Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Science/Archive 4
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
"Timeline of meteorology"
Timeline of meteorology has been requested to be renamed, see talk:Timeline of meteorology -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 8
This month:
In the last issue of the WikiProject X Newsletter, I discussed the upcoming Wikipedia Requests system: a central database for outstanding work on Wikipedia. I am pleased to announce Wikipedia Requests is live! Its purpose is to supplement automatically generated lists, such as those from SuggestBot, Reports bot, or Wikidata. It is currently being demonstrated on WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health (which I work on as part of my NIOSH duties) and WikiProject Women scientists.
Adding a request is as simple as filling out a form. Just go to the Add form to add your request. Adding sources will help ensure that your request is fulfilled more quickly. And when a request is fulfilled, simply click "mark as complete" and it will be removed from all the lists it's on. All at the click of a button! (If anyone is concerned, all actions are logged.)
With this new service is a template to transclude these requests: {{Wikipedia Requests}}. It's simple to use: add the template to a page, specifying article=, category=, or wikiproject=, and the list will be transcluded. For example, for requests having to do with all living people, just do {{Wikipedia Requests|category=Living people}}. Use these lists on WikiProjects but also for edit-a-thons where you want a convenient list of things to do on hand. Give it a shot!
The value of Wikipedia Requests comes from being a centralized database. The long work to migrating individual lists into this combined list is slowly underway. As of writing, we have 883 open tasks logged in Wikipedia Requests. We need your help building this list.
If you know of a list of missing articles, or of outstanding tasks for existing articles, that you would like to migrate to this new system, head on over to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Requests#Transition project and help out. Doing this will help put your list in front of more eyes—more than just your own WikiProject.
WikiProject X maintains a database that associates article talk pages (and draft talk pages) with WikiProjects. This database powers many of the reports that Reports bot generates. However, until very recently, this database was not made available to others who might find its data useful. It's only common sense to open up the database and let others build tools with it.
And indeed: Citation Hunt, the game to add citations to Wikipedia, now lets you filter by WikiProject, using the data from our database.
Are you a tool developer interested in using this? Here are some details: the database resides on Tool Labs with the name s52475__wpx_p. The table that associates WikiProjects with articles and drafts is called projectindex. Pages are stored by talk page title but in the future this should change. Have fun!
- The work on the CollaborationKit extension continues. The extension will initially focus on reducing template and Lua bloat on WikiProjects (especially our WPX UI demonstration projects), and will from there create custom interfaces for creating and maintaining WikiProjects.
- The WikiCite meeting will be in Berlin in May. The goal of the meeting is to figure out how to build a bibliographic database for use on the Wikimedia projects. This fits in quite nicely with WikiProject X's work: we want to make it easier for people to find things to work on, and with a powerful, open bibliographic database, we can build recommendations for sources. This feature was requested by the Wikipedia Library back in September, and this meeting is a major next step. We look forward to seeing what comes out of this meeting.
Until next time,
Harej (talk) 01:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 9
Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, featuring the first screenshot of our new CollaborationKit software!
Harej (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
GAR for Tycho Brahe
Tycho Brahe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. More details are available on the re-assessment page. Please ping me if you need anything as my watchlist is already quite large and I'd prefer not to add seven or eight more wikiprojects to my watchlist on top of the ones that I already have. Mr rnddude (talk) 23:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
Proposal: Reinstate the "Years in science" WikiProject
The Years in science WikiProject has been marked defunct for 6 years. I think there is benefit in having the project available as a place to discuss future evolution of the "YYYY in science" pages.
If you have thoughts, please join the discussion in the WikiProject Years in science talk page.
Metawade (talk) 18:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Museo Galileo stubs
@Winged Blades of Godric: A series of pretty minimal stubs were created last year by @Archeologo (Museo Galileo):, "Wikipedian in Residence" at the Museo Galileo, mostly by copying the museum's catalogue entries for individual items (with OTRS permission), with no reference to anything beyond the walls of that museum. Several are now at AfD: see User_talk:Archeologo_(Museo_Galileo). I've done some work to rescue John Cuff (optician) (country bias showing up here- but he's in ODNB and multiple museum collections, so clearly notable), and Girolamo della Volpaia (though a useful-looking ref turned out to be on the spam blacklist). It's not my field particularly so if anyone from this project feels like having a go at some 16h-century instrument makers and their products, please do so! You can see the PROD and AfD notifications at User talk:Archeologo (Museo Galileo). None of them have at present got your project banner on talk page, so I'll go through and add it. PamD 09:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
- Will also add the WP Measurement banner, although it's "Believed to be inactive", just in case. PamD 09:47, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 10
This month, we discuss the new CollaborationKit extension. Here's an image as a teaser:
23:59, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Astronomical symbols for secondary planets?
Does anyone have the 17th-century astronomical symbols for the secondary planets, the Cosmica Sidera and Sidera Lodoicea? And if so, can you upload them to Commons? -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment on Proposal for WikiProject STS!
Hi WikiProject History of Science!
I've just proposed WikiProject STS to be a sort of sister group to this very project. I have no idea if it's a good idea to split STS off into its own WikiProject, given the existence of this one, but hey, I thought it was worth a suggestion.
I'd appreciate if you took a look at the proposal and commented on it! We'd be a relatively small project, but if we can find 10 or so people who'd be willing to help out, we could get started on organizing the project!
I'm also open to the creation of a task force within this WikiProject, or within wikipedia:WikiProject Science or Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology if we thought that'd be better given the scope. Again, let me know what you think!
Mathmitch7 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:History of science
There is a discussion at Talk:History of science#"Science in the periphery" to which editors are invited. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
Request for good article review - Domestication of the Syrian hamster
Please see Domestication of the Syrian hamster, an article in the scope of this WikiProject.
I am seeking a good article review the article at Talk:Domestication of the Syrian hamster/GA1. I have been working on this article for some years. I have not researched every thread to its end, but I have gone far enough to feel that I should seek a review and feedback. I would be grateful for whatever comments anyone would share about the article. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 11
Check out this month's issue of the WikiProject X newsletter, with plans to renew work with a followup grant proposal to support finalising the deployment of CollaborationKit!
-— Isarra ༆ 21:26, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Seeking feedback on a guide for students who edit articles in science communication
Hello! The Wiki Education Foundation is developing a guide to help students write about all topics related to science communication. The handout is meant to supplement other resources that they consult, such as an interactive training and basic editing brochures. We’d appreciate any community feedback on the draft, which you can find here: User:Cassidy (Wiki Ed)/Science communication. Ideally, we’ll send this to the printer mid-March, so feedback by March 12, 2018 would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! —Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
We have an issue with his brithdate, see talk page, our article previously had March 24 (as do several books found with Google (hah!)), but Google Doodle says it's today and so there is now many sources that say today, but maybe its a Gregorian Calendar issue - if you have access to British sources in particular - that might help. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:43, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Comment on Proposal for WikiProject STS!
(Reposted from Archive)Hi WikiProject History of Science! I've just proposed WikiProject STS to be a sort of sister group to this very project. I have no idea if it's a good idea to split STS off into its own WikiProject, given the existence of this one, but hey, I thought it was worth a suggestion. I'd appreciate if you took a look at the proposal and commented on it! We'd be a relatively small project, but if we can find 10 or so people who'd be willing to help out, we could get started on organizing the project! I'm also open to the creation of a task force within this WikiProject, or within wikipedia:WikiProject Science or Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology if we thought that'd be better given the scope. Again, let me know what you think! (Originally posted by Mathmitch7 (talk) 04:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC))
- I've recently been considering this becoming a WP:Taskforce within WP:SCIHIST, coordinated jointly with WP:Sociology, WP:Technology and WP:Science. I suppose that this would involve creating a sub-page on this project. What do people think?- - mathmitch7 (talk/contribs) 19:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
The discussion about this can be found here.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Background
On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.
Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.
So far, 84 editors have joined.
If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.
If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.
Thank you. — The Transhumanist 07:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
Members of this project may be interested in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Talk:Modern history#Image use is excessive
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Modern history#Image use is excessive. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:16, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 12
This month: WikiProject X: The resumption
Work has resumed on WikiProject X and CollaborationKit, backed by a successfully funded Project Grant. For more information on the current status and planned work, please see this month's issue of the newsletter!
-— Isarra ༆ 22:24, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
Featured quality source review RFC
Editors in this WikiProject may be interested in the featured quality source review RFC that has been ongoing. It would change the featured article candidate process (FAC) so that source reviews would need to occur prior to any other reviews for FAC. Your comments are appreciated. --IznoRepeat (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 13
This month: A general update.
The current status of the project is as follows:
- Progress of the project has been generally delayed since September due to development issues (more bitrot than expected, some of the code just being genuinely confusing, etc) and personal injury (I suffered a concussion in October and was out of commission for almost two months as a result).
- I currently expect to be putting out a proper call for CollaborationKit pilots in January/February, with estimated deployment in February/March if things don't go horribly wrong (they will, though, don't worry). As a part of that, I will properly update the page and send out announcement and reach out to all projects already signed up as pilots for WikiProject X in general, at which point those (still) interested can volunteer specifically to test the CollaborationKit extension.
- Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots was originally created for the first WikiProject X prototype, and given this is where the project has since gone, it's only logical to continue to use it. While I haven't yet updated the page to properly reflect this:
- If you want to add your project to this page now, feel free. Just bear in mind that more information what to actually expect will be added later/included in the announcement, because by then I will have a much better idea myself.
- Until then, you can find me in my corner working on making the CollaborationKit code do what we want and not just what we told it, per the workboard.
Until next time,
-— Isarra ༆ 22:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
Request for comment on infobox inclusion at Fermat's Last Theorem
An RfC has been opened for the inclusion of Template:Infobox mathematical statement at Fermat's Last Theorem:
- Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem#Request for comment (RfC) on inclusion of Infobox mathematical statement.
It pertains to some of the historical content in the article in case editors here may be interested. Comments are most welcome. — MarkH21 (talk) 07:45, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
- – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Portal:Modern history for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Modern history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Modern history until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Portal:Chronology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Chronology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chronology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Portal:Modern history for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Modern history is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Modern history until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Nomination of Portal:Chronology for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Chronology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Chronology until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 11:58, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
A possible Science/STEM User Group
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 02:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Eddington experiment
Dropping a note off here in case any editors are interested in helping out at Eddington experiment, an article I recently put in mainspace - it is the 100th anniversary of the eclipse observations in two days time. The article may seem a bit disjointed, as it is an old draft I started over ten years ago. Any help improving the article would be much appreciated. Carcharoth (talk) 13:50, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 14
Updates: I've been focusing largely on the development side of things, so we are a lot closer now to being ready to actually start discussing deploying it and testing it out here.
There's just a few things left that need to be resolved:
- A bunch of language support issues in particular, plus some other release blockers, such as the fact that currently there's no good way to find any hubs people do create.
- We also probably need some proper documentation and examples up to even reference if we want a meaningful discussion. We have the extension documentation and some test projects, but we probably need a bit more. Also I need to be able to even find the test projects! How can I possibly write reports about this stuff if I can't find any of it?!
Some other stuff that's happened in the meantime:
- Midpoint report is out for this round of the project, if you want to read in too much detail about all the problems I've been running into.
- WikiProject Molecular Biology have successfully set up using the old module system that CollaborationKit is intended to replace (eventually), and it even seems to work, so go them. Based on the issues they ran into, it looks like the members signup thing on that system has some of the same problems as we've been unable to resolve in CK, though, which is... interesting. (Need to change the content model to the right thing for the formwizard config to take. Ugh, content models.)
Until next time,
-— Isarra ༆ 21:43, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Call for portal maintainers
Are there any editors from this WikiProject willing to maintain Portal:History of science? The Portals guideline requires that portals be maintained, and as a result numerous portals have been recently been deleted via MfD largely becasue of lack of maintenance. Let me know either way, and thanks, UnitedStatesian (talk) 07:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject X Newsletter • Issue 15
A final update, for now:
The third grant-funded round of WikiProject X has been completed. Unfortunately, while this round has not resulted in a deployed product, I am not planning to resume working on the project for the foreseeable future. Please see the final report for more information.
Regards,
-— Isarra ༆ 19:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Mendelian inheritance
Please see several recent threads at Talk:Mendelian inheritance, all initiated by Sciencia58 (talk · contribs) at or since 11:15, 30 September 2019 (UTC). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
More eyes needed at Talk:Race and intelligence
Editors who watchlist the article Scientific racism might be interested in looking at the related article Race and intelligence, which has been an area of contentious debate and edit-warring. (It is currently locked down for 3 days.) While Scientific racism is, I think, a good example of how Wikipedia handles fringe, the article Race and intelligence has a very different tone and content, as is clear from the first paragraph of the lede. See also Race and intelligence#The Jensenism debates. I'm putting this notice on all the WikiProjects that list Scientific racism as of high importance, in the hope that more editors will participate in discussions at Talk:Race and intelligence and help make the article compliant with WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. The problems at Race and intelligence were discussed off-wiki here: [1]. Thanks. NightHeron (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
AfD discussion of Race and intelligence
A discussion is taking place of whether to delete the article Race and intelligence, see [2]. NightHeron (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
List of Chinese inventions
I have nominated List of Chinese inventions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 18:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Rockefeller University edits
WikiProject Universities members are invited to review my request at Talk:Rockefeller University. I'm an employee of Rockefeller University so I have a conflict of interest. I am happy to answer questions on the article's talk page. Thanks! KFenzRockefeller (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Bit of help needed with historical understanding Earth
Earth is currently undergoing a featured article review. There is one paragraph about the historical understanding of Earth that feels very Eurocentric, and is based on old scholarship. Anybody here could give the hand to see whether this paragraph is still valid or should be improved? a discussion was started. Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
The article Hermeticism (history of science) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
What Treharne wrote on the talk page in 2010 is exactly right: in the scholarly literature, this is called the Yates hypothesis or the Yates paradigm (after the work of Dame Frances Yates), but certainly not "Hermeticism"; the relevant articles on Wikipedia are by far not advanced enough to have a separate article on this.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- I posted this here because the original author of the article has been blocked since 2009, and there are no other major contributors. I didn't know that the template would be so wearisome, next time I'll post a more personal message. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 23:22, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
|
Sandbox Organiser A place to help you organise your work |
Hi all
I've been working on a tool for the past few months that you may find useful. Wikipedia:Sandbox organiser is a set of tools to help you better organise your draft articles and other pages in your userspace. It also includes areas to keep your to do lists, bookmarks, list of tools. You can customise your sandbox organiser to add new features and sections. Once created you can access it simply by clicking the sandbox link at the top of the page. You can create and then customise your own sandbox organiser just by clicking the button on the page. All ideas for improvements and other versions would be really appreciated.
Huge thanks to PrimeHunter and NavinoEvans for their work on the technical parts, without them it wouldn't have happened.
Hope its helpful
John Cummings (talk) 11:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
G. Ledyard Stebbins Featured article review
I have nominated G. Ledyard Stebbins for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:25, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
Del discussion
Hi.
Made a mistake, http://web.archive.org/web/20210218085000/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Directory/Description/WikiProject_History_of_Science .
Pls feel free to delete offending pg. Btw, discussion is over, sorry if you could not see this in time. Cheers, Ema--or (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Highlighting this article as a potential for taking to Good Article standard. There are plenty of reliable sources, some in the further reading section, lots of work needed, and it would be an interesting article I think and a valuable addition. Whizz40 (talk) 11:40, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Removal of WikiProject mention in Pedro Paulet
There is a mention of the WikiProject History of Science on the Talk:Pedro Paulet page, and—based on reliably sourced references—I don't see the connection. I'm removing the WikiProject ref from the Paulet page. I'm not absolutely sure about this removal (unlike removing Paulet from the Aviation and Physics WikiProjects, which is pretty clearcut), so I thought I'd say something here, in case someone else wants to weigh in on it. Cheers! — UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 15:18, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Pavlovsk Experimental Station could use some love
No idea if this is how things are done, but I came across Pavlovsk Experimental Station and feel it might be worthy of some prioritization. The story of the scientists who starved rather than eat the seeds was dramatized in Cosmos: Possible Worlds. Assuming they used reliable sources, I have to assume that there is much more to say about the event than a single paragraph. The defense of the seeds lasted years and 12 scientists died of starvation protecting them.
This article is related, but I'm not sure how the two institutes are related. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Plant_Industry#Siege_of_Leningrad
Anonymous-232 (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at Jabir ibn Hayyan
There is a discussion at Jabir ibn Hayyan about whether to include the title "father of early chemistry". Members of this WikiProject are kindly invited to express their opinion. Apaugasma (talk|contribs) 13:39, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
FAR of History of timekeeping devices
I have nominated History of timekeeping devices for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. FemkeMilene (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
FAR for Leonhard Euler
I have nominated Leonhard Euler for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. (t · c) buidhe 04:04, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
RfC of interest
This RfC may be of interest to members of this group. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Alchemical literature is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted. The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alchemical literature. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 20:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Discussions are taking place as to whether the articles Descendant (astrology), Angle (astrology) and Derivative house are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether they should be deleted. The articles will be discussed at:
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Descendant (astrology)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angle (astrology)
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Derivative house
In addition, a recent proposal to delete the article Midheaven has been rejected, but any editor is welcome to start a deletion discussion about it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 13:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Notification
Galileo Galilei has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Instances of scientific dogma
Is there any list of situations where certain scientific views were marginalized? Like for example Galileo affair. I recently read about the fact that challenging Clovis first theory was "a brutal experience, something that Jacques Cinq-Mars (archeologist) once likened to the Spanish Inquisition." - "Funding for his Bluefish work grew scarce: His fieldwork eventually sputtered and died." [3] - This document talks about scientific dogma - "In retrospect, it seems to me that Clovis-First graduated from a theory to received wisdom and ultimately to a dogma too ardently defended" (After Clovis-First collapsed: reimagining the peopling of the Americas - January 2014 - Project: Maritime Dispersals in Deep Human History - Authors: Jon Erlandson - University of Oregon)
I mean instances when challenging the scientific consensus or the scientific views of authorities was very difficult or impossible. [4]
Another instances is this: "During the eighteenth century the French Academy of Sciences stubbornly denied the evidence for the fall of meteorites" and ""Scientists in other countries were anxious not to be considered as backward compared with their famous colleagues in Paris", writes F. Paneth ("Science and Miracles", Durham University Journal, vol. 10 (1948-9), p. 49). "... many public museums threw away whatever they possessed of these precious meteorites; it happened in Germany, Denmark, Switzerland, Italy and Austria." [5] - this is another example of consensus of the scientific community putting a huge pressure on those who support a new valid idea.
The Alvarez hypothesis started a very fierce debate it seems. [6]
I would like to start a list of such situations - but in my user space for the moment since I don't even have a good common term - "scientific dogma" does not have a definition and it can be seen as a nonsense and I don't have a better term. -- Barecode (talk) 01:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Superseded theories in science covers it. Alexbrn (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's good to know but I need a list of such theories that were enforced as dogma and theories that sparked heated debates when confronted with better ones. The meteorites situation is not included in that list. -- Barecode (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- Enforced as dogma is always subjective: while social processes and politics can be involved, the scientific method itself implies constant reevaluation and correction. Politics also enforced dogmas like the Catholic church (some may have been tenable scientific beliefs of the time). There also are cases of widely politically debated science that even becomes more confirmed over time (like the discovery of DNA supporting evolution or anthropogenic climate change). But maybe other examples would be Mendel's inheritance, plate tectonics (vs continental drift), germ theory of disease... Then of course popular is fringe science that attempts to portray science as dogmatic (relevant may be Free energy suppression conspiracy theory, Association fallacy#Galileo gambit and of course there are articles about altmed and questionable conditions and a tradition of proponent literature). In between are those who are notable for criticizing peer review, make accusations about the lack of academic freedom, etc. —PaleoNeonate – 20:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
- That's good to know but I need a list of such theories that were enforced as dogma and theories that sparked heated debates when confronted with better ones. The meteorites situation is not included in that list. -- Barecode (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Rockefeller University edits
WikiProject History of science members are invited to review my request at Talk:Rockefeller University. I'm requesting to turn a list of discoveries into a narrative and add sourcing. I welcome any suggestions to improve the proposed language. I'm an employee of Rockefeller University so I have a conflict of interest. I am happy to answer questions on the article's talk page. Thanks! KFenzRockefeller (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The article Protoscience has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
This article is just a wordy dictionary definition, it contains no significant encyclopedic material. It has been this way for at least sixteen years, see the talk page discussion on Delete the article. Per our policy on WP:NOTADICTIONARY, it has no business here.
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
FA Review: Hippocrates
I have nominated Hippocrates for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Cyclol Featured article review
I have nominated Cyclol for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Extreme amounts of insulin for control over mental illness
I 2601:985:480:4B90:8D8E:2B9B:DB16:5F6C (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
Macfarlane Burnet Featured article review
I have nominated Macfarlane Burnet for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposed move: Category:Professors of the University of Cambridge to Category:Professors at the University of Cambridge
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 10 § Category:Professors of the University of Cambridge. I have proposed standardising towards a convention of using at for institutions and of for subjects, in category names of the format "professor(ship)s [at/of] [institution/subject]" and "[sociologists/historians/etc] [at/of] [institution/subject]" (at least within the Cambridge category tree). I am cross-posting this here as it affects categories related to this project, and may set a precedent. We require more input to reach consensus. Charlie A. (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Grade for God's Philosophers
Hi all,
I have been improving this stub https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:God%27s_Philosophers.
I believe it is ready for grading.
Thanks a lot!
Barbarianhamish (talk) 12:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Request for comments at Talk:Astrology
There is a RfC about how to word the first sentences of the lead at Talk:Astrology#Request for comments: Lead paragraph which may be of interest to the members of this WikiProject. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 18:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
Thoughts on History of science page
Hello folks - we're having a bit of a discussion about the History of science article - some editors think there should be a section on approaches, summarising very briefly how histories of science have changed over time. It would be good to get some more perspectives on this on Talk:History of science, please! Thanks in advance. Zeromonk (talk) 12:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Adam Becker
There is a current request from Adam Becker to review the criticism of his book to gauge whether it is balanced for a BLP. This was posted at BLPN but is detailed at his article talkpage.[7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
Hanford Site Featured article review
I have nominated Hanford Site for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Nomination of Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present for deletion
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of governance and policy studies 2020–present until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.
Prototyperspective (talk) 21:16, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
FAR for Alfred Russel Wallace
I have nominated Alfred Russel Wallace for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
Featured Article Save Award for Alfred Russel Wallace
There is a Featured Article Save Award nomination at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Alfred Russel Wallace/archive1. Please join the discussion to recognize and celebrate editors who helped assure this article would retain its featured status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:51, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Conflict Thesis
For years now, wikipedia had an article called Conflict thesis, a drerivative of Relationship between religion and science and Christianity and science. The article doesn't contain anything that isn't already in those articles, and seems to exist to frame the subject of those articls in a very particular, non-neutral way. In fact, the only reason the Conflict thesis article seems to exist is for christian apologists (pretty much the only people who even use the term) to reference it in internet disputes.
By all means, the article should be deleted, but some form of consensus needs to be established first. Unfortunately, the article's talk page is dead, and my past attempt to start a dialogue has been dismissed with zero attempt to even entertain what I have to say. Meanwhile, wikipedia is being used by christian apologists to bspread misinformation. 46.97.170.191 (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Based on a quick skim through the article, it seems to me like there are a variety of reliable sources that discuss the history of the "conflict" thesis (even if only to discredit it), so I think that it passes the notability test. If you think that the article is not neutral enough or contains misinformation, then feel free to improve it. — Freoh 13:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- My issue is that the term "conflict thesis" is used exclusively to discredit the notion that there's an intrinsic intellectual conflict between religion and science - a notion that is widely held by sciencitst who are quite honestly the only ones actually qualified to pronounce on this question in a meaningful capacity. Even if there is some sort of consensus among historians that the so called "Conflict Thesis" is "discredited", their consensus has zero bearing on the scientific consensus which is actually based on real, tangible evidence. No scientist worth their money will ever describe the blatant conflict between religion and science as a "thesis", a term that is used very similarly to how creationists claim evolusion is "just a theory".
- Improving the article is meaningless because the very premise of this article existing is a POV violation. The conflict between science and religion can be described in the other two articles in detail, which also have glaring problems and are embarassingly one-sided: Christianity and science reads like a fluff piece, listing the many christians who contributed to science, while compltely dismissing the many instances of the church actively impeding sciencitif progress in less than a single paragraph, as the reasoning behind the Conflict Thesis. None of the prominent atheist scholars are given the light of day.
- My reason for starting this thread IS to try and start some form of conversation on this topic and hopefully get wikipedia contributors to reach some sort of consensus - that's the first step towards improving any article. But as I stated, my last attempt at trying to start a conversation on the article's own talk page about a year ago has been deleted in bad faith. That's why I came here. 46.97.170.100 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you have reliable sources that support this perspective, then feel free to expand the article to make it balanced. Your claim that
No scientist worth their money will ever describe the blatant conflict between religion and science as a "thesis"
seems fairly exceptional to me, so if you include it, you should probably attribute it rather than stating it in wikivoice. If there is content in the article that is unverified, feel free to remove it. The first step towards improving an article is not always starting a conversation; I think it's often best to be bold and make the changes you want to see. Page renaming is more controversial, so if you would like to rename the page to something likeConflict between science and religion
, then find sources that support this change and file a move request. — Freoh 13:06, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- If you have reliable sources that support this perspective, then feel free to expand the article to make it balanced. Your claim that
Polyvagal theory
There is an ongoing discussion about the Criticism section of Polyvagal Theory. The discussion is here: Talk:Polyvagal theory#Criticism of the criticism. This discussion needs editors who can take the time to read the approximately 10 academic journal articles that have been cited. The issue is whether 95% of the section represents original research on violation of WP:NOR or not. Reading academic articles to confirm the absence of criticism about a topic is a bit challenging, admittedly, which is why I think members of this project might be well-equipped for the task. Ian Oelsner (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Atomic theory
Atomic theory has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Project-independent quality assessments
Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.
No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.
However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:00, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
Ptolemy RM
There is currently an on-going requested move discussion pertaining to Ptolemy at Talk:Ptolemy#Requested move 25 May 2023 that might be of interest to this WikiProject. Walrasiad (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Good article reassessment for History of artificial intelligence
History of artificial intelligence has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography
I have been working on a draft about the International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography, which was rejected a few weeks ago. Would anyone be able to provide me with feedback on the current version of the text, in order to improve its chances of being accepted? Greetings from Brazil
Aoaassis (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:Modern era#Requested move 3 September 2023
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Modern era#Requested move 3 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 17:21, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
An editor has requested that The Compendious Book on Calculation by Completion and Balancing be moved to Al-Jabr, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion.— Remsense聊 20:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)