Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology

Hello, we have an anomalous cow and an anomalous Wikipedia article which appears to run contrary to accepted science. Cattle do not use tools. I'm wonder whether this needs an RFC or perhaps an AFD. It's clearly nonsense but the (deepfake) video has convinced a huge number of trusted media outlets. Interesting situation for an encyclopedia. Could a qualified biologist please take a look. There is no corroboration, just two people make this claim. Thanks. TheListeningHandAgain (talk) 15:19, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

Current Biology published by Cell Press is a reliable reference. Ethological studies often describe observations of using tools by so far not expected animal species, it is nothing against science. Petr Karel (talk) 15:53, 3 February 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Organismal biology has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 4 § Organismal biology until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Seer (company)#Requested move 2 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ROY is WAR Talk! 04:18, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

Hello,

im a very new wikipedian and recently begun enhancing ledes of taxa to include etymology and wikt-lang templates

you can see what I mean in the lede of Sarcopterygii.

i guess I’m writing here because I don’t want to be stepping on anyone’s toes, and I figured yall would be the right wikiproject to check with! Ngenthatcould (talk) 20:10, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Ngenthatcould:, welcome to Wikipedia. If you are working on taxa articles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life is a better place to ask questions (there are more editors watching the TOL project page than the biology project page, and TOL is more focused on taxa than biology in general). I don't want to discourage you from contributing to Wikipedia, but providing etymology of taxon names is surprisingly controversial (see Talk:Acer castorrivularis for one example of controversy).

I think your edits to existing etymologies are an improvement, but be cautious of adding etymologies to articles that don't already have them. The essay at User:Yummifruitbat/Biological etymology offers some guidance. Plantdrew (talk) 20:38, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you! For pointing me to the TOL wikiproject and for the warning/advice about wading in, I had not realized it could be construed as OR to provide those links Ngenthatcould (talk) 20:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

I've been involved in a number of these discussions, and admittedly have one of the more negative opinions regarding etymologies derived from original research. I'm increasingly skeptical that OR should be allowable, or at the very least, that all OR entries in Wikipedia (including all of those where the only citation is a Greek/Latin dictionary) must be worded or flagged to inform readers whenever the etymology suggested was NOT given by the author who first published the name (e.g., "The name X is presumably derived from the Greek word Y..." instead of "The name X is from the Greek word Y..."). I can give one excellent example that I came across just the other day: there is a plant genus Liparis (orchid) and a fish genus Liparis (fish). Neither name, when first published, was accompanied by an etymology. The former genus contains adjectival species names that are feminine in gender, the latter contains all masculine names. This is impossible if they have the etymology suggested by the editors who added etymology, which is the Greek masculine adjective λιπαρός ("glistening, oily"), which would instead transliterate as either "Liparos" or "Liparus" and not Liparis. Under ICZN Art. 30.1.4.2, the fish name should be interpreted as an alternative Latin transliteration of the Greek genderless adjective λιπαρής ("clinging, persistent") and which transliterates as either "Lipares" or "Liparis". The editor who added the "oily" etymology for the fish was using their own personal judgment, thinking that snailfish are slimy. But the most distinctive feature about snailfish is that they have a suction disc that attaches them to the substrate, so the "clinging, persistent" etymology is also perfectly logical. We'll never know what the author intended. My point is that this kind of argument is like the proverbial "angels dancing on a pinhead" debate - it can never be resolved, it is purely speculation, AND it has no place in Wikipedia. The bottom line is this: if you are finding WP articles with etymologies and adding links to Wiktionary, PLEASE also rephrase those entries so it is clear that the etymology you are linking to is speculative rather than definitive (so long as it is not clear that the person who coined the name gave its meaning). Dyanega (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

@Dyanega I appreciate your comments and thoughts on this, particularly the specific examples and the problems that can arise when folks insert etymologies that are not based on the reasons of the namer, the last thing I want to do is create conflict or violate policies Ngenthatcould (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Pseudogenetics has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 14 § Pseudogenetics until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 20:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Poison dart frog 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. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔) 19:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

Just notifying members of this project that there is a Conflict of Interest edit request relevant to this WikiProject at the Assembloid article. DrThneed (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2026 (UTC)

The article is in bad state. Help needed, see Talk:Death. --Altenmann >talk 15:51, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Anybody willing to join? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Council#Proposing_a_new_WikiProject_Astrobiology Astropedian (talk) 21:23, 25 March 2026 (UTC)

The redirect Body mass has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 March 25 § Body mass until a consensus is reached. Mathguy2718 (talk) 00:16, 29 March 2026 (UTC)

Have you seen this article? Group living

Despite being an important topic in ethology, it gets very little attention, with only 5 daily pageviews and 25 revisions since it was created in 2019. This is what I assumed would be the topic for Gregariousness, but Gregariousness redirects to Sociality. Do you think the pages should be merged? Or should group living be renamed to gregariousness or the redirect target changed? Melozone crissalis (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2026 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Relict hominid is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relict hominid 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 address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the AfD notice from the article until the discussion is closed.

—Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk) 16:42, 29 April 2026 (UTC)