Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science/Archive 7

The WikiJournal of Science is a start-up academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's scientific content. It is part of a WikiJournal User Group that includes the flagship WikiJournal of Medicine.[1][2]. Like Wiki.J.Med, it intends to bridge the academia-Wikipedia gap by encouraging contributions by non-Wikipedians, and by putting content through peer review before integrating it into Wikipedia. Since it is just starting out, it is looking for contributors in two main areas: Editors See submissions through external academic peer review Format accepted articles Promote the journal Authors Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analagous to GA / FA review) Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram If you're interested, please come and discuss the project on the journal's talk page, or the general discussion page for the WikiJournal User group. [1] Shafee, T; Das, D; Masukume, G; Häggström, M (2017). "WikiJournal of Medicine, the first Wikipedia-integrated academic journal". WikiJournal of Medicine. 4. doi:10.15347/wjm/2017.001. [2] "Wikiversity Journal: A new user group". The Signpost. 2016-06-15.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:29, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

This topic at VPM is relevant to this project, please feel free to participate in the discussion. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

There is currently and RFC on what do do with the shortcuts used for the chemistry-related projects. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Please forward this invitation to all potentially interested contacts

		Welcome to... Role Models meetup and online editathon Facilitated by Women in Red Help us to spread the news
		8 March 2017: In-person meetup at Newnham College, Cambridge University Whole of March: worldwide multi-language online edithon for all Focus: Notable women from women's colleges and related institutions Inform your communities of the need for their support. Contribute in English or in your own language Apologies for cross-posting and sending in English (To subscribe: Women in Red/English language list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear all

I'm currently uploading a few 100 graphics from the UNESCO Science Report to Wikimedia Commons here. Please do keep checking back to the category as I continue to upload images over the coming weeks. Here are a small selection, almost all are .svg files to allow best quality, adaptation and translation.

• 
  GDP per capita, GDP growth and public section deficit in the USA, 2006 - 2015
• 
  Gross domestic expenditure on research and development financed by government as a share of GDP 2005 - 2013
• 
  Mutually reinforcing effect of strong government investment in R&D and researchers, 2010–2011
• 
  Proportional allocation of federal R&D spending in the USA by discipline, 1994–2011
• 
  Scientific specialization in large emerging economies
• 
  World shares of GDP, GERD, researchers and publications for the G20, 2009 and 2013

Thanks

--John Cummings (talk) 11:46, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Dear all,
The Royal Society has recently decided to provide free access to the archive of Biographical Memoirs of Fellows of the Royal Society - readers can now access all content that is over one year old. This may be helpful to those working on wiki-entries for scientists.
Zeromonk (talk) 10:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Chemistry#RFC on the inclusion of a particular passage in the lead of this article. Please contribute if you have an opinion. Thanks. --Jayron32 02:54, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Note that per this RFC, the shortcuts to WP:CHEMISTRY/WP:CHEMICALS have been updated.

• WP:CHEM now refer to WP:CHEMISTRY
• WP:CHEMS now refer to WP:CHEMICALS
• WP:CHM is deprecated

Old discussions have had their shortcuts updated already. If I have made a mistake during an update, feel free to revert. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 15:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

You are invited to participate in the upcoming "420 collaboration", which is being held from Saturday, April 15 to Sunday, April 30, and especially on April 20, 2017! The purpose of the collaboration, which is being organized by WikiProject Cannabis, is to create and improve cannabis-related content at Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in a variety of fields, including: culture, health, hemp, history, medicine, politics, and religion. For more information about this campaign, and to learn how you can help improve Wikipedia, please visit the "420 collaboration" page.

---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:47, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, all. Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#RfC: Should the WP:ANDOR guideline be softened to begin with "Avoid unless" wording or similar?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Citations. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:34, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Science/Archive 7/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Science.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Science, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of creating articles for learned societies and other international organisations concerning the field of microscopy and was wondering if there was a task force or even a WikiProject attached to this one which can review and add talk pages to my articles plus aid in copyeditting. Thanks. UaMaol (talk) 02:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm working on ice core, and have found a reference in Landais 2012 (p. 192) to a U-series dating method, cited to Aciego 2010. The latter is an appendix to the proceedings of a conference, without much discussion, but the reference in Landais, which just calls it "a promising study", makes it worth a one-sentence mention. However, I don't understand the method and was hoping someone here could enlighten me -- I don't want to cite something I don't understand. It looks like Aciego et al are discussing U-series decay in dust that falls on the ice core, but what exactly are they measuring, and how does it determine age? Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You might have better luck asking this question at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science‎. Looie496 (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; will do. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Citation overkill#Should this essay be changed to encourage more citations?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

In February of 2016 the Wikimedia foundation started sending information to all of the websites we link to that allow the owner of the website (or someone who hacks the website, or law enforcement with a search warrant / subpoena) to figure out what Wikipedia page the user was reading when they clicked on the external link.

The WMF is not bound by Wikipedia RfCs, but we can use an advisory-only RfC to decide what information, if any, we want to send to websites we link to and then put in a request to the WMF. I have posted such an advisory-only RfC, which may be found here:

Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Wikimedia referrer policy

Please comment so that we can determine the consensus of the Wikipedia community on this matter. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Lead section#Request for comment on parenthetical information in first sentence. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:59, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Category:Constituents of tobacco smoke, has been nominated for possible deletion, A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Bosley John Bosley (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#RfC: Red links in infoboxes. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi all! I'd like to inform you that with Ivo K. from Wikimedia Estonia and others we are organizing the 2017 edition of commons:Commons:European Science Photo Competition 2015. This year thanks to ivo effort the competition is going to be international, here is the current webiste. There are good chance it will become something like Wiki Loves Monument or Wiki Loves Earth!

We are currently looking for qualified jurors. So far I have found a Belgian photographer (with good scientific background, not a simple artistic photographer) and a Swiss-Chinese professor of organic chemistry, and I have some options for an Italian astronomer or another professor of material science and analytical chemistry to be "promoted" from their national jury.

Is anyone from the academia with some interest in photography or scientific illustration interested? IMHO the best candidates are P.I. or at least some sort of expert postdocs, or directors of scientific institutions, scientific journalists or managers in the field of education... it would help to show around that we care about the level of the jurors. But again, that's my opinion (I still don't consider myself enough for the international jury for example :D), just show up if you want to join somehow!

Plus, if we find someone that is both an expert scientist and a wikimedian that would be even better.

There are also local committees with special or national prizes, as in 2015. So if you find the money for that, you can arrange them as well. I am organizing the Italian jury for example, but that work takes of course much more time than few afternoons scrolling uploaded files. if you find enough people coming from the same geographical area (USA, Canada, UK...) and a strong support from a reliable institution (your alma mater, the outreach department of your research center...) you can become the core for a national initiative and maybe I can help you to find more local jurors.

But so far, simply another "expert" international juror would be nice. Anyone interested?--Alexmar983 (talk) 08:46, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Also if you have any other idea on how to promote the competition in your own country, like a mailing list or a blog... just contact Ivo. Or join as uploader! The challenge will take place in November.--Alexmar983 (talk) 09:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines#RfC: Should the guideline discourage interleaving? #2. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Scientific information on WP has been reviewed by MIT and found to have a "direct correlation between information made available on Wikipedia and how likely that work is to be referenced in future scientific literature." Links are here and here. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 15:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi. In November The Women in Red World Contest is being held to try to produce new articles for as many countries worldwide and occupations as possible. There will be over $4000 in prizes to win, including Amazon vouchers and paid subscriptions. If this would appeal to you and you think you'd be interested in contributing new articles on women scientists during this month please sign up in the participants section. If you're not interested in prize money yourself but are willing to participate and raise money to buy books about women for others to use, this is also fine. Help would also be appreciated in drawing up the lists of missing articles. If you think of any missing articles for your project please add them to the lists by continent at Missing articles. Thankyou, and if taking part, good luck!♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi! Who is interested in wikidata properties, please take a look here. it's a discussion about the quality of the National geographic database of scientific photographers.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi WikiProject Science!

I've just proposed WikiProject STS to cover issues in the academic field of Science and Technology Studies, which examines scientific issues from a social sciences/humanities perspective. This would be a sort of sister group to Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science.

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 History of Science or Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology if we thought that'd be better given the scope. Again, let me know what you think!

Mathmitch7 (talk) 04:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi. We are defining in these days the file management workplan for Wiki Science Competition 2017. We have already more than 1700 files to revise. The workflow is pretty intense but we try to keep it on track, the plan will include also a retropatrolling work on many uploaded files, also by some of the jurors later. if possible, we have decided to delete unsuitable files only at the end of the upload phase.

FYI, this category for quality image is ready and here you can find some informal selection, if you want to candidate something on commons.

In any case, just go on ans take a look if you have time. I am trying to improve all categorizations but I don't have many residual time left. I hope you can find something useful for your articles.

Have a nice wiki!--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:15, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi! If you have time, we are looking for appropriate feedbacks in this discussion on commons about possible new subcategories for images related to liquid N2.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, should we have a redirect template for redirecting from old (former) scientific names? An example of one page that would use that template would be Lymantriinae. I was going to create one, but thought that I better check in here first. Thanks for your time! --TheSandDoctor (talk) 23:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Huntsman spider's former scientific name would also be in it. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

There is some disagreement with tagging science related articles with the project banner, can any person assist me to clarify how the tag should be used as directed under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Science#How_you_can_help?

Ejembi12 (talk) 08:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

@Ejembi12: In general, WikiProject Science banner is used to tag article on very broad scientific topics, especially those that don't fit neatly into other WikiProjects. It's actually a slightly redundant system now that there are more specific WikiProjects. For example, Research and Scientific method are in-scope, but more specific topics like Melting point should be under WP:CHEM and WP:PHYS), and Protein should be under WP:MCB and WP:GEN. The same issues come up with WP:Biology versus WP:MCB. In general, more specific is better, otherwise WP:SCI would be tagged on a million pages. Hope that helps! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I am convinced that the extent of inserting {{Science}} in all the articles listed at LearnMore's contributions exceeds rational bounds. Since I suggest some mass measures, perhaps of reverting, I filed this thread at WP:AN/I, but maybe this board is more useless than its fame claims.

Maybe, this project is interested in taking care about the use of this template, bearing its name, and that I assume to have been construed on 07.01.2018, and mass-proliferated from 08. to 09.01.2018, "establishing" a broad user basis.

Making the template content appear at the bottom of a page, in collapsed form, would make it very much more digestible, imho. Purgy (talk) 07:16, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

What is the difference between Category:Scholars and academics by discipline and Category:Scholars and academics by subject? Neither of the two categories has an explanation on the category page, and based on the current content I don't see by what criteria the two categories are divided. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

• Further discussion about this, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_13#Category:Scholars_and_academics_by_discipline. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

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 love to get some community feedback on the draft here: User:Cassidy (Wiki Ed)/Science communication. Ideally, we’ll send this to the printer mid-March, so feedback by March 9, 2018 would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! —Cassidy (Wiki Ed) (talk) 00:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a debate here Talk:Aharonov–Bohm effect#Latest information on the A-B effect, a topic in physics, about the criteria for including new research papers on the topic in the Wikipedia article. The issue affects a much wider area than physics. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC).

Hello, I volunteer at Articles for Creation and Draft:Missing Link (Human Evolution) popped up in the queue. Missing Link is currently a disambiguation page with a couple sentences at the top about this "pop science" theory.

It's an AFC Draft, so if anyone has any input you can post it directly on the top of the Draft, not its talk page. Two reviewers are a little baffled as to what to do with it, so if any of you sciency types can way in there on the Draft it would be helpful. MatthewVanitas (talk) 23:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

this article has recently been created from a redirect. I reviewed it. It’s sourced but I’m not sure if the title term is being used in the most common way or if the article covers all use sources of the term. I would like someone academically involved in this project to take a look and further review the article. Thank you. Edaham (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Editors at this project might be interested in the discussion concerning the proposed deletion of all Portals across Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#RfC:_Ending_the_system_of_portals.Bermicourt (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing—Longitudinal study —has been proposed for merging with Long-term experiment. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

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.

Found this removal and wondered if it was valid? [] TantraYum (talk) 03:24, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

For a number of years we have been experiencing a steady decline in the number of administrators as a result of attrition and a declining number of editors willing to consider adminship. Things have reached a point where we are starting to experience chronic backlogs in important areas of the project including noticeboards, requests for closure, SPI, CSD & etc. If you are an experienced editor with around two years (or more) of tenure, 10k edits give or take and no record of seriously disruptive behavior, please consider if you might be willing to help out the community by becoming an administrator. The community can only function as well as we all are willing to participate. If you are interested start by reading WP:MOP and WP:RFAADVICE. Then go to WP:ORCP and open a discussion. Over the next few days experienced editors will take a look at your record and let you know what they think your chances are of passing RfA (the three most terrifying letters on Wikipedia) as well as provide you with feedback on areas that might be of concern and how to prepare yourself. Lastly you can find a list of experienced editors who may be willing to nominate you here. Thank you and happy editing... [Note:This page may not be on my watchlist so if you want to reply to me, please either ping me or drop me a line on my talk page.] -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:44, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I just came across this book: The Philosophy of Science - An Encyclopedia - S. Sarkar, et. al., (Routledge, 2006) BBS

• editors (2005). Sarkar, Sahotra; Pfeifer, Jessica (eds.). The philosophy of science : an encyclopedia (PDF). New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. ISBN 978-0-415-93927-0. {{cite book}}: |last1= has generic name (help)

The book can be a good resource and I would insist you all to go through it (if it is in the zone of your interest). Much of the information can be added to Wikipedia (written in your own words), in case the information is not already there. Diptanshu 💬 05:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I tagged the article Steady State theory for a potential move to "Steady State model" as it failed as an accepted theory. Your comments there are welcome. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

FYI, I'm proposing a stronger style convention for special characters which are often seen in science-related articles. The idea is to use Unicode characters like ÷ instead of HTML entities like ÷, except in cases where characters can be confusing or there's an existing guideline to do something else (like with fractions and superscripts). If you'd like to read and/or comment, the latest version is at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Fourth draft. Thanks! -- Beland (talk) 06:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

For heaven's sake, please, prevent any activists from adding more tabulated bureaucracy to the already enriched WP:MOS (e.g.: idiosyncratic "spacing of dashes"!). All the already stated precautions do apply fully to the draft, imho. Let's not have more of "I am an expert in the guidelines, which you constantly disrupt." and "I don't care a sh*t about you toiling to restore meaning, which is against (my) guidelines."

Why is it necessary to have so much canvassed into one go? Replacing hex-codes is a fine thing to do. I do not feel sufficiently prepared to comment directly on the MOS-TP. I intended this to be on the math-project site, putting a copy there.07:36, 10 August 2018 (UTC) Purgy (talk) 07:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Are the views of this group on certain LGBT topics to be considered on the fringe of professional organizations? Please contribute your opinion at this discussion at the Fringe theories noticeboard. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 19:34, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

There is a request for comment on the Sci-Hub article:

Which of the following should be the opening paragraph of the Sci-Hub article?

Option 1 (from revision 864273518):

Sci-Hub is a website with over 70 million academic papers and articles available for direct download.^[1] It bypasses publisher paywalls by allowing access through educational institution proxies. Sci-Hub stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

Option 2 (from revision 864287916):

Sci-Hub is the world's largest source of pirated academic papers and articles.^[2] It bypasses publisher paywalls by illegally using educational institution proxies,^[3] after which it stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

Option 3 (current version):

Sci-Hub is a website which claims to have over 70 million academic papers and articles available for direct download.^{[1][better source needed]} It is stated to be the world's largest source of pirated academic papers and articles.^[2] It bypasses publisher paywalls by using educational institution proxies with credentials to which the site is not entitled,^[4] after which it stores papers in its own cache to speed up future requests.

As "sci-hub.tw" is on the Wikipedia spam blacklist, I've removed the URL from the citation in Option 1. You can see the original citation in revision 864273518.

References

1. [1]

   "Sci-Hub". {{cite web}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Missing or empty |url= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)
2. [2]

   John Bohannon (28 April 2016). "Who's downloading pirated papers? Everyone". Science. 352 (6285): 508–512. doi:10.1126/science.aaf5664.
3. [3]

   Matthew B. Hoy (2017). "Sci-Hub: What Librarians Should Know and Do about Article Piracy". Medical Reference Services Quarterly. 36 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1080/02763869.2017.1259918. PMID 28112638.
4. [4]

   Matthew B. Hoy (2017). "Sci-Hub: What Librarians Should Know and Do about Article Piracy". Medical Reference Services Quarterly. 36 (1): 73–78. doi:10.1080/02763869.2017.1259918. PMID 28112638.

If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Sci-Hub#Request for comment on opening paragraph. Thanks. — Newslinger talk 00:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

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) 21:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I have been working on creating "scientists in red", creating links to non-existent articles which I think should be created. I think this needs to made more visible, acquiring the same visibility as the "Women in Red". On occasion, I find that some zealous editor deletes my red contributions when a (very little) research on his/her part would reveal that, indeed, the person is a notable scientist. It would be great to get a scientists in red movement going: it might discourage such mindless edits and get a few more scientists up on the board. MargaretRDonald (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at [] ResultingConstant (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Political science 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:Political science 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 06:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

• Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
• From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
• Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 11:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Category:Scientific societies has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Oculi (talk) 12:45, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

A new WikiProject has been proposed where your knowledge and competence could be very useful.
You are invited to join the discussion about this proposal: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Technical standards. Thanks. --Daniele Pugliesi (talk) 01:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello,

I was wondering why WP:SCIRS has never been elevated to the status of a content guidelines like WP:MEDRS has been? It seems that the suggestions in SCIRS are all perfectly reasonable and would prevent a lot of bad content from being added. I am thinking specificly of its limitations on human genetics sources: Wikipedia is currently plagued by horrible genetics section on human populations in numerous articles due to ignoring WP:SCIRS's requirement that only review articles be used. Different genetics studies often contradict each other and can be abused for various nationalist/other POV agendas. This is a particular problem for Central/East Asian articles, where various Pan-Turkic, Pan-Iranian, etc. editors war over which group various ancient peoples belonged to and add one-sided genetics sources to bolster their cases. There is currently a debate in which SCIRS is at the center at Talk:Uyghurs#No primary sources, for instance.

Anyway, WP:SCIRS seems like it should be a content guideline. How would we go about making it one? Or is there some problem with it I'm unaware of?--Ermenrich (talk) 14:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

The following discussion is of interest to members at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using of primary genetics sources at Uyghur (and many other Eurasian pages)--Ermenrich (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Philosophy of science 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:Philosophy of science 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 21:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Annual Reviews, an independent, nonprofit scholarly research publisher, seeks an enthusiastic Wikipedian-in-Residence (WIR).

The aim of this role is to improve Wikipedia’s coverage of the sciences by citing expert articles from Annual Reviews’ journals. The WIR will engage with Wikipedia editors across life, biomedical, physical, and social science articles and WikiProjects to help ensure responsible and valuable expansion of content.

This is a temporary position for 10 hours/week, paid at $30/hour USD, and is anticipated to last for up to 1 year. This position can only be based remotely from the following states: CA, OR, OH, NV, NC, WA, WI, CO, MA, PA, NY, HI, or MT.

PLEASE APPLY! https://annualreviewsnews.org/2020/02/25/seeking-a-wikipedian-in-residence/

Cheers, Jake Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:12, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Can anyone take a look at this article and determine if she is sufficiently notable? Thanks, MVP-nostalgia (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Just in case there are folks here who might be interested in reviewing drafts awaiting article status that are particular to WikiProject Science. If you'd like to sign up to review/approve/decline new Drafts, instructions are here. AFC Reviewers get to use really cool automated tools that make reviewing really quick and easy, and I've really enjoyed volunteering there, and I'm really digging the AFC Sorting tool so instead of having to comb through lots of articles, I can zip right to topics I'm interested in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:50, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello,

Since some editors are contesting existence of articles associating religions and religious communities to superstitions, One of the article which concerns this project/topic has been nominated for deletion. You can support or contest the deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superstition in Judaism by putting forward your opinion.

Thanks and regards Bookku (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

I have nominated Earth 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. --Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 18:04, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

A proposal has been made to form a WikiProject for forensic science. Please add your name to the list if you wish to contribute to this endeavour. TimothyPilgrim (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

We propose to develop a page for the Global Newborn Society. Please add your name to the list if you wish to contribute to this endeavour. User:Jhuma1971 — Preceding undated comment added 03:21, 24 December 2020 (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.

John Cummings (talk) 11:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of MDPI journals. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § MDPI journals. — Newslinger talk 13:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

del discussion

Female programme writer, co-creator of moldyn method. Please we all need to come out for this one, especially if you're in the computational community in phy sci. will post on sub-wp's fora as well. Stay strong. Ema--or (talk) 17:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorries for my non-NPOV canvas! Ema--or (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just an issue to discuss. Just wanted to name an issue, which I asked for consultation on, but was not able to get any thing on before the end of discussion. There is the issue of my inconsistencies on Mansigh btw main space and other-space, particularly afd- and Wp project-space, although it is particularly a matter for subjective interpretation. I’d like to end by once again apologising for any trouble and thanking anyone who offered any opinion or contribution to the chat, as well as for the space and audience in a place such as this. Bye, until next time. Ema--or (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a noticeboard discussion on the reliability of McGill University's Office for Science and Society in the context of an article about JP Sears. If you are interested, please participate at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard § JP Sears. — Newslinger talk 08:09, 21 February 2021 (UTC)