CZ Talk:Biology Workgroup/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris day |
imported>DavidGoodman (scope) |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
== "Microbiology" == | == "Microbiology" == | ||
In medical school we study [[microbiology]] as a subject before we dive into "systems." [[Microbiology]] includes [[Immunology]] (both the basics, but this is mainly a response to invasive micro organisms/microbials), [[Bacteriology]], [[Virology]], [[Mycology]]. I added this to the Draft [[Biology/draft]] page. However, the work group home page is above my "hacking" ability to edit. If someone else could edit this it would be great. I know that mycology can also fall under botany but in terms biological health science, it is a pathogen worth studying when studying microbiology. Or maybe there should be a page for Biology relating to Human Health linked on the biology page if these classifications are not appropriate for the main bio page. Discuss. I will not be on citizendium again until after finals. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 14:03, 16 December 2006 (CST) | In medical school we study [[microbiology]] as a subject before we dive into "systems." [[Microbiology]] includes [[Immunology]] (both the basics, but this is mainly a response to invasive micro organisms/microbials), [[Bacteriology]], [[Virology]], [[Mycology]]. I added this to the Draft [[Biology/draft]] page. However, the work group home page is above my "hacking" ability to edit. If someone else could edit this it would be great. I know that mycology can also fall under botany but in terms biological health science, it is a pathogen worth studying when studying microbiology. Or maybe there should be a page for Biology relating to Human Health linked on the biology page if these classifications are not appropriate for the main bio page. Discuss. I will not be on citizendium again until after finals. [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 14:03, 16 December 2006 (CST) | ||
:The problem of overlapping sphere will always be a problem and something we should not worry about too much. With regards to the edit on this home page, are you wanting virology to be listed under | :The problem of overlapping sphere will always be a problem and something we should not worry about too much. With regards to the edit on this home page, are you wanting virology to be listed under microbiology instead of having its own section? [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 14:52, 16 December 2006 (CST) | ||
::I think it is usual to teach the general aspects as part of the microbiology course. But viruses are not organisms in the sense all the rest of biological objects are, from an evolutionary point of view they stand entirely outside the evolutionary tree. For that matter immunology is only part of microbiology for convenience of teaching--it is actually a part of physiology, or conceivably pathology. I'm not sure where we should best put it. [[User:DavidGoodman|DavidGoodman]] 23:36, 19 December 2006 (CST) |
Revision as of 23:36, 19 December 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)
- Since it will be considerably harder to edit the general articles, I've revised this to a mix, indicated in bold, taking into account t what the people here already have said the want to do, and having blocks of articles.Just a suggestion to think about. DavidGoodman 01:03, 26 November 2006 (CST)
- David, is there a distinction between the italicized and bold articles in your last series of edits? Chris Day (Talk) 00:58, 27 November 2006 (CST)
- Sorry, I had meant to change them all to bold, and have now done soDavidGoodman 16:54, 27 November 2006 (CST).
- David, is there a distinction between the italicized and bold articles in your last series of edits? Chris Day (Talk) 00:58, 27 November 2006 (CST)
- Since it will be considerably harder to edit the general articles, I've revised this to a mix, indicated in bold, taking into account t what the people here already have said the want to do, and having blocks of articles.Just a suggestion to think about. DavidGoodman 01:03, 26 November 2006 (CST)
now all we need is writers
large intestine or colon/rectum?
After scanning this list, 3 words jumped out at me relating to the GI tract. While it is important to have articles when people type in Large Intestine and Small Intestine, I think it is important to add more anatomical words to these articles with links to the articles written on the colon, etc. I rarely think of the "large intestine," but which part of the colon has the problem. Post secondary education, how often do you use the word "large intestine?" I may be completely biased after many years of science education but I feel like people start using word like colon and rectum a lot earlier than we think. In general, general articles should be FULL of links to specific articles. General articles should be written at a lower reading level than anatomical articles, however, these general articles must contain links to more scientific articles relating to the issue. Don't underestimate the ability of readers to figure out what words mean, so try write articles at an easy to read, yet with advanced vocabulary (linked). User general information template
User workgroup information template
See CZ:Userinfo System for usage instructions.
- Edit- I still use "large-" and "small intestine" weekly - I was exaggerating quite a bit. User general information template
User workgroup information template
See CZ:Userinfo System for usage instructions.
- The large intestine article is actually linked adequately - however the writing is choppy User general information template
User workgroup information template
See CZ:Userinfo System for usage instructions.
"Partial list of potential editors"
I'm inclined to suggest that you delete that list of editors. Does it serve any purpose? --Larry Sanger 14:26, 15 December 2006 (CST)
- It was copy and pasted from the old high priority article page. The purpose there was for people to hiughlight the articles with which they had expertise or had an interest in editing. Now the forums are up and running, i agree, it is probably less useful. Chris Day (Talk) 15:02, 15 December 2006 (CST)
"Microbiology"
In medical school we study microbiology as a subject before we dive into "systems." Microbiology includes Immunology (both the basics, but this is mainly a response to invasive micro organisms/microbials), Bacteriology, Virology, Mycology. I added this to the Draft Biology/draft page. However, the work group home page is above my "hacking" ability to edit. If someone else could edit this it would be great. I know that mycology can also fall under botany but in terms biological health science, it is a pathogen worth studying when studying microbiology. Or maybe there should be a page for Biology relating to Human Health linked on the biology page if these classifications are not appropriate for the main bio page. Discuss. I will not be on citizendium again until after finals. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 14:03, 16 December 2006 (CST)
- The problem of overlapping sphere will always be a problem and something we should not worry about too much. With regards to the edit on this home page, are you wanting virology to be listed under microbiology instead of having its own section? Chris Day (Talk) 14:52, 16 December 2006 (CST)
- I think it is usual to teach the general aspects as part of the microbiology course. But viruses are not organisms in the sense all the rest of biological objects are, from an evolutionary point of view they stand entirely outside the evolutionary tree. For that matter immunology is only part of microbiology for convenience of teaching--it is actually a part of physiology, or conceivably pathology. I'm not sure where we should best put it. DavidGoodman 23:36, 19 December 2006 (CST)