 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]