CZ Talk:Biology Workgroup/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>DavidGoodman (not priority) |
imported>Chris day No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
I suggest that most of the articles on specific organs and specific animals not be considered as top priority articles. There are just too many,[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 23:17, 24 November 2006 (CST) | I suggest that most of the articles on specific organs and specific animals not be considered as top priority articles. There are just too many,[[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 23:17, 24 November 2006 (CST) | ||
:I think this is a good point. What level do you think we should attempt to cover with respect to animals; stopping at the level of mammal (as currently written in the zoology section)? Instead of all the plant hormones have one introductory article? Subcellular components are important enough to have their own artilces in my opinon. Why don't we start pruning down by striking out the ones we think are too general? At least this way we can see the updated list and easuily visualise what is being cut out. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 03:35, 25 November 2006 (CST) | |||
Revision as of 03:35, 25 November 2006
I suggest that most of the articles on specific organs and specific animals not be considered as top priority articles. There are just too many,DavidGoodman 23:17, 24 November 2006 (CST)
- I think this is a good point. What level do you think we should attempt to cover with respect to animals; stopping at the level of mammal (as currently written in the zoology section)? Instead of all the plant hormones have one introductory article? Subcellular components are important enough to have their own artilces in my opinon. Why don't we start pruning down by striking out the ones we think are too general? At least this way we can see the updated list and easuily visualise what is being cut out. Chris Day (Talk) 03:35, 25 November 2006 (CST)