| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Biology article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives (index): 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
| Biology has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
| This It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
| Text or other creative content from this version of Biology was copied or moved into Life sciences with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
Article review
edit@Boneless Pizza!: With this edit you indicated that this article might need to go to WP:GAR. Is this still the case? If so, do you want to post it there? Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- Yes since it has a lot of unsource statements but I wont nominate it to GAR since I have no IQ about this topic at all. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 18:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Boneless Pizza!: I am not sure what is meant by "no IQ about this topic at all." An editor does not need to be a subject matter expert to bring an article to GAR, and doesn't need an extensive background in the topic to see when statements are uncited. I totally understand if you don't want to bring this to GAR, but I encourage you to do so as you can explain your concerns more effectively than me. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
- The problem with the current text is not that it is missing a few citations. Back in 2010 the 3300-word article correctly listed biology disciplines (now all gone), and devoted much of its space to 'Research', i.e. what the disciplines do, as you'd expect for a science. That's all gone as well. Instead, most of the article isn't about the science at all, but is about Life, which is the object of study. It's as if Botany was a CFORK of Plant, or Medicine was a CFORK of Disease: obvious nonsense, and no use whatsoever. We could begin again from the 2010 text (omitting its 'Foundations of biology' chapter which was about Life): this would be a major reversion and rewrite. I may do it as it's a total embarrassment at the moment; even a short correct summary would be an improvement on a confused rabbit-hole diversion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Right, I've removed all the off-topic (object-of-study) material and added text and sources on some of the constituent sciences so we have a plain but focused article. We should not now need a GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sad to see the article went to be like that but thank you for your hardwork at this article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:39, 13 April 2026 (UTC)
- Sad to see the article went to be like that but thank you for your hardwork at this article. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 20:59, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- Right, I've removed all the off-topic (object-of-study) material and added text and sources on some of the constituent sciences so we have a plain but focused article. We should not now need a GAR. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:52, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- The problem with the current text is not that it is missing a few citations. Back in 2010 the 3300-word article correctly listed biology disciplines (now all gone), and devoted much of its space to 'Research', i.e. what the disciplines do, as you'd expect for a science. That's all gone as well. Instead, most of the article isn't about the science at all, but is about Life, which is the object of study. It's as if Botany was a CFORK of Plant, or Medicine was a CFORK of Disease: obvious nonsense, and no use whatsoever. We could begin again from the 2010 text (omitting its 'Foundations of biology' chapter which was about Life): this would be a major reversion and rewrite. I may do it as it's a total embarrassment at the moment; even a short correct summary would be an improvement on a confused rabbit-hole diversion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:24, 12 April 2026 (UTC)
- @Boneless Pizza!: I am not sure what is meant by "no IQ about this topic at all." An editor does not need to be a subject matter expert to bring an article to GAR, and doesn't need an extensive background in the topic to see when statements are uncited. I totally understand if you don't want to bring this to GAR, but I encourage you to do so as you can explain your concerns more effectively than me. Z1720 (talk) 02:19, 7 April 2026 (UTC)
Cat sort order
editThis edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Needs a space as a cat sort order. ~2026-28417-94 (talk) 09:35, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- Please clarify what change you are requesting. Day Creature (talk) 16:19, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- It seems that someone has just sorted the category out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
- not they haven't. u have been around long enuff to sort it out. ~2026-28417-94 (talk) 07:51, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- Have a look at the category and have a think. ~2026-28417-94 (talk) 07:50, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- What? That's not how requested edits work. Read the instructions in the yellow box above and follow them exactly. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:58, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
- It seems that someone has just sorted the category out. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2026 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want made. Please detail the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 08:52, 27 May 2026 (UTC)
PUT A VERT BAR AND SPACE IN [[Category:Biology]] LIKE THIS [[Category:Biology| ]]. GO AND LEARN ABOUT EDITING FFS ! ~2026-28417-94 (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2026 (UTC)
Done Please be civil. Kodning 🌸 (talk) 09:15, 2 June 2026 (UTC)