Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Archives
* Archive 1: 2004—2006.


Contents

[edit] Biology portal

I encourage you all to help with maintaining the biology Wikiportal connected with this project! Ausir 23:03, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Open tasks list

Please help to keep the Biology portal's Open tasks list up to date. This is one of our main communication methods to help get newcomers more involved in editing articles. It contains a list of articles that need improving, articles that need creating, articles that need cleanup, etc. And of course, if you have the time, please help and work on some of the tasks on that list! --Cyde Weys 05:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Articles for the Wikipedia 1.0 project

Hi, I'm a member of the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team, which is looking to identify quality articles in Wikipedia for future publication on CD or paper. We recently began assessing using these criteria, and we are looking for A-class, B-class, and Good articles, with no POV or copyright problems. Can you recommend any suitable articles? Please post your suggestions here. Cheers, Shanel 20:14, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution FAR

Evolution has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Would it be possible to have assessment information added to the template? Richard001 23:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Punctuated equilibrium GAR

Punctuated equilibrium is up for WP:GA/R#Punctuated_equilibriumGood Article Review. Despite WP:CITE stating that Harvard referencing is acceptable practice on Wikipedia, (and being repeatedly told so) the reviewers are suggesting that the method of citation be changed. Cite.php has been mentioned... It would be A Lot Of Work to change the format of citation to the cite.php method, but looking at Charles Darwin, I see that there are a number of Harvard referencing templates that could be used in punk ekk. So, I guess I'm looking for consensus (help would also be appreciated, too!) on changing the citing method in punk ekk from plain Harvard to "Harvard using templates". Thank you. - Malkinann 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.

Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 03:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help on articles please

I recently made some major cleanup and reconstruction on the formerly inaccurate and POV social construction article. Please help me add scientific and cultural research to this article. Gender role needs similar help, by the way.--Urthogie 19:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you meant to post this at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sociology? Jvbishop 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It already has plenty of sociology, what it needs is an explanation of the biology involved.--Urthogie 20:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] H. Allen Orr?

If anyone here is familiar with the work of an H. Allen Orr, then this article is currently in need of immediate attention. Orr wrote a critical review about Richard Dawkins and that has been the central focus of the article, while the rest of it is essentially copy-pasted from various sources. It would be extremely helpful, if someone who actually knows anything about this man, would come over and help in writing a real biography or oversee that this becomes a fair depiction of Mr. Orr's all round contribution to science and the debate on science and religion. (He is a prominent critic of intelligent design as well as critical of Dawkins and Dennett, but primarily, he should be noted for his work in evolutionary genetics.) Thank you for the help! --Merzul 17:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hominid intelligence

Hi, Hominid intelligence is a very poor article and should be rewritten. I just linked to it from Mind and can't find a more appropriate article to link to from the Developmental history of the human mind section. — goethean ॐ 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Category for discussion: Category:Anti-creationism

Hi. I have asked that discussion be brought about Category:Anti-creationism. CFD ENTRY.

I would appreciate input as to how best to define or deal with this category.--ZayZayEM 06:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Project Banner

I have recently created a banner for Wikipedia:WikiProject Biology which has assessment parameters. I notice that your existing banner does not. Given the amount of overlap in the biology sector, and the concerns expressed elsewhere about the proliferation of project banners, I was wondering whether the members of this project would be interested in perhaps utilizing the Biology banner, with a "drop down tab" for this project, perhaps similar to the {{WPMILHIST}} banner. Doing so would permit for individual assessment for each project, as that is something the Military History banner does, while at the same time reducing the amount of banner "clutter" on talk pages. If you would be interested in such an arrangement, please let me know and I will work to revise the Biology banner to include the "drop-down" tab and make the other arrangements required for your project, as well as theirs, to have assessment data available. Thank you. John Carter 21:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article merge ?

Frozen plasticity. Nothing novel in content. Shyamal 06:36, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice needed

I would like to seek advice from anyone in this WikiProject. I feel quite passionate against a section of an article, and in some way, against the whole article as it stands. I would like to hear objective points of view on this matter. I disagree with the section Extinctions in dependent territories of European countries which is inside the article List of extinct animals of Europe, because I believe it uses political terms to classify extinct animals, as if Falkland Island Fox is a British extinct subject or a Lava Mouse is a Spanish national. I would propose that we should use scientific terms, such as geographical or geological terms. So if an animal became extinct on the Falkland Islands we should classify it as a American, or at least, a South American extinction and not a European country dependant. The poor animal was never dependant on any country, not even now. I believe this is a use of Human nationalistic pride over extinct animals that never lived in those political constructs because in the first place, they still did not exist. I would propose that we should delete the section hear objective points of view on this matter. I disagree with the section Extinctions in dependent territories of European countries just like other articles such as List of extinct animals of Catalonia, List of extinct animals of the Netherlands. I would only accept articles such as List of extinct animals of the British Isles or List of extinct animals of Europe if they use the geographical or geological term. I would even suggest to merge List of extinct animals of Europe with List of extinct animals of Asia into List of extinct animals of Eurasia , because it is a more truly scientific term. Anyway, I would like to know what do you people of the Wikiproject think? Thanks. Francisco Valverde 19:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... I've run across this, and think it's both interesting and tricky. First, we should be able to agree that species have a geographic label, not a political one, and if a territory is disputed both names added with UN recognition first.
The second and trickier issue is how broad the label should be. It's ridiculous to label a Galapagos finch as South American or even Ecuadorean when it may occupy just a couple of islands. And talking of islands, there's a big difference, biogeographically speaking, between islands on the continental shelf and true oceanic islands.
Finally, are we happy to indicate just present distribution? Consider Equus caballus, for example. There are many cases where we need to distinguish between present distribution and, for instance, pre-Neolithic distribution. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics

Why is there a wikiproject for evolutionary biology, and one for medical genetics, but there isn't one for just "genetics"? The structure of these wikiprojects seems weird to me. Genetics has been labeled as being part of this project, but that doesn't sit well with me -- it's also within the scope of Medical Genetics, and Molecular and Cellular Biology; it seems to me that "Evolutionary biology" is mostly a subset of Genetics and not the other way around.

I'd like to contribute to wikipedia (well, I already am), but I'd also like to do it in a collaborative way, and I just don't know where to go most of the time. Some examples of my confusion: I'm working on Genetics right now, where do I go to get advice on what to add? I've tried to solicit advice, but it doesn't seem to be working, so I'm flying blind right now. Also, there's a number of genetics articles that need improvement, and images I think are needed, is there some page where people can contribute requests to a list with comments about what sort of improvement is needed? (The generated "articles needing attention" lists are confusing, aren't sorted by date and are lacking comments.) Thanks... Madeleine 18:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer-review of Evolution

Hi everybody, comments and suggestions on this core topic are welcome. Wikipedia:Peer review/Evolution/archive1. Thank you. TimVickers 22:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digital ecology

I wikified this article after a fashion (it was languishing in articles needing wikifying). It makes very little sense to me. I understand that Lynn Margulis' views are controversial, but this is not yet reflected in the article, which could have a "criticism" section. Perhaps it even needs merging. I'm hoping you people will know what to do with it. Thanks. Itsmejudith 22:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Banner template

I've created a redirect using {{EBWP}} if anyone wants to use that instead - it's a little easy to type out and remember. I like to keep template names as simple as possible. If anyone at this project is interested in creating an assessment scheme that would be great too - I like to rate articles and find a banner that doesn't allow that function of little use. I created one for ecology {{See Template:Ecology) which seems to do the trick, even though I know virtually nothing about templates. Someone can probably improve the system if it needs it but it's great to have a system up and running so we can identify the areas that need the most work. Richard001 11:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note:Added a shortcut to the project too (WP:WPEB).
Sorry, I'm too impatient for this so I've gone ahead and created an assessment field in the template now based on the ecology template. Hopefully it will work properly and hopefully you all here don't mind me doing so (the assessment system will need to be set up but it isn't too much work). Richard001 02:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution FAC

Hi there, I've nominated Evolution as a featured article candidate, the discussion page is here. Comments and suggestions would be appreciated. TimVickers 15:39, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vestigiality

Could someone comment on Darwin's views on vestigial structures on the talk page? I'm confused over several passages in Origin of Species and Descent of Man. My reading of his work has lead me to assume he believed there was a Lamarckian aspect to inheritance due to his use of phrases like 'the inherited effects of use and disuse'. Could someone familiar with his work and views please confirm that this was not his viewpoint, and perhaps explain to me how the passages should be read? Richard001 09:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two suggestions

  1. I suggest that we create a larger, better structured article for molecular evolution. Someone would be interested to help me create a framework from the article ?
  2. About the article on Fitness (biology). Perhaps I'm missing something, but there's a huge debate in theoretical ecology about the best measure of fitness; carrying capacity, intrinsic rate of growth, lifetime reproductive output, et cetera... The article is very interesting, but it's only about population genetics. I'm wondering if there's a reason why the perspective from ecology is not included.

-PhDP 06:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Frost, blond hair blue eyes, etc.

Hi, there's a question about this research at WT:ETHNIC. I poked around a bit and came up empty-handed, so it's looking kinda fringe-theory to me.. but hey, I'm a linguistics guy, what would I know? :-) So.. am I right? Thanks Ling.Nut 23:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evolutionary history of life

hi, i have created this page very recently (18th july 2007) and now i am willing to nom. this page for FAC. is there anything i can do in order to improve this page. please leave your comments on the article's talkpage. thankyou, Sushant gupta 01:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking input on "Principle of Conjugated Subsystems" article

If anyone here knows something about "The Principle of Conjugated Subsystems", please comment at its AFD. A guide to deletion discussions is here. Thanks!--Chaser - T 04:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joining up

Is it possible that I can be signed up to this project? I can't promise a huge amount of participation as I'm a little swamped with family and work but it is my field and I'm eager to contribute in some way. Thanks. AlanD 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just add your name to this list. --Aranae 02:20, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks AlanD 18:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Atulsnischal's enthusiastic "See also" contributions

Hi, I think some of User:Atulsnischal's contributions to "See also" sections might be a bit over-enthusiastic. I invite inspection. Pete.Hurd 05:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Portal:Evolutionary biology

I have created this portal a bit recently only. it is requested to add the page on your watchlist please. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] allowing unconverted metric units in scientific articles

I'm seeking consensus at MOSNUM talk for a change in the wording to allow contributors, by consensus only, to use unconverted metrics in scientific articles. Your opinions are invited. Tony 15:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eugenics/Dysgenics in the Human article

I'm not very happy with this addition. Could I ask for some second opinions at Talk:Human#Lame_.22Dysgenics.22_Section? Thanks Tim Vickers 02:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment: Rosalind Picard

She is a signatory of A Scientific Dissent from Darwinism.

The RFC concerns whether it is appropriate or not to include a disclaimer noting that Picard is outside of her speciality, and that the petition was an absolute failure of an appeal to authority.

There have been no supplied WP:RS that utilize this argument. So it has been argued for exclusion on the basis of WP:NOR--ZayZayEM 09:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plant evo devo

Hey all...I am currently working through the WP:PLANTS project on Plant evo devo article.Would those interested please get in touch with me, so that there r more hands working on the same...? Please see the discussion page on Plant evo devo for the link to the subproject...That would be great! Gauravm1312 22:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concerns about: Evolution of human intelligence

I'm concerned about the balance and focus of this article Evolution of human intelligence. It talks a lot about a few speculative theories of how race might be related to intelligence and little else. The sources used are mostly supporters of theories about race and intelligence:

It seems like a very one sided article about a fascinating topic where the most prominent and well accepted reacher has little to do with theories of race. Could some one take a look at it and suggest how to revise it, or perhaps where to merge the material in this article? futurebird 02:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mechanisms and processes of evolution

the following article has been nominated for fac. kindly leave your comments please. Sushant gupta (talk) 15:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article for deletion: Evolutionary relay

Resolved.

Evolutionary relay at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evolutionary relay (2007-12-03 – 2007-12-11) Deleted

--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
updated --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smilodon needs review / cleanup

Smilodon could use review / cleanup. -- Writtenonsand (talk) 17:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Last common ancestor/Most recent common ancestor

Hi there, a two-person discussion is underway on the talk page of Last Common Ancestor on the correct definition and application of these terms. Could somebody with some knowledge of these terms contribute to a third party comment section there? Tom Schmal (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biocultural evolution

I recently created the article for Biocultural evolution and added it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology and wanted to bring it to the attention of this project since it is a multidisciplinary topic. Peace-out. --Woland (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

So it's the interaction between cultural and biological evolution? Sounds interesting. Richard001 (talk) 21:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New article

Hi folks, I've started a new article on the 1860 Oxford evolution debate and I'd appreciate your input. Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 16:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. Definitely one for DYK. Richard001 (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Wow, good show Dm--Woland (talk) 23:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
As an outsider, I think it's a very informative article. Well done! I suggest expanding and improving it to Featured Article status, so it can be featured on the main page on June 30, 2010, 150 years to the day after the debate. AecisBrievenbus 00:00, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to create a WikiProject: Genetic History

I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject (or WikiSubProject), WikiProject: Genetic History.

To quote from what I've written there:

Description
A wikiproject for articles on DNA research into genetic genealogy and genealogical DNA tests; the history and spread of human populations as revealed by eg human Y-chromosome and mitochondrial DNA haplogroups; and similar. Many such articles can be found in Category:Genetic genealogy and its subcategories, notably the subcategories on human haplogroups.
Rationale
  • My direct motivation for seeking this Wikiproject was a recent run-in at Y-chromosomal Aaron, where I desperately missed the lack of a relevant WikiProject talk page to go to, to attract the input, advice and views of knowledgeable editors in this area.
There's a lot of general public interest in the proposed subject area -- eg the Y-chromosomal Aaron page is apparently getting well over 100 hits a day, and over the last 18 months or so there's been a lot of material added, by a fair number of different editors, mostly editing different pages which are particularly relevant to them. IMO, a central wikiproject would be useful, and also a good place to be able to bring WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:general cluelessness issues for wider informed input.
Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology do already exist, but their focus is much much broader. With regard to those project's charters, I believe the subject would be seen as a rather specialist niche topic area, rather out of the mainstream of those project's normal focus. On the other hand, I believe that there are a number of wikipedia editors (and readers) who are specifically interested in the subject, who would find advantage if there were a specific wikiproject for it. Jheald (talk) 12:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.

Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.

Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History

Thanks, Jheald (talk) Jheald (talk) 13:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Genetics FAC

I've nominated Genetics as a featured article candidate. I invite anyone interested to review, make comments, and make suggestions here: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Genetics Thanks! Madeleine ✉ ✍ 17:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Someone feel like re-evaluating "dysgenics"?

The article on dysgenics has grown quite a bit since the last rating; does someone want to review it? Harkenbane (talk) 00:08, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have grown that much. What is really needed is a discussion about which articles we should and shouldn't have about the subject of eugenics. I think an article on the scientific aspects of eugenics might be a good idea (along with a sister article on the ethical aspects, making clear the distinction between fact and value), but dysgenics is such an activist term (like genetic pollution)... I used to think the term was scientific for some reason, but it's really just the opposite of eugenics, and like the latter includes both questions of fact (science) and value. A sociology banner would be just as appropriate as the EB one.
I don't know if we should keep dysgenics or not, but I probably wouldn't give it any higher rating than it has at the moment. I haven't given it a thorough read though, and I know not nearly enough to say much on its quality even if I did. Richard001 (talk) 08:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footer: evolution of Fungi

I notice that there's no specific Wikipedia article on Fungal evolution. Perhaps the Basic topics in evolutionary biology footer should link to Fungus#Evolutionary_history, or is it necessary to wikilink a specific article page in this case?

I mention it only because there is at least some detail on the evolutionary history of Fungi on the above link, while as it stands, anyone clicking on the link in the Template will get nothing.

Regards.--AC+79 3888 (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a template about basic topics in evolutionary biology. In my opinion it already has too many links. How is the evolution of the ear a basic topic in evolutionary biology? What about the evolution of the tongue? Insect antennae? Richard001 (talk) 05:09, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Evolution of mammals

Heads up and a shout out to all. Evolution of mammals is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Dawkins FA

Hello. I have nominated the article Richard Dawkins for the FA status. Others are invited to contribute. Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] List of transitional fossils and proposed list of evolutionary series

I was trying to devise a more aesthetically pleasing way of organizing the list of transitional fossils and came up with a table that looks like the sample below. I was posting here hoping to bring some attention to it and maybe get some feedback. Comments, criticisms and suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

The Fish → Tetrapods Evolutionary Series
Appearance Taxa Relationships Status Description Image
385 Ma

Genus:
380 Ma

Genus:
375 Ma

Genus:

Also, I noticed that there wasn't a whole lot of diversity in terms of different lineages on that page. It seemed very much like its contributors wanted to focus only on the highest scale, most widely known, most emblematic transitional series. I think that's an unfortunate approach.

My personal opinion is that a supplemental page should be created to house an organized miscellany of documented, lower taxonomic ranked, less well known series of transitional forms. I think it could be called "List of evolutionary series" and would be a valuable repository of information about transitional series that might not normally receive the attention they deserve, with the benefit of them not cluttering the page dedicated to the more diplomatic series.

Don't you think list of lower-level, less widely known transitional lineages would be a valuable resource and a convenient counter to creationist claims that such series don't exist?

Abyssal leviathin (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Good article icon

A proposal to add a symbol identifying Good Articles in a similar manner to Featured ones is being discussed: see Wikipedia talk:Good articles#Proposal. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vancouver, British Columbia meet-up

Wikimedia Vancouver Meetup

Please come to an informal gathering of Vancouver Wikipedians, Monday, May 5 at 6:30 pm. It will be at Benny's Bagels, 2505 West Broadway. We'd love to see you there, and please invite others! Watch the Vancouver Meetup page for details.

This box: view • talk • edit

Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)