This is an archive of past discussions about Portal:Science. 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.
Are Featured articles changed daily here like on the main page? Is there a voting page for determining the next featured article? Pattersonc(Talk) 1:20 AM, Monday; January 30 2006 (EST)
There isn't an especial timetable for updates, nor are polls held to determine what is featured. Presently, Cyde is kindly maintaining this portal and switching over features roughly every week or less. Several portals have been converted to a queue system in which future features are selected well in advance, and special code automatically updates them as on the Main Page (this can be done daily, weekly or monthly). The experience of most portals in which there is active interest (as aside from those maintained by a sole editor), is that suggestions are made on the talk page, or externally in WikiProject's (like Portal:Cricket and Portal:Trains). Portal:London is the only one I'm aware of that actually has suggestions and voting sub-pages.--cj | talk08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
pop rocks!!!
I would like to point out that 600 000 pounds per square inch = 40 827.5783 atm
please verify that this 'did you know' is true. It seems very outrageous to me.
A scientific peer review has been started and we're looking for Wikipedians who are members of the scientific academic community to run for the board. If you want to give it a shot come over and post a little about yourself. New nominations are being accepted until the 00:00 on the 17th March.
The project aims to combine existing peer review mechanisms (Wikipedia peer review, featured article candidate discussion, article assessment, &c.) which focus on compliance to manual of style and referencing policy with a more conventional peer review by members of the scientific academic community. It is hoped that this will raise science-based articles to their highest possible standards. Article quality and factual validity is now Wikipedia's most important goal. Having as many errors as Britannica is not good–we must raise our standards above this. --OldakQuill18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replace portal:Earth science with portal:environmental science
this is a good idea since environmental science embraces earth science per reality and per the environmental science template. besides this, navigation is confusing for someone looking for the following topics that are not usually associated with earth science but are associated with environmental science: noise pollution, air pollution, light pollution. the present set up also begs the question of an ongoing debate in some circles: is atmospheric sciences really a subcategory of earth science? i dont think it is, but i understand both sides of the argument (see enviornmental science template talk). but it would solve that argument to use environmental science as the portal, since that clearly embraces all of the above and more navigators can relate to environmental science....what do others think? Anlace05:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Picture of the day
I see in the source for the daily picture that it says "added March 3, 2006." Has the picture been there since March 3, 2006?? I hope not! I would be glad to select a picture of the day for everyday. Do we have a voting process going? -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ.05:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
There is no voting process, and that image probably has been there that long. Feel free to change the image as often as you like ; you may want to set up a queue on the picture talk page (as I have done for Portal talk:History of science/Picture, so that others can add their picture choices into the queue. This portal isn't maintained all that actively, nor is the Technology portal. Regularly changing the image (I suggest once a week) is a good place to start.--ragesoss16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I am adding new content everyweek because I have no life. Anybody want to help me? I'm going to be traveling next month and won't be here. (Noooooooooooo!!!! Wikipedia, I love you!!) It'd be nice to think that Portal:Science doesn't die as soon as I'm gone. -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ.11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
#wikipedia-science
I've recently kicked off a science related chat room: #wikipedia-science on freenode.
I'd like to mention it on the science portal if others think it appropriate and if there's a good place to make a link.
Either way, come along and join the discussion on #wikipedia-science. We guarantee no american politics nor pop-culture talk. —Pengo13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wikichem Supplier Links
Dear Scientist,
WikiChem, the english version of the chemistry section currently ads "Supplier links". My point of view is: this will give conflicts of interest. The following points are not clear: a) Where is a guideline for the selection of companies (there is a certain preference for aldrich) b) Are editors of WikiChem paid for the selection of certain companies? c) Is the educational, non-commercial character of wikipedia affected?
There are currently running several discussions. Please add your opinions. For me, Wikipedia is user-contributed and "WikiChem" is part of Wikipedia and not the product of two or three editors...
Currently, there are only two voices talking. Please add your opinion!
Portal:Science is too wide (21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC))
Portal:Science is too wide. The page is half a screen wider than my screen. The portal therefore needs to be corrected. If it looks OK on your screen, so what? That's because of you're computer. Maybe your computer has some sort of web page wrapping. If someone knows how to repair this portal please do so and also tell me how. If it is not corrected by the time I look at it next, I will use experimentation to try to correct the portal myself. I'm not taking a vote on this. I will not put up with a page being too wide.--Chuck Marean21:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Even as one ought to be bold, one oughtn't unilaterally to undertake broad changes to portals prior to his discussing with others, not least because one doesn't own any page here, such that whether one editor will not put up with the format of a page isn't particularly relevant; it certainly doesn't evince the requisite collaborative spirit. You have edited other portals and help pages in order that they should appear "properly" on your screen, irrespective of the deleterious effects such editing has had on the pages for most other editors. To be sure, where one can accommodate all users, he/she ought to, but it is plain that your edits, which permit you more readily to read pages using IE 5.0 with Windows 95, make things much harder on the vast majority of users who use newer browsers. It is simply unrealistic to expect other editors to abide a change that breaks portal formatting for almost all users to accommodate a group who, FWICT, compose, at most, one per cent of editors here. If one can edit the portal such that it appears for all users in a readable fashion, that's altogether fine; I am eminently certain, though, that, if you edit this portal as you have other portals, you will break formatting for most other users, and so I advise that you not pertenaciously "correct" the portal against consensus. Joe21:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, this is the first time anyone has said my correcting of a page goofed it up on their computer. For this reason, calling me pertinacious was unfair. I'm sure many people would disapprove of you using an acronym, FWICT, as an expletive, & I don't know what it stands for. Your implication that the vast majority of people use newer browsers is unsubstantiated. Most pages are seen just fine by my browser. Therefore, the page is able to be corrected and seen well with all browsers. As far as I know, this was the first time an edit of mine goofed up a page for another model of browser. The page was put back to the way it was. Since then, someone has tried to correct it, so it can be seen well with my browser but it is still a screen-and-a-half wide. You are basically saying that it is not that way on your computer. I had no ill intent, and maybe you didn't either. Maybe you're writing that way because you're over tired. I hope somebody knows how to repair the page.--Chuck Marean06:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Chuck, this is not the first time it has been pointed out that your attempts to change the layout of pages has affected other users. See [1], and the various comments at [2]. --mtz206 (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
Your first reference contains the only statement that makes the slightest hint at that. The hint was: "your fix makes it look bad for the other 99% of us". The statement did not explain what was meant by "look bad." It was not understood and it was at the top of a paragraph that then changed the subject. I being normal would not have remembered the statement by the end of that rude paragraph. Also, I don't believe the "for the other 99% of us" part of the paragraph. Also, my edit of Portal:Science did not look bad on Windows XP. The left and right boxes simply had a space between them which was OK since the page on Windows 95 was not too wide with that edit. This is in fact the first time I was aware that any attempt to improve the layout of a page for 95 goofed up the page for anyone else. Most comments were not about page layout. They were about editing in general. They were full of insults and accusations of being bad. All comments to me were badgering me not to edit because of being a newcomer. They were against all of Wikipedia's official policies and guidelines. --Chuck Marean19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
The problem is probably with the subportals box; a lot of new ones have been added lately. Previously, it was OK even at 800x600, but I suspect all the current icons can't be squeezed tight enough. We can try three rows of subportals.--ragesoss21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I lowered the left column from 60 to 59%, and that fixed the width problem with IE at 800x600. It should be hardly noticeable, unlike the previous attempted fix.--ragesoss22:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
It was already at 800 by 600 pixels. Changing the Desktop area doesn't help. (I found out 800x600 has nothing to do with IE).--Chuck Marean11:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
I've ]]) 15:23, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Chuck - We are trying different formatting options on a sandbox page to find
Traffic Lights.
Why did we chose REDas the main color in our traffic lights ?
Considering that Red had the least intensity compared to the violet ?
--Sumithnc06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Experts needed
A category for articles that need expert assistance from those with knowledge of Arts has been created and articles are being sorted into the category (Category:Pages needing expert attention from the Science Portal). I would like to propose adding a reference to this on the portal page so that those with expertise in Science would be made aware of it and would have a link to it.
Barring any strong objections, I 'm going to set up the respective sections to rotate the article, biography, and picture archives. I'll use the randomizer method found at several portals, such as Portal:Chemistry. Rfrisbietalk16:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Science Portal is way too cluttered
There is way too much going on now with this portal. The Categories, Main Articles, and Portals windows, in my opinion, need altering. Way too much unnecessary information is listed. What is the point of it all??? It looks very bad being so cluttered.
What ever happened to the Subportals window, that just had like 10 subportals with the small thumbnail image? That was perfectly sufficient for the page. Why do subportals like Cannabis, Cats, Dogs, Apple Macintosh, etc, etc, need to be listed??? Who is doing this?
I suggest a pretty extensive overhaul, resorting to a simpler look and feel with less clutter. Again, there is just too much going on...
Final thoughts: Looks nice you may want to work on the weaker areas (very few) but once that is done I see no reason why this portal shouldn't be featured. Nice job.-__Seadog♪15:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
A few more images closer to the bottom rather than all that clumped text would be nice. DarknessLord (talk)
Woo! Excellent portal! Definitely ready for FLC. Two minor suggestions:
Please change the designing of the either the "WikiProject", "Portals", "Main articles", or "Categories" section, for instance, you could change the "Main articles" section to a table form (although this might be too large), or add images to the "WikiProjects" section.
Wikipedia's Best Work: This portal is a comprehensive guide to science.
Wikipedia's Best Content: Yes, it has a good selected article and picture as well as did you know items.
Useful, Attractive, Ergonomic, Well-Maintained: This portal has all of those qualities.
Manual of Style: It adhered to the standards.
Images: This portal does have good images, but it needs some more, especially at the bottom.
Other than that, I do not see why this portal shouldn't be placed on the featured portal candidates list. (User • Talk)19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Minor quibble. The list of categories at the bottom is close to staggering. Maybe just limiting that section to the first subdivision (Biology, Chemistry, Physics, and so on) might be a bit less imposing. Other than that one reservation, which is really kind of a minor one, I don't see any real problems. Badbilltucker19:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I agree with this post, but I think it is more than minor. The categories, main articles, and portals windows all have a "staggering" amount of content. Read my above "too cluttered" post for more. Ksoth22:51, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
The previous arrangement severely underrepresented the scope of the science topic. It's a lot easier to ignore something than it is to find something that is missing. Rfrisbietalk23:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
It is very easy to find stuff on Wikipedia using the search feature. Crowding the categories with too many mundane topics makes it more difficult to highlight the more popular or comprehensive topics. I do think that the recent change to make the portal have tabs is beneficial, making it look less cluttered. But, I do think the portal should have a way of highlighting the largest and most comprehensive topics and subportals. Again, I don't see why the science portal should be cluttered with the sub-portal listings like Cannabis, Agropedia, Cats, Dogs, Tropical Cyclones, a lot of the social sciences (and do some of the social sciences even belong in the science portal?), etc... Ksoth01:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This looks quite good, overall. A few minor suggestions:
The selection refreshing link needs to be grammatically correct; either "Show new selections" or "Show new article, biography, and picture" can be used, but the current version is just wrong.
There's no need to give the year for every date in the "News" section, and I'd avoid the small font as well.
Why are the Wikimedia links repeated on every subpage? They're not that important, honestly.
Could you move the subpages so that they are named something that makes sense in the header? For example, could you rename the page "Portal:Science/Categories & Main topics" instead of "Portal:Science/Subpage1"? It would look much better. Regards, --Gphototalk17:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
This portal is listed as a fundamental portal. The way the portals are arranged, social and formal sciences should be represented here as well as natural science. I think the introduction needs a rewrite to reflect this. Does anyone object? --OldakQuill 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Scratch that. Formal sciences are covered elsewhere. --OldakQuill22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Definition
Hi! Why can't the definition of science at the gates of the science-portal be similar to the Wikipedia-entry of science? This here uses the controversial idea of verification in the first sentence. I don't find this adequate. Any comments? --Ehanzal18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Did you know that a PRODUCT sold in the market place actually claims to stop Cigarette addiction. It is not a drug of any kind and It apparently works. It uses electro-magnetism in certain ear plugs to cause Neuro-Transmiter changes to increase endorphins in the brain, apparently this decreases the desire to satisfy a nicotine addiction. Apparently it works.
I am wondering if neuro-transmitter changes might help with Multiple Sclerosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.33.217.207 (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
For some time, Wikipedia has featured categorization of things by year. The ones I have tended to use on articles I have worked with are categories like Category:1914 architecture and Category:1966 establishments. Does it make sense to anyone besides me to have group of categories analogous to these, such as "2006 scientific discoveries" that would be generic enough to include:
species discovered/cataloged in that year
scientific theories first published
celestial bodies discovered
chemical compounds discovered that year
et cetera
Right now there is a series of categories under Category:Years in science, but something about how it is titled does not seem to fit anything except list articles about years or months in science (or at least no one is using these categories in the way I am suggesting). Any thoughts? — Eoghanachttalk16:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
That definitely sounds like an interesting possibility. I arbitrarily picked two years:
Since "events" is broader than "discoveries," someone would have to decide what qualifies for the narrower category. Then, they would have to justify why "discoveries" are more notable than "inventions" or whatever for adding a new section here. If your primary interest is just to create subcategories for something like "Scientific discoveries by year," that seems fine to me. My main suggestion on that would be to use the existing article sections to define what would be a member of such a category and what would no be included. RichardF (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with "events" rather than "discoveries". I also realized that Category:Years in science is a subcategory of Category:Events by year, so maybe the simplest thing is to add articles related to scientific discoveries to the appropriate "YEAR in science" category (or make one if not already created for that year). It would just mean using the existing category system in a different way, rather than creating a whole new breed of year categories with marginal advantages. — Eoghanachttalk18:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
I was just working on categorizing an article (w/o a category) for 1530 in science. This seems ridiculous to me, there is one article per category. This could possbily be what is desired. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE18:31, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
In a knowledge-driven economy, managing and using information effectively is a critical success factor. There are a few challenges that arise from managing diverse information. The major challenge is archiving information easily and retrieving it quickly. Wiki is often used to create collaborative and power community websites, and is increasingly being installed by businesses to provide affordable and effective Intranets, or for use in Knowledge Management. Wiki is highly effective where group communication and collaboration is needed. Wiki offers a WYSIWG (What You See Is What You Get) editor and there is no elaborate syntax or programming involved, which is a boon for professionals who are not very familiar with. It encourages daily updates to the knowledge repository. People are motivated to use it because they are quite familiar with the format and so there is literally no training to invest in.
The wikis are easy to edit, they carry an inherent potential to change how we construct knowledge repositories on the Web. Wikis allow groups to form around specific topics Because they are so easy to use, the technology recedes into the background, allowing anyone to become a publisher. Because wikis grow and evolve as a direct result of people adding material to the site, they can address a variety of pedagogical needs—employee involvement, group activities, and so on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.18.109.34 (talk) 13:11, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Very insightful. But what does it have to do with the science portal? Remember, this page is to discuss science portal-related topics. Please reserve those narratives for the Community portal or Village pump or something else. Antimatter--talk-- 18:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism
I don't think that "February 8: The first commercial vessel to use a kite to help save fuel created by SkySails finished its maiden voyage. Estimates are that the ship saved 10-15% fuel while the kite was in use, which translates into $5,555,555,555,555 to $8,888,888,888,888,888 in CONDOME costs FOR SEX SEX SEX per day.(Nature)" is really true, or grammatically correct... bad spelling. I cant find the right version to revert to. If somebody can find the correct version, please revert it. (I didn't know somebody could misspell "condom", hah) Cyborg999 05:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Supernatural rejected?
Is it really all that valid to say that science rejects supernatural explanation? it would seem to me that their may even be a branch of science where science and the supernatural go hand in hand. Isn't that understandable? but i think the statement about the rejection supernatural explanation needs to go, and maybe even a whole nother branch of science should be mentioned in the long term. but im getting rid of the supernatural statement for now anyway. Randy6767 (talk) 04:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Science does reject supernatural explanations.
Because 'supernatural' things are never actually supernatural. They are just unexplained natural phenomena.
Things that actually are supernatural are outside of science, and don't exist.
Science rejects anything that is not based on empirical evidence. That's the scientific method. The pink unicorn argument is logically invalid, and I'd advise you against using it on a science portal.
203.9.200.3 (talk) 04:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
This is really cool — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.118.62.134 (talk) 01:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
FOG Index
I had an idea but I don't know how to implement it. I've noticed that a great deal of the articles have very high FOG Indecies, for example the LTP article has a FOG index of 21, while normal people with no understanding of the material generally best understand the scientific article when it has a FOG index of 12. Is there anyway to encourage the writers to use smaller sentences with exactly one idea (not two or three). You can try out the FOG index calculator if you like [3], but here are some results I found for these articles (I just looked at their intro paragraphs)
I think it will greatly simplify articles if we limit our sentences to one idea only, and thereby, reduce our FOG index. Paskari (talk) 17:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Verifiable means?
"Science, in the broadest sense of the term, refers to any system of knowledge attained by verifiable means." - Correct me if I am mistaken, but haven't we learned from Karl Popper that scientific knowledge (or at least scientific hypotheses and theories) cannot be verified but only falsified? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
What the hell.
I come to the science portal after a LONG while, and find THIS?This is the science portal, not a page for expressing an opinion about wikipedia.
Although there has been some vandalism recently, and most edits to this page are currently vandalism, there hasn't quite been enough of it in a short amount of time to warrant semi-protection yet, though it's close. Acalamari23:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
If you had that in a week, then people might take notice. :"D And by notice I mean put on their watchlist to deal with it. Who has this watchlisted now? - RoyBoy03:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
In 1614,Pocahontas married John Rolfe. Then, became a translater for the colonists.Became friends with both Colonists and Indians. The Colonists did not believe an Indian Girl could speak english. John Rolfe loved her and believed in her and that's all that mattered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkdewey (talk • contribs) 01:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
shipbuilding and navigation
ancient indians knew the science of shipbuilding and navigation very well. many sanskrit and pali texts contain references to travelling across the seas. indians from coastal regions travelled across the bay of bengal to countries like java,sumatra,cambodia,china regularly. they carried on trade with these countries.
it is believed that some went even as far as south america. they travelled across the arabian sea to arebia,
egypt and persia.we can see the picture of a sea-faring ship in the ajanta paintings. an image of a sailing
craft was found at mohenjodara,too.it clearly shows that indians knew how to travel across the seas.
you need good knowledge of the directions to travel acroos the seas. ancient indians studied the
stars and it is believed that they also used the mariner's compass. they called it "maccha-yantra". it was
an iron fish that floated in oil and always pointed to the north.
a dock is a plase at a port where goods are loaded on to a ship or are taken down. there are also facilities for repairing ships. the dock excavated at lothal in gujarat is believed to be the worla's earliest
dock.
ancient indians had good knowledge of tides. they also knew which seasons were good or bad for
going across the seas from one place to another.
ship-building was a thriving export industry in india. centuaries ago, arab and portuguese used
What is the pH of a 0.25M acetic acid(CH3COOH) solution?(pKa=4.74)
What is the pH of a 0.25M acetic acid(CH3COOH) solution?(pKa=4.74)
Please also give some brief explain. thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yguo2 (talk • contribs) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Pathani Samanta Chandrasekhar
Pathani Samanta Chandrasekhar (1835-1904) was an eminent astronomer of Orissa. He was conferred the title ‘Mahamahoadhyaya’ by the British government in 1893, in recognition to his contribution in the field of astronomy.
Pathani Samanta Chandrasekhar was born at Khandapara in Nayagarh District. He chose Sanskrit as his medium of education instead of English. He achieved great expertise in traditional Indian astronomy. During his research, he constructed many instruments using the local available materials like wooden sticks and bamboo pieces. His knowledge in astronomy ensured that these instruments had great accuracy in their measurement. His findings are recorded in his book titled ‘Siddhanta Darpana’, which is written in Sanskrit. This book won him wide acclaim and fame, finding special mention in the European and American press in the year 1899.
Pathani Samanta Chandrasekhar’s calculations are referred in the preparation of almanacs in Orissa. The Pathani Samanta Planetarium is dedicated to him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.242.18.66 (talk) 05:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
Citing an author on their own page
Hello,
Sometimes, in a biography article of a person, such as Nicholas U. Mayall, the article includes citations to papers authored by the article's subject. If you include the authorlink template arguments as found in template:cite journal back to the article, instead of a link, wiki substitutes bold text.
My question is, what is the accepted practice here? It seems to me it is useful to include the link to self in case the cite is ever copied to another article and the boldness of their name tends to highlight their involvement in the cited paper.
New Innovation In Biofuel Production Technology.
Researchers from the University of Sheffield, UK, has successfully developed the technology to save energy use in biofuel production units. With this technology, the use of energy savings of 18%. Currently biofuels production requires electrical energy large enough, which makes the production process becomes economically unattractive. And these findings would be of great importance to improve the economics of biofuel production units.
The research team is made of water-lift loop bioreactor, to generate micro bubbles (micro bubbles) with a diameter less than 50 microns. Microbubbles are able to move material faster than regular bubble, which produced conventionally. The findings of this team have been awarded Moulton Medal from Institution of Chemical Engineers, the category the best paper of the year. In addition, this innovative invention won the Best Poster Award at the 6th Annual conference bioProcessUK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ihwan2003 (talk • contribs) 19:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Mathematics
Certainly mathematics is not, from any reasonable perspective, a 'framework for science' - the vast majority of it is certainly a field of its own. Also, you have a spliced comma in the relevant sentence - use a conjunction at any rate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.167.223 (talk) 22:56, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
If mathematics is a framework or a discipline or something else is debatable - but it strikes me as very odd that 20% of the description of science is devoted for saying so. There's plenty of other little defintion-issues in the broad term of science. And mathematics even has it's own portal from the front page. I'm deleting the paragraph to make the rest of the introduction (which I think is very well-written) stand out more clearly.--LasseFolkersen (talk) 14:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Tab header
I'd like to find out if it is necessary for every tab on this portal to have the same header. When I click on a tab I'm expecting to immediately get to the appropriate content. Instead I have to scroll down past the header section. I'm not clear why this adds value. Thank you.—RJH (talk) 22:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I remembered that eventually (duh). But it's also limited to about five or six categories, so even if it did support union it still wouldn't be up the task.
We're also up against another limitation of the software, in that a DPL can't request all pages belonging to a category and all its subcategories. For performance reasons, as I understand. Without that feature, though, we have to laboriously add each article to all the (article-oriented) ancestors of each category it goes into. So we're strongly inclined to have very shallow category hierarchies, and wouldn't want to (for example) gather together a bunch of the current children of n:CAT:Science and technology and make them grandchildren under a new child n:CAT:Science. --Pi zero (talk) 08:26, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Here's a different idea, not requiring any changes at WikiNews: the portal code could test the current date and cycle among the imported news for physics, chemistry, biology (etc?). Eg anything categorised as "physics" could be shown on the 1st, 4th, 7th day of the month, "chemistry" on the 2nd, 5th, 8th, and so on. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:45, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
That should be algorithmically doable. Some of those child categories taken individually see very little throughput, but I suppose that offends Wikinewsie sensibilities more than Wikipedian ones. An especially dire example I've noticed is n:CAT:Chemistry, which has only had six articles in the entire history of Wikinews. No doubt some articles that belong there just weren't added to it; I'll put it on my to-do list, to try to track down some of the missing population in the archive, but I suspect it may still be rather sparse, and if not it then others. n:CAT:Archaeology should already be pretty well populated, because most articles that belong in it obviously belong in it.
Glad someone's already mentioned this issue. I don't come to this portal to read about an Egyptian naming their baby daughter 'Facebook'. 217.44.142.98 (talk) 09:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Rather than testing the day of the month as I suggested earlier, the page could use "Random portal component" to choose between the sets of science news items. Then the "Show new selections" link would work. -- John of Reading (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I hate to say it, but this also isn't simply a "technical" issue, if at all. I see it more as a subcategory exclusion and article classification issue. Case in point, take a look at how Egyptian man names daughter 'Facebook' is categorized. Short of editing the article before it gets archived, how would any sort of cat herding keep articles such as this out of this portal's In the news?! >;-o) If anyone can figure it out, you also can use DynamicPageList to exclude categories. Maybe that might help. Throw out Category:Transport? Category:Wackynews? I suppose someone could try and see what babies also get thrown out and decide which way is not worse... :-) -- RichardF (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I added "notcategory=Transport", but now Homeless Columbus, Ohio man with 'god-given gift of voice' becomes YouTube sensation shows up. I as far as I see it, there's really no "logical" way to filter out all the "not applicable" stories because so many articles are tagged with high-level categories, like Science and technology and/or Culture and entertainment and/or Economy and business, etc. if you use "notcategory=" at too high a level, then nothing shows up. -- RichardF (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I replaced "notcategory=Wackynews" with "notcategory=Internet" because the latter appears to be the major source of most of the false positives, currently three out of ten. -- RichardF (talk) 14:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Proposal to remove the News section
I recommend removing the Science News section of this portal. Firstly there's only one article from this month, and the month before wasn't any better. Secondly, it unbalances the page completely, removing it would rebalance the page. I know people get attached to helping out the sister projects, but if it's not generating news, it's not useful to have in the portal. Sven ManguardWha?04:46, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Listing the scientists
I'd like to propose that with articles describing a branch of science, we include a list of prominent scientists, the ones that have made important discoveries, in that field. This will achieve four things: 1. Scientists will receive some of the credit and fame they deserve for their discoveries. 2. By giving credit, we will encourage others to pursue science further at a much more concrete way. ("Steve Finkelstein made these discoveries in slug biology. Say, he works at the University of Near-by City, maybe I should take classes from him, talk to him, find out what it takes to get into the field of slug biology." That sort of thing.) 3. Often, reading an article on science, my response is "How do they know that?" With names of scientists, I (or anyone else asking that question) would be that much closer to finding out how they know that. 4. We will have a place to link all those biographies of scientists to, so they can be deorphaned. An example of what I have in mind is in the article on photobiology. Listmeister (talk) 18:23, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
Gigantic
Hi! I would just like to ask how many pages are in this portal altogether. And, would anyone like to help me create a separate wiki just for science?Joletole (talk) 02:56, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I don't know what you mean by "separate wiki". Are you wanting to WP:FORK our efforts? There are already hundreds of well-established wikis (see List of wikis), and starting a new one requires thousands of hours of work (if you want it to work at the same level as the other good ones). —Quiddity (talk) 04:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
"Did you know?" section issue
I'll start by saying that I'm a relatively infrequent and inexperienced editor, so I'm not sure that this is even the correct place to post this issue, but here goes anyways.
When the "Coloration" hyperlink is clicked, it directs the user to a disambiguation page. First of all, that seems a bit out of place for something featured on the front page of a portal, and secondly, nothing on the disambiguation page seems to fit the context of the word as it used in the DYK section.
As I said, I'm not sure this is the correct forum for discussing this issue, but I'd like to see someone either direct the hyperlinked word to the correct page, or if there is in fact not a page for the given usage of the word "coloration", remove the item from the DYK box as there is no information to support it. Illini407talk03:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I doubt that these introductions are suitable to distinguish the two concepts from each other and believe that Cargo cult science should be revised. Other points in the examples:
I do understand why the wrong methodology in the oil drop experiments is considered to be cargo cult science, and neither "true" science, nor pseudoscience. Ok.
I do not understand it in the case of Jaques Lacan:
"He became obsessed by a particular mathematical figure called a Borromean knot, in which he saw the key to the unconscious, to sexuality and to the ontological situation of mankind. His quasi-mathematical, pseudological fantasies—the culmination of the cargo cult science of his school..."
— Raymond Tallis
... if Lacan stated things like that, this is pure pseudoscience; I really don't see why we need the concept of cargo cult science here and suspect that Tallis simply confused them or was not aware of their differences?
About the Aircraft Cabin Air Sampling Study... without further details this seems to impose the conclusion "Any scientific activity with any fault in method is cargo cult science." Is that so?
Absolutely good points there. I think none these examples make sense. On the other hand, this might also mean that the term just is inaccurately applied to different kinds of pseudo scientific papers. While this may not be corrected with a Wikipedia article, the vagueness of definition should be made clear in the examples section - or the section should possibly be removed.
Some of the articles being displayed have references in the selected portions, and these are trying to appear in the gutters between the sections.
I cannot figure out how to fix this, so hopefully somebody else can!
TIA HAND —Phil | Talk12:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, @John, that seems to have fixed it. I suppose the references could have been replaced with raw links but eitherway it's tidier now. I wonder whether it's worth cobbling up an editnotice to explain it in future. —Phil | Talk15:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2016
This edit request to Portal:Science has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W.(talk ·ctb)15:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2017
This edit request to Portal:Science has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Ivecos(t)14:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
The project was rebooted and completely overhauled on April 17th, 2018. Its goals are to revitalize the entire portal system, make building and maintaining portals easier, support the ongoing improvement of portals and the editors dedicated to this, and design the portals of the future.
As of May 2nd, 2018, membership is at 60 editors, and growing. You are welcome to join us.
If it weren't for WP:COPYVIOEL, this is where I'd link to a clip on Youtube of Eric Cartman singing the No Song. But since I can't do that, you'll either have to imagine it or search yourself. A bit more seriously: no. This is terrible in so many different ways. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:34, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
NOTE: a new version (hopefully improved to the better Wikipedia standards) of the template has now been created - and, if interested, may be viewed below and/or here => "User:Drbogdan/ScienceFacts" - Thanks again for all the earlier comments - newer Comments Welcome - Enjoy! :) Drbogdan (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
^Bogdan, Dr. Dennis (February 16, 2020). "The one particular chemical is Nucleic Acid - a basic chemical for all known life forms - in the form of DNA - and/or - RNA - that defines - by way of a particular genetic code sequence - all the astronomically diverse known life forms on Earth - all such known life forms are essentially a variation of this particular Nucleic Acid chemical that, at a very basic level, has been uniquely coded for a specific known life form". Dr. Dennis Bogdan.
Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 05:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
(User • Talk) 19:23, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 15:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
.jpg)
Perseverance rover & Ingenuity helicopter => 1369 sols (1406 days) (3 years, 311 days) (landed February 18, 2021).