Portal talk:Science/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Featured Articles Timetable

  • 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 | talk 08:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Good catch. If the internet can be trusted, it's actually 600 PSI.--ragesoss 23:17, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I am much more comfortable with the new order of magnitude!

[edit] Version 1.0 core topics

Hello. I'm part of Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Core topics working toward a release version of Wikipedia (on paper or CD).

If you're interested in helping, these are some related articles we plan to include:

If you think any of these are ready, please let us know. You can see our proposed initial quality standards or learn more about the overall project.

Thanks. Maurreen 03:58, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

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. --Oldak Quill 18:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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? Anlace 05:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.--ragesoss 16:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Who has the discipline to remember to come change it every week? I sure don't. —BorgHunter ubx (talk) 03:26, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm doing it. -- Mac Davis] ⌇☢ ญƛ. 11:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Portal Maintaining

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)

[edit] #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. —Pengo 13:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 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!

Best regards

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:213.188.227.119 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Commercial_Suppliers 213.188.227.119 01:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC) (Moved from top --Dirk Beetstra 07:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC))

[edit] 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 Marean 21:07, 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 accomodate 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 accomodate 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. Joe 21:39, 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 Marean 06:46, 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 Marean 19:15, 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.--ragesoss 21:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Nevermind. The subportal box is not the problem. I haven't figured it out yet, but you can play around with it at User:Ragesoss/template.--ragesoss 22:09, 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.--ragesoss 22:12, 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 Marean 11:20, 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

[edit] 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 ? --Sumithnc 06:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

Make that Category:Pages needing expert attention from Science experts. --Brad Beattie (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rotated archives

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. Rfrisbietalk 16:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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...

Ksoth 05:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured portal tips

Please add any tips here on how this page can be improved to Featured portal status. Thanks. Rfrisbietalk 14:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is my quick review
  • Layout: Very nice and clean easy to navigate.
  • Color: Beautiful shad of skyish blue, I love to see beautiful portals that are easy to the eye. I have seen too many sharp bright portals
  • Links: Nice use of links, there is only 1 red link...I suggest you fix that if you want to nominate this for the Featured Portal
    • Removed red link that was in news item. Rfrisbietalk 15:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Images:Nice and informative, I love the use of images in this portal...And good job on providing credits for the Featured picture.
  • Size:It seems a tad large in my opinion but is not a big deal.
    • Obviously, it's a big topic. I would rather be "comprehensive" over "stingy" on coverage. One possibility is to use tabbed subpages if too many people think the page is too long. An example is at Military of the United States. Rfrisbietalk 15:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. Template:Dsig


Woo! Excellent portal! Definitely ready for FLC. Two minor suggestions:
  • "Main articles" > "Topics"/"Main topics"/"Major topics"
  • 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.
Michaelas10 (Talk) 15:36, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

These are just some suggestions:

  • As above, some images down at the bottom would break up the monotony of the text.
  • Show/hide tabs for the big lists at the bottom of the portal.
  • Maybe move the science news down or to the side.
  • One more paragraph or so in the intro.
  • Some sort of table of contents because the page is so long.
  • Other than this, it looks really good! Regards, --Gphototalk 18:58, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Quick Review by (User • Talk)

Using What is a featured portal?
  1. Wikipedia's Best Work: This portal is a comprehensive guide to science.
  2. Wikipedia's Best Content: Yes, it has a good selected article and picture as well as did you know items.
  3. Useful, Attractive, Ergonomic, Well-Maintained: This portal has all of those qualities.
  4. Manual of Style: It adhered to the standards.
  5. 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. Badbilltucker 19:38, 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. Ksoth 22:51, 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. Rfrisbietalk 23:39, 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... Ksoth 01:22, 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.

Kirill Lokshin 01:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sensing a certain physics bias with all the bios, but otherwise it's quite good ;) riana_dzasta 03:49, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

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, --Gphototalk 17:26, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the style a little bit cause i felt that the tabs were a bit disconnected. What do you think of that? Chris_huhtalk 18:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I like that style better too, but I spaced on doing it that way. Thanks! Rfrisbietalk 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

This is not a featured portal suggestion, but how about adding the featured star on each of the subpages? Michaelas10 (Talk) 17:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I took the liberty of adding it. :-) Rfrisbietalk 17:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FP to do list

The completed featured portal to do list is at Portal talk:Science/to do. Rfrisbietalk 18:49, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction

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? --Oldak Quill 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC) Scratch that. Formal sciences are covered elsewhere. --Oldak Quill 22:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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? --Ehanzal 18:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC)