Portal talk:Biology
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
For discussion about Portals generally, please see the WikiProject on Portals. |
 |
The Biology Portal is a featured portal, which means it has been identified as one of the best portals on Wikipedia. If you see a way this portal can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, please feel free to contribute. |
 Archives |
|---|
|
Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in a archived discussion, please make a new header on this page. Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Archives: |
- Proposed content
The purpose of proposed content is to encourage more regular updates and make them easier to carry out, and to give people a chance to decide the content of this portal. Follow the link to learn more:
Contents |
[edit] Latin/Greek Roots and Pronunciation of Terms
Has anyone considered clarifying things a bit by adding latin/greek roots and pronunciation following the terms on the wiki bio related pages? I think it would be extremely helpful for students, like myself, who are learning an incredible amount of terms all at once. Any input?
[edit] Biology categorization
Hi -- the biology category is a bit unwieldy at the moment. Are other folks working on subcatting it? I propose, for starters, a subcat for divisions of biology -- Category:Types of biology but obviously, better terminology is okay. The notion is to fit molecular biology, microbiology, and so on, into a subcat. Then start working on the articles and other obvious subcategories. Other ideas? --lquilter 22:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- I would recommend Category:Fields of biology or Category:Biological fields. Another possibility is Category:Biological disciplines, but sometimes a scientific "discipline" means something more specific than just an area of research (i.e., a discipline has professional infrastructure like journals and societies). An easier and probably more useful possibility is to identify the articles in the category that should be just in a subcategory and prune the biology category from them; I'm sure half the articles currently in the biology category could be shunted to an existing subcategory, even many of the biological fields (since the main subdivisions of biology already have categories).--ragesoss 22:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm doing the pruning now. Will hold off on any types/fields/disciplines until pruning is done & more discussion here. --lquilter 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- On taking a closer look, I agree, though... even just the number of categories in biology is overwhelming. I'm doing some pruning as well, but unfortunately some of it just moves the problem elsewhere. Many of the subcategories (e.g., Category:Ecology) are massively overfilled themselves.--ragesoss 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, but, at least if they're in ecology we can then begin figuring out how we need to cat ecology. --lquilter 23:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yes. On a related note, I've proposed moving Category:Tree of life to Category:Organisms: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_January_10#Category:Tree_of_life. In addition to being more intuitive, this would allow us to move categories like "Category:Aquatic organisms out of Biology.--ragesoss 23:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well, but, at least if they're in ecology we can then begin figuring out how we need to cat ecology. --lquilter 23:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- On taking a closer look, I agree, though... even just the number of categories in biology is overwhelming. I'm doing some pruning as well, but unfortunately some of it just moves the problem elsewhere. Many of the subcategories (e.g., Category:Ecology) are massively overfilled themselves.--ragesoss 23:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yep, I'm doing the pruning now. Will hold off on any types/fields/disciplines until pruning is done & more discussion here. --lquilter 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No wikiproject?
I'm trying to place the article death under an appropriate wikiproject. Unfortunately, even simply in biological terms it comes under the scope of many subprojects - ecology (predation etc), and its extinction subproject, evolutionary biology, and of course medicine. I thought it would be better to place it within a higher level category, since it is such a common theme throughout biology, but the wikiproject page just redirects here, so I'm left wondering what, if anything, I should do with it. Richard001 06:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I see no pressing reason why it needs to be associated with any WikiProject at all. But if you just want somewhere to point from the talk page to a broader community of interested editors, then maybe you could add several links to the different appropriate projects in a "See also" template beneath the rest of the templatecruft. On the other hand, maybe it's time to un-redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology, and set it up as a discussion forum (i.e., the role this page is serving).--ragesoss 07:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've recreated Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology.--ragesoss 18:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Monotreme eggs information required
I have these last weeks requested in the talk pages of the following articles, Egg (biology) and monotremes, more information about monotreme eggs and images of them. I believe that there isn't very much information about this. I would like to know futher about the characteristics of these eggs, the phisiological differences between monotreme eggs and other eggs, like reptiles, birds or amphibius. I have heard that they are "rubbery" (?). Do they need to be kept warm (?) I would appretiate any information... --Francisco Valverde 19:41, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Megafauna
I'm new to this whole Project and Portal thing but I noticed a page which I recently overhauled, Megafauna is in need of further attention. It also is not part of any WikiProject. Just thought maybe someone here might want to look into it. --Scorpios 04:48, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
