Talk:List of biologists

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Untitled][edit]

It seems there has been some confusion about which lists to use, and indeed there is a separate list of botanists while list of zoologists redirects here. Since before the 20th century, so many were not specialists, it would seem to argue for a single list, on the other hand it doesn't hurt to have people listed on multiple lists. I don't have a strong feeling either way, but it ought to be decided so that editors know where to link bios in. Stan 17:05, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for...[edit]

Figured since I've got a bunch of red links in some of my taxoboxes, I'd start a wish list so that we can work on finding these folks together. To find out which articles have these links, you can click on the red edit link, then on "what links here" from the empty edit page.

Wow... It's been ages since I last looked at this list, and I see that very little has been done to fix this. I can remove one, maybe two from the list, but I have to add one... - UtherSRG (talk) 07:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

T. Okutani has a ja.wp article - see ja:奥谷喬司--Shirt58 (talk) 🦘 08:42, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No Specifics[edit]

Please include some specifics as to what these guys did. Most of them just have biologist written in front of them. You need to click on their names to find out what they did, whether they were ornithologists or marine biologists or palaentologists.
Shreshth91 21:00 29 Jun
I agree with the sentiment, although a quick scan shows that many of them have a description that is a bit more specific than biologist. I would argue, however, that even something slightly more specific such botanist or ornithologist is not enough. There are some examples such as "Max Delbrück, (1906–1981), German physicist and biologist known for work on the replication mechanism of viruses.". This example would seem to be a better style for each entry. David D. 29 June 2005 15:55 (UTC)

What exactly are we listing?[edit]

I'm going to add in everyone at Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine that isn't already on this list. However, there are a number of Nobel laureates who might not be biologists. Should we include in this list, for example, a physicist who helped invent the MRI? Or a physician who developed a vaccine? I'm inclined the list the physician but not the physicist, even though MRIs have had a huge impact on biological research. I guess the fundamental question is, are we listing famous biologists or people who made important contributions to biology? GabrielF 20:21, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, this list should contain famous biologists, especially people who have named new taxa. JoJan 10:00, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I am going to include those individuals who are identified as biologists on their articles or who have contributed to biology (e.g. Robert Bárány, a physician who worked on the vestibular system and Alexis Carrel, a "surgeon and biologist" who pioneered sutures and organ transplants). I am not going to include inventors whose creations are useful to biology (e.g. the inventors of the EEG or the MRI) and I'm not going to include physicians who contributed only to medicine (e.g. Julius Wagner-Jauregg who developed treatment for malaria). Please look through my additions to see if any of them are objectionable. GabrielF 02:03, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stats[edit]

In case anyone is interested, there are currently 714 names on this list (by my reckoning anyway) representing every letter of the alphabet and there are hundreds more molecular biologists, biochemists, neuroscientists, evolutionary biologists, etc. to go. GabrielF 05:47, 28 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add...[edit]

I'm going to use this as a running list of people who may or may not be good candidates for inclusion in this list. Hopefully people who know more than I do can share there opinions on whether they should be classified as biologists. GabrielF 06:02, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Manfred Sakel
    • No, he's a neuroscientist. I'm a proponent of restricting the list of biologists as much as possible to people who have contributed much to the field of biology, particularly biologists who have named new species. JoJan 13:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Julius Wagner-Jauregg
    • No - for reasons the same as above JoJan 13:03, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jo-Jo, you are using a different criterion for "biologist" than most biologists would use. I am a molecular biologist and I think myself as much a biologist as any taxonomist. If you mean List of botanists and zoologists, there are two separate lists already, and you could add additional categories. But the list you want would be called, I think: List of taxonomists--and there is a purpose to that, because the names are needed for the species names--even a molecular biologist knows that much (smile).

I think Gabriel has it right. I leave it for discussion exactly what you want to call the new page, but what you have been intending seems not to have been what was intended in putting most of the names here. We need another taxonomic level. There is already List of botanists by author abbreviation and List of Zoologists by author abbreviation, which come very close to what you have in mind, because such abbreviations are not used elsewhere. But is it the case that every name so used has an abbreviation? DGG 04:11, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I started contributing to this list in May 2004, this list was still very short and could accommodate everyone who had contributed to the field of biology, even writers from the antiquity (such as Pliny the Elder, alchemists (such as Paracelsus) or naturalists (such as John Ray and Charles Darwin). Since that time, this list has been growing continuously, reaching now a considerable 58 kB, and there are still many biographies missing. Therefore I'm a proponent of new sublists, such as List of molecular biologists (I'm sure that there are many that deserve a fitting biography in Wikipedia) with a hyperlink to be added to the top of this list of biologists. JoJan 14:56, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


"Kowalesky" per letter of Thomas Huxley[edit]

Can anybody track down / make any necessary redirects / start article if necessary for "Kowalesky" per letter of Thomas Huxley [2] - "Kowalesky could never have announced his great discovery of the affinity of the Ascidians and Vertebrates, by which zoologists had been startled." -- May be AKA "Kowalski", but I can't find a likely reference. -- (Hmm, Kazimierz Kowalski? - in which case we need an article.) -- Writtenonsand 11:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Red links[edit]

  1. Victor Westhoff. Done. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

424 footnotes[edit]

At present there are 424 footnotes, most giving abbreviations in botany and zoology, and many of them added by me. Once I have finished making sure that the information is in the Infoboxes of the people concerned I plan to remove most of the footnotes (but probably not those for pairs of people with the same or similar names). However, I won't do this if there is significant and convincing opposition. Athel cb (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No response yet, but I'm not ready to implement it. Athel cb (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense to me. Be bold! SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not lack of boldness, but lack of readiness! There are still a great many individual articles to check. I'm still on the letter B, as I got distracted a month or so ago. Anyway, thanks for the encouragement. Athel cb (talk) 07:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_biologists&oldid=1206305140"