Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology
|This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject Biology and anything related to its purposes and tasks.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12|
|WikiProject Biology||(Rated Project-class)|
|This subject is featured in the Outline of biology, which is incomplete and needs further development.|
Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by .
|There is a discussion in the archive of a consensus how scientific names are displayed in the lead of species articles listed under common names.|
- Epigenetics - main article
- Epigenetic theory - overlapping content
- Transgenerational epigenetics - overlapping content
- Soft inheritance - overlapping content
- Inheritance of acquired characteristics - negatively characterized as outdated and disproven Soviet dogma that had disastrous administrative consequences
- Lamarckism - categorized as an obsolete scientific theory, despite contemporary re-analyses within the mainstream scientific community
- Lysenkoism - depicts Lamarckism, and, specifically, the inheritance of acquired characteristics, as being a textbook example of pseudoscience among Lysenko's many bedlamitic absurdities
This interrelated series of articles is one of the most disoriented, contradictory and factually compromised sets that I've encountered on our project in quite some time. Moreover, the overlapping nature of content and lack of adequately unambiguous central navigation is confusing, even for someone who has existing familiarity with the general topic. I'm not certain of how much available manpower WikiProject Biology has to offer at the moment, but I'd like to get the ball rolling on a collaborative effort of some sort. — C M B J 04:56, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
Wikimedia Discord has a Biology Channel!Edit
I hope to feature a link to this on the main page after the redesign is complete, but for the time being I wanted to advertise it here. I would love for more people to join, and I hope it will prove a major resource to us going forward as we improve WP:BIOL and it's subprojects. I cannot emphasize how refreshing it can be to talk in real time (or even in voice channels!) rather than in talk pages.
Need help with sexual systemsEdit
An editor on Wikiproject plant suggested to make an article on sexual systems. I created [this draft] called sexual system.
I know the topic of sexual systems is notable because there are sources like [this on monomorphic sexual systems].
There is even an entire book on sexual systems [right here.]
So it’s not like there is a lack of sources on this topic. It’s just there isn’t a proper definition of sexual system as a matter of fact some call them breeding systems or mating systems.
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!Edit
Reviving WikiProject ZooEdit
Hello, WikiProject Biology members, I am reviving WikiProject Zoo as I feel many of the zoo articles are lackluster. If anyone is interested in helping out, please do so. -- PaleoMatt (talk) 17:23, 5 September 2021 (UTC)
Categories: Biology education vs Bioscience educationEdit
Hello, I want to let you know that I've opened a discussion at CFD vis-a-vis merging these two Categories, which both cover the same subject matter -- and deciding which term should be used. You are invited to share your thoughts on this proposal HERE. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:29, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Simultaneous hermaphroditism an orphanEdit
Hello I made this new article called Simultaneous hermaphroditism. Unfortunately this new article is kinda an orphan and I need help having other pages link to it.CycoMa (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
Redirecting Raoultella towards KlebsiellaEdit
Hello. The former genus has been first erected in 2001 on the basis of two genes. In 2014 a phylogeny based on genomes reveals it is nested within Klebsiella and concludes:
Robust genome-based phylogeny showed that a unified Klebsiella cluster contains Enterobacter aerogenes and Raoultella, suggesting the latter genus should be abandoned. In 2021 another publication proposes again to reunify
the genus Raoultella with the genus Klebsiella based on similar results I have been trying to redirect Raoultella towards Klebsiella, but another user prevented me to do so. Can we have another opinion? Thanks, Totodu74 (talk) 13:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
- Michel Drancourt; Claude Bollet; Anne Carta; Patricia Rousselier (1 May 2001). "Phylogenetic analyses of Klebsiella species delineate Klebsiella and Raoultella gen. nov., with description of Raoultella ornithinolytica comb. nov., Raoultella terrigena comb. nov. and Raoultella planticola comb. nov". International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. 51 (3): 925–932. doi:10.1099/00207713-51-3-925. ISSN 1466-5026. PMID 11411716. Wikidata Q33951893.
- Corey M. Hudson; Zachary W. Bent; Robert J. Meagher; Kelly P. Williams (2014). "Resistance determinants and mobile genetic elements of an NDM-1-encoding Klebsiella pneumoniae strain". PLOS ONE. 9 (6): e99209. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0099209. ISSN 1932-6203. PMC 4048246. PMID 24905728. Wikidata Q21132017.
- Yuanyuan Ma; Xiuqin Wu; Shuying Li; Lie Tang; Mingyue Chen; Qianli An (June 2021). "Proposal for reunification of the genus Raoultella with the genus Klebsiella and reclassification of Raoultella electrica as Klebsiella electrica comb. nov". Research in Microbiology. 172 (6): 103851. doi:10.1016/J.RESMIC.2021.103851. ISSN 0923-2508. Wikidata Q108677989.
As you tried to change it on de as well see de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Redaktion Biologie#Raoultella vs. Klebsiella. LPSN does not agree with your change (see here) and at least on de-WP thats the guideline. .... When they change it de will change it probably as well. But not by simple putting a redirect; there is content which needs to be reviewed and maybe moved ...Sicherlich Post 09:14, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Taxonomy edits by an ipuserEdit
Hello, hoping to bring attention to a series of edits made by a new ipuser, who is making several taxonomy changes in some animal species articles. Hoping to draw some attention to verify that the edits are constructive. Thanks. --PerpetuityGrat (talk) 18:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)