Portal talk:Science

The main page for discussing science-related issues on Wikipedia is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Science.

Changing category links

I don't understand why the box on the main page of the portal points to categories. Fuck, categories they aren' all that useful. It'd make much more sense if it pointed to other sub-portals of Science, like, say, Portal:Biology or Portal:Astronomy. I shall wait a day for consensus and if nobody says anything I shall effect the changes. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 14:56, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and even if portals don't apply, I'd prefer to see a link to a starting article rather than a point to a Category. --Jotomicron | talk 23:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Portal: Tropical Cyclones and Portal: Mars

Are these topics a large/broad enough to justify a portal? --Doc0tis 19:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Top box

The description of science seems a little unbalanced and isn't like the other main portals. I think vans are fake. appropriate to begin (as in the others) with etymology, and move on to a brief discussion of how the concept of "science" developed, vis-a-vis natural philosophy, techne, and the establishment of science as a profession. After that, maybe (or maybe not) something linking to scientific method or something about the demarcation of what is and is not science.--ragesoss 04:35, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Be bold! --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 20:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon dioxide as featured article?

Maybe carbon dioxide could become a featured article at some point. - Samsara 18:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Stable versions#Certification gang

would you like to create certified articles in science? -- Zondor 03:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Format

Please use <div>-based format for images used in the subpages (except the selected picture, which shouldn't matter so long as text is beneath and not alongside). This ensures format stability across browsers. You'll notice that Raul does this for the Main Page. Also, try to restrict image sizes to 100px or less (except, again, the selected picture, which usually does well at 300px). Thanks, --cj | talk 09:57, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that using something like [[Image:blah.jpg|left]] was translated directly into div anyway? It's not like the browser can understand Wiki source; it's all being interpreted by the php script. And anyway, if you're so worried about format stability you should delete all of the rounded borders in portals because IE can't handle that at all. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did remove round corners.--cj | talk 14:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to think we're nuking a city to take out an ant colony. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you missed Portal:Technology in regards to the round corners. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 18:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that this is relevant to the issue raised, but Portal:Technology is using an experimental template being "tested" by Go for it!. If it becomes redundant, then it may be headed for TFD.--cj | talk 02:35, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool if he's testing a new template, but if the rounded corners is ingrained in that template then it'll have to be modified too (regrettably). I don't exactly like this strategy of coding for the lowest common denominator. Everything except for IE supports rounded corners. It's not a content difference, just a display difference, and it's a very small difference. Besides, people generally stick with either IE or Firefox and don't usually swap between them at the same location. It's sort of understood that webpages might render differently. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 02:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ideas

I'm looking for some ideas for articles, people, and pictures to be featured on this page. My knowledge of the field is only so deep and there's a fair amount of stuff that would probably make great candidates, I just don't even know about them. --Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 14:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carbon dioxide still gets my vote. Maybe it could do with a "cool" picture of dry ice at the top before being featured?

There are also some very good articles closely linked to it: photosynthesis (has only one stub section left to deal with), cellular respiration, carbon cycle, global warming etc. etc. There's probably a similar wealth of articles on the basis of nitrogen and sulphur cycles. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 14:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another idea: Raney nickel. It's a very well put together article on a rather obscure topic, which makes it perfect for featured article. My fear about using carbon dioxide or photosynthesis is that most people already know a lot about them ... or maybe I am just overestimating the scientific literacy of the general public :-P Cyde Weys 01:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes. Hadn't considered that aspect. It is a very comprehensive article, at least. If you long for obscurity, you could try for Jupiter's moons. Some of them look cool, and at least one is believed to have conditions suitable for silicon-based life (I think it was Europa (moon), if memory serves). - Samsara _contrib ^talk 01:45, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jupiter's moons would probably belong in Portal:Astronomy preferentially. "Science" is sort of a general, catch-all portal. --Cyde Weys 01:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... exactly? - Samsara _contrib ^talk 03:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you would get a lot more ideas if environmental science appeared on the portal instead of earth science. see change of portal idea below Anlace 05:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People suggestions:

--ragesoss 07:26, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

topic suggestion: Surface runoff Anlace 07:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human genome is Science Collaboration of the Week

Just to let you know that Human genome has been voted Science Collaboration of the Week. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 10:45, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

projects, things you can do

I don't like the removal of the "get involved" type boxes from this page; portals are one of the best ways to expose users to editing work they might have interest in. It's looking good overall, though. I would like to have Portal:History of science linked alongside the other science portals, or at least somewhere on this page (disclosure: I'm part of the History of Science wikiproject).--ragesoss 00:31, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. - Samsara _contrib ^talk 02:05, 28 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Las nuevas tecnologias, estan haciendo pensar en el hidrogeno como principal fuente de energia, sin embargo, son muchos los esfuerzos que habra que hacer para conseguir aprovechar, la mayor fuente de energia del universo.

hasta hace no mucho tiempo, conseguir fusionar el hidrogeno era practicamente imposible, era necesaria la energia de una fision de Uranio para conseguir el calor suficiente. Mediante procesos de osmosis sera posible conseguir electricidad en acumuladores, pero la verdadera energia del h esta aun ahi.

existe la posibilidad mediante un laser de conseguir el calor necesario para fusionar el hidrogeno, el problema, es que necesitamos una gran cantidad de energia para poder accionar el laser, y volvemos al principio.Aunque si se consigue sera energia limpia, libre de radiaciones

otra posibilidad es la de conseguir condensar la energia para que en unas milesimas consigamos la energia necesaria. El siguiente problema, es, como conseguir almacenar esa energia, ya que lo funde todo a su paso.

tal vez, esa energia pueda conseguir potenciar las naves espaciales en un futuro muy proximo. Dentro de nuestra atmosfera, puede ser muy peligroso trabajar con el hidrogeno

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]