Wikipedia talk:Requested articles/Natural sciences

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Request to have Topic Placed Properly in Request Outline

Sorry to put my request here on the discussion page. If I knew enough about this topic to know exactly where it should be situated in the hierarchy of ideas, I probably could have written the article myself. Anyway, "Methyl Guanine Methyl Transferase (MGMT)" is an enzyme (???!) associated with a gene (???!) associated with glioblastoma (and with other types of tumors and possibly cells in general, for all I know). I edit consent forms for research subjects and was looking for a concise explanation to include in a background section. I'll have to keep Googling.

If someone can at least put this topic in the right place in the requested articles outline, it would be appreciated. Thanks.

- Me too, I'm just another newbie who is also dazed sleep deprived new mom... There is no page for "Vaginal Contraceptive Film" although VCF attempts to link too it. I'm too tired to wade through stats and whatnot and write a cohesive article. I don't know where to stick the request Biology? Drugs?
-Soooo ummmmm yeah... if someone wanted to write it that would be great!

Mystic eye 04:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics

The merging here of Wikipedia:Requested articles/mathematics having been done without any discussion or consultation, I have recreated the old page there. It was active and useful in that form; I don't see any great advantage in the change. Charles Matthews 06:45, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Some basic things that should have articles and should be in

1. Fabric softener and stuff in the weather section.

2. Why don't people put in pictures into articles? It makes more sense to be visual.

[edit] Scientists

So, I see there are some seperate categories for some types of scientist:
astronomers, physicists

In Wikipedia:Requested_articles#Topic_areas_in_natural_sciences it lists:
biologists (which doesn't go anywhere)

And not on the main page, but within the Natural_sciences is listed:
chemists

But there's no catch-all category for "Scientist" if you don't know what type of science a person whom you'd like to learn more about (why you're requesting an article in the first place) does. And how would I pick which category to put Benjamin Franklin, for example? I propose that people/scientists be a category within Natural_sciences with the specific type of person sub-divided out..

People in science/Scientists
  Astronmers
  Biologists
  Chemists
  Earth Scientists
  Physicists
  Materials Scientists
  Multi-Category & Other

With those original categories/pointers directing to it...

~ender 2007-06-13 11:14:AM MST

[edit] Merged duplicate request page

Why do we have duplicate request pages for science and math? - Anon

  • There was another, apparently older, request page for science and math located at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/science containing many, many requests. It annoyed me, so I took the time to merge it into this page. I hope that I did everything correctly: it's very late. ClockworkTroll 07:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know where to place this request, so I'm putting it here. (Also, I felt the description of the condition was important, I don't have access to enough facts to write the article myself.) You should have an article about a sickness that happens when you eat undercooked pork and yams. It's often fatal and a prolonged fight to cure. I read about it in Discover Magazine quite a few years ago. (About 1996 I think.) I don't know the scientific name for this sickness, but the natives of the Polynesian island call it "pig gut". The description of the disease was awful. I don't have the copy of the magazine anymore, and I cannot find any trace of a mention of this on the internet either. Can someone who has the facts please write this article?

[edit] Aha! Years later I find the article about Pig Gut online!

I found the article, now can someone write an entry about this illness please?

http://discovermagazine.com/1995/feb/thebeastinthebel466/?searchterm=Pig%20Gut

It is actually called Pigbel, and it is known as enteritis necroticans to medical practicioners. Let me see if there is an article on that already. There is! Now to see if it refers to the Discover article. 72.205.228.80 (talk) 15:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split off anatomical terms?

What do people think? Better than half of the page is now anatomical terms, most of which were added a week ago in one big lump. Until these are written, condensed, and culled, would it make sense to move them to a subpage? --TenOfAllTrades 07:39, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Leave them for now - I'll attempt to get some done. --Oldak Quill 08:37, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Chemistry section resorted

I've sorted the the chemistry and laboratory section into some subheadings. It's also been realphabetized, and misplaced terms have been moved to the correct parts of this page. I hope people find it useful. --TenOfAllTrades 19:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

  • One more thought. If that change is welcomed, I might take a stab at categorizing the Molecular Biology section entries. (I'm open to suggestions for categories.) --TenOfAllTrades 19:29, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC), updated 22:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I want to know: 1. how to do the chemical hydrolise(acid hydrolyse) of cellulose, Carboxymethyl cellulose (CMC), hydroxyethyl cellulose(HEC)and CMC and HEC based Hydrogel, in order to complete 100% the hydrolise of them; 2. Which is the best method to analyse and control the % of hydrolyse and to measure from quantitative point of view the reaction products (glucose, carboxymethyl glucose etc)? I have tried the hydrolise of CMC, HEC and CMC& HEC Hydrogel with sulfuric acide 97% having first a swelling phase at 37 °C for 1 hour, then diluting 10 times with water and incubation at 90-100°C for 3 other hours. The results are not good: I arrived till 25 % of Hydrolyse, measuring with HPLC and spectrophotometer at 540 nm.Please help me. 22 May 2006 Xh.D (Ph.D Student, Italy)
  • Recommend that "Chemistry of Radioactivity" be placed under Physics, as radioactivity is a property of the nucleus of an atom, which chemistry is not concerned with. Damarse

[edit] Computer Science

I'm going to help reorganize the Computer Science section. Don't mess it up and reverse it back into place please. --Cyberman 02:08, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Noted. Just keep the format is it is (not a bulleted list) and note the items I removed and placed on Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Technology_and_tools - namely hardware items that are more technology than Comp. Sci. - UtherSRG 02:21, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Where should computer science go?

Computing and information technology surely belong in "applied arts and sciences", but theoretical computer science should probably be grouped with "mathematics"? -- The Anome 20:19, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Alphabetical Labels

User:Erebus555 recently added little alphabetical labels in all of the request categories. I am sure he means well, but I feel this looks ugly and is rather unneccesary for many of the small groups (for example where there are fewer requests than letters in the alphabet). Unless other people feel strongly about keeping them, I will go through and pull them out in places where there are fewer than 20 or so requests. Dragons flight 00:48, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

  • I understand what you are saying and in fact I do see where it could be neccessary (I think thats how you spell it) so maybe you could but I think we should let other people decide too. (Erebus555 11:13, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Check what I did instead under the lists area (one list when I came to it). Just comment out the labels, and make larger labels (A-N,M-Z) - when someone is adding something to those lists, they can add it in the correct place. When there are enough items, people can uncomment the alphabetical sections.
~ender 2007-06-14 10:14:AM MST

[edit] Delete

Are we supposed to delete page links we've created (or at least stubified)? --Jotomicron | talk 17:49, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • No, I don't think so. It says something about it in the 4th paragraph on WP:RA, under For Wikipedia editors. --205.208.239.153 19:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This may help. When to delete blue links Shrumster 21:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RABot

I think the resposible person(s) (which I don't know...) shoud make an improvement to the User:RABot: look ate this edit done by it. In the line 1494 (if I'm not mistaken), it removes '', producing a syntax error that would be catched by the Wiki Syntax WikiProject. --Jotomicron | talk 01:06, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Oops. You're right it tripped over the out of position close italics. I proof all of the edits, but apparently I missed the mistake in this case. Dragons flight 01:16, Jun 25, 2005 (UTC)
P.S. You could have visited the user page for RABot to find me.
Yeah, you're right! Actually given the advance of time, I just didn't think of that :). Anyway, thanks for the reply. --Jotomicron | talk 11:47, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ecology subsection?

Since ecology is a large branch of biology, why don't we have an ecology subsection here? 8th 4 06

[edit] Removed 'Anticlone' request

I deleted the request for an 'Anticlone' page because this word most likely does not mean anything in meteorology. Whoever wanted the page probably was requesting 'Anticyclone', which already exists. If you do want 'Anticlone', at least create the page and indicate what it is supposed to contain. --Michel M Verstraete 19:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC).

Ummm, some people make requests because they're not permitted to make a page, so we have to wait around for ya'll to deign to do so :)
~ender 2007-06-14 10:11:AM MST

[edit] Removed 'Neuropeptide Receptor' and 'Growth Factor Receptor'

Neither term describes a specific receptor or class of receptors. Settersr 12:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Colony-Stimulating Factor Receptor'

Ganulocyte Colony Stimulating Factor is a more specific term and is already listed. Settersr 12:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Gastrointestinal Hormone Receptor'

Too general -- does not describe a specific receptor or class of receptors. Settersr 12:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Mitogen Receptor' and 'Minute Map'

Mitogen receptor is too general and I'm not sure what Minute Map is supposed to refer to, but it is not a receptor protein. Settersr 13:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Flippase

To my knowledge, flippase is an enzyme not a receptor Settersr 14:00, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Condensed 'Histamine Receptors' and 'Purinergic Receptors'

There is no need for seperate entries for each subtype of a receptor (i.e. Purinerger P1, P2 etc...) This adds needless complexity and bulk Settersr 14:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Invertebrate Peptide Receptor' and 'Haemagglutanin Receptor'

There is no such receptor and the british spelling of hemagllutanin is not needed can be redirected in. Settersr 14:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'HIV Receptor' and 'Hemagglutanin'

HIV binds to CD4 and CCR5 which are both listed separately -- there is no specific HIV receptor so I removed it. I removed Hemagglutanin from the receptor section since it is not a receptor and hemagglutanin is already listed in the protein section.Settersr 14:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Glutametergic Fibers'

Spelling error (glutamatergic is correct) which , when corrected refers to topics already covered. Settersr 14:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'Cytokine Receptor'

Way too general as each class of cytokines (Interleukins, growth factors, etc) has several members that each have several receptors. Settersr 14:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RA formatting standard

Please see: Wikipedia_talk:Requested_articles#Bullets_or_no_bullets.2C_dense_vs._sparse. Dragons flight 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

  • not sure what you are getting at -- could you specify? Settersr

[edit] Requested articles flowchart of environmental problems and flowchart of environmental solutions

My request is for more than merely a few sample problems and a few sample solutions, as might be suggested by the light-bulb illustration in the flowchart article.

I am requesting a flowchart which connects as many as possible of the hundreds of environmental problems currently known to humans, and which shows by arrows their causal interrelationships. As humans discover more problems and more connections, they can be added. As the flowchart grows, it would probably be helpful to divide it into separate pages, possibly by fields such as biology, chemistry, physics, geology, oceanography, meteorology, astronomy, and others, although it should be remembered and shown that problems are interrelated between those fields (and not only within them).

Everything in the previous paragraph about problems applies equally to solutions. Wavelength 14:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Such an article does not belong in Wikipedia. Now that we know what you want, I'm going to remove the request. Argyriou 19:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Nothing in my comments necessitates its being original research. The information could very well be already somewhere on the World Wide Web. Wavelength 20:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If so, then a pointer, or possibly even an image, in a more general Environmental science artice would be more appropriate. Argyriou 21:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed 'antiphoton'

The photon is its own antiparticle. HEL 03:41, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Generalized parton distributions

I added a brief paragraph on generalized parton distributions to Parton (particle physics) under the section on parton distribution functions. Generalized parton distributions now redirects there. Since there is so little on ordinary parton distribution functions in Wikipedia, I felt that generalized pdf's didn't warrant their own page. HEL 02:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hydro wires (under Electricity and Magnetism)

From the Wikipedia article on Hydro: "Hydro" as an adjective or noun, is sometimes used as a short form for hydroelectricity. In areas where hydroelectrical power is prevalent, such as Canada, it is essentially a synonym for "electricity services" or "mains." The linked external article is an interview with a guy near Ottawa, Canada, where the term "hydro" is used in place of "electrical power". So "hydro wires" are just electrical transmission lines. HEL 19:02, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

"Hydro wires" is a Canadianism for electrical power lines. I created a redirect to electric power transmission. HEL 23:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

== Would someone please add the topic "nutritonal biochemistry"?

[edit] Removed "Fifth's Disease"

The pediatric exanthem caused by Parvovirus B19 is historically referred to as "Fifth disease," but it is not an eponym. An entry already exists for Fifth Disease.

[edit] Magnetic Reconnection Events

made Magnetic Reconnection Events a redirect to the Magnetic Reconnection. SMesser 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Removed "Analema"

That's a simple misspelling of analemma. BSVulturis 17:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soft Collinear Effective Theory

I made this requested article, and then realized that the proper hyphenation and capitalization convention should be Soft-collinear effective theory (the latter is currently a redirect). Could someone with stronger Wiki-Fu than me move the article to the proper name? Sorry about this. HEL 00:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I figured it out. It was easy after all. HEL 23:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Global Tick"

This is a computer term of limited notability, and is not related to astronomy. (Ref. User_talk:Argyriou#Global_Tick.) — RJH (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Aulostomidae", "Sillaginidae", "Platycephalidae" & "'Sardinella tawilis"

I just recently created non-stub, full articles for these families (and species). Now removing them from the list as was discussed on the WP:RA talk page. Shrumster 21:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "BK7","Diffraction grating","Green laser","Integrating sphere","Modulation sphere","Optical frequency comb"

Diffraction grating and Optical frequency comb require cleanup. Sojourner001 19:00, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "Nitrogen Ice Volcanoes","Sun's Layers" and Valentina Vladimirovna Nikolayeva Tereshkova

The idea is already covered in cryovolcanoes. The Sun's layers are covered in Sun, and the page about Valentina Vladimirovna Nikolayeva Tereshkova has been created. Imasleepviking 23:55, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed Creation of our Solar System and IK Pegasi

Suitable articles on both exist. Imasleepviking 23:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cellulose eaters!?

Trichoderma reesei surely doesn't belong in astronomy. I'm not sure if it should go to biochemistry or biology. Would someone please remove this fungus from the celestial realm? Axel 01:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Far too big

Would anyone mind if this were further split into sub-pages? This is awful to browse. Marskell 12:27, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Into subject areas. Bendž|Ť 14:19, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
As it would mean creating seven new pages for people to track, I have opted to move biology alone, which was by far the largest. Marskell 16:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
I agree, also, on the size issue. The problem is, many requests here are not placed in the "correct" category. Subject area experts/enthusiasts are even less likely to see a "mis-filed" request when it's on another page. (Let me hasten to add that it is not the fault of the person making the request— they simply don't know. That's why I'm putting "correct" and "mis-filed" in quotes.) But imagine the reader who places a request for, say, mirror nuclei on the chemistry page. Later that request is transferred to nuclear physics, and a suggestion is made. But now the reader comes back to chemistry requests, and it looks like their request just got edited away. (Yes, you can look at the history, but that can be intimidating.)
I suggest that there be a category on the e.g. chemistry page for Not Chemistry, but asked here, which would contain links to other discipline pages. JohnAspinall 18:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gigantoraptor erlianensis

Gigantoraptor erlianensis was just recently found by Chinese archeologists and is currently on the front page of Yahoo! News... I believe that this would be a good article to talk about as it is a new species that links brids and dinosaurs and is a current event...

Here is the link: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/china_dinosaurs_dc;_ylt=Ah74uuLlb6ieaj6h2E.O0y2s0NUE

[edit] Uhh...

I requested an article on electron geometry and someone just made a redirect to molecular geometry. While I appreciate the effort, electron geometry and molecular geometry are not the samething. They are similar, but not similar enough so I am going to delete the redirect. Can someone please help? --MKnight9989 12:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, what do you mean by electron geometry? As far as an individual free electron is concerned, they are about as close to point particles as we can currently measure. See electron for all this. It seems more likely that you are after something about the shape of orbitals. Does this help? JohnAspinall 18:50, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R Coronae Borealis variable

... now exist. Can I now remove the link from requested article myself, or is there any demo-bureau-cratic procedure to follow? Said: Rursus ☻ 12:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Planetary Fuel

I was wondering if Wikipedia should have its own article for this. Although it spans many different topics (Philosophy, Physics, etc.) but I'm thinking more of the core of the planet, etc. --75.42.234.12 (talk) 14:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Request

I request an article called something like criticism of the environmental movement because the don't have criticism of any of those crappy theories. -- AlexNebraska (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Although this comment seems to be almost trolling - I will reply nevertheless. Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written without a specific point of view, therefore any article should contain appropriate criticism. If you feel that any single article does not reflect a neutral point of view then the place to take it up is the article itself - point-of-view forks on a topic are generally discouraged.
There are already a number of articles which do offer criticism of certain 'environmental' issues - for instance regarding climate change:
-- Neo (talk) 11:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)