Content deleted Content added
Danielkueh (talk | contribs) re |
The void century (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
||
Line 98: | Line 98: | ||
:::::::[[WP:BRD]] is exactly what's happening right now, isn't it? I agreed to not touch the sections you had valid concerns about. For the other sections such as [[photosynthesis]], it appears you reverted the hatnote out of personal preference (and your personal disagreement with the style guide) and didn't have any policy-based reason for reverting them in the first place. Reverting simply because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is not what reverts are for. [[WP:DONTREVERT]] is also apt here. [[User:The void century|The void century]] ([[User talk:The void century|talk]]) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
:::::::[[WP:BRD]] is exactly what's happening right now, isn't it? I agreed to not touch the sections you had valid concerns about. For the other sections such as [[photosynthesis]], it appears you reverted the hatnote out of personal preference (and your personal disagreement with the style guide) and didn't have any policy-based reason for reverting them in the first place. Reverting simply because [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]] is not what reverts are for. [[WP:DONTREVERT]] is also apt here. [[User:The void century|The void century]] ([[User talk:The void century|talk]]) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Lol, are you serious?!?! Who do you take me for?!?! The issue isn't about photosynthesis. It's about whether adding hatnotes is appropriate, which has been explained to you repeatedly. And stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. I have been editing here much longer than you. By disregarding this discussion and continuing to do what you want, you just turned this whole discussion into a total farce. Congratulatins [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
::::::::Lol, are you serious?!?! Who do you take me for?!?! The issue isn't about photosynthesis. It's about whether adding hatnotes is appropriate, which has been explained to you repeatedly. And stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. I have been editing here much longer than you. By disregarding this discussion and continuing to do what you want, you just turned this whole discussion into a total farce. Congratulatins [[User:Danielkueh|danielkueh]] ([[User talk:Danielkueh|talk]]) 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
||
:::::::::You win. I will stay far away from this article. Please revert my edits to your heart's content. [[User:The void century|The void century]] ([[User talk:The void century|talk]]) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:18, 8 August 2022
Biology has been listed as one of the Natural sciences good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Outline of knowledge coverage
Index
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Boilogy
Cell 111.119.190.28 (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Life Sciences
DNA replication
DNA replication is the process during which a DNA molecule makes an exact copy (replica) of itself — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.113.140.71 (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Biology
VIRUSES:
A virus is a submicropic infectious agent that replicates only inside the living cells of an organism. EXAMPLES OF VIRUSES.
-HIV -corona -small pox -rubella -flu — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.154.110 (talk) 08:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
biology under the excretion
Voice concern 102.149.81.61 (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
I am adding hatnotes to sections
As per WP:SUMMARYHATNOTE and WP:HATNOTE, I am adding hatnotes to sections linking out to main and related articles for sections such as photosynthesis and cellular respiration:
In the parent article, the location of the detailed article for each subtopic is indicated at the top of the section by a hatnote link
- @Danielkueh has suggested that I open a discussion here. They had an issue with linking the Atoms and Molecules section to molecular biology and the Chemical Basis section to biochemistry, so I am leaving those two alone for now.
- If you have an issue with a specific hatnote please revert and respond here with POLICY-BASED arguments for why it shouldn't be there. Otherwise, section hatnotes are in line with policy and the general structure of this article.
Thank you, The void century (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- There is no policy requiring hatnotes. They are a stylistic preference. The policy is simple. If there's consensus, by all means, add them. If not refrain. danielkueh (talk) 21:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Stylistic convention, not preference. That's why it's discussed in the hatnote policy. There's already a consensus inherent in the policy, specifically to prevent a drawn-out discussion for every minor change. The void century (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, it is not a policy. It is a guideline. Second, using the hatnote is just a technique, which we are free to apply or disregard. Also see [1] danielkueh (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your point is. I'm aware that there are other types of section hatnote templates like template:see also The void century (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- My point is that there is no policy requiring a hatnote in every section of an article. Whether we want to include them or not is a matter of preference. Kapish? danielkueh (talk) 21:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- @Danielkueh There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding a hatnote to link a section titled "Photosynthesis" to photosynthesis. There is no strong policy reason for NOT doing it. wp:be bold. I don't have the time to argue about style. This is the exact reason for the existence of the style guide, wikipedia policy, guidelines, etc (whatever you wanna call it). Editor time is limited. Please mind mine. The void century (talk) 21:40, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, the guidelines do not require hatnotes. And right now, there is no consensus for them. Do you understand how this actually works? If not, read WP:BRD. That's a guideline that actually matters. danielkueh (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- And by the way, continuing to add hatnotes even though this discussion has yet to be concluded goes to show that you are clearly disingenuous and have little to no regard for actual WP policies and process. danielkueh (talk) 21:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- WP:BRD is exactly what's happening right now, isn't it? I agreed to not touch the sections you had valid concerns about. For the other sections such as photosynthesis, it appears you reverted the hatnote out of personal preference (and your personal disagreement with the style guide) and didn't have any policy-based reason for reverting them in the first place. Reverting simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not what reverts are for. WP:DONTREVERT is also apt here. The void century (talk) 21:52, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Lol, are you serious?!?! Who do you take me for?!?! The issue isn't about photosynthesis. It's about whether adding hatnotes is appropriate, which has been explained to you repeatedly. And stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. I have been editing here much longer than you. By disregarding this discussion and continuing to do what you want, you just turned this whole discussion into a total farce. Congratulatins danielkueh (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- You win. I will stay far away from this article. Please revert my edits to your heart's content. The void century (talk) 22:18, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Lol, are you serious?!?! Who do you take me for?!?! The issue isn't about photosynthesis. It's about whether adding hatnotes is appropriate, which has been explained to you repeatedly. And stop trying to teach me to suck eggs. I have been editing here much longer than you. By disregarding this discussion and continuing to do what you want, you just turned this whole discussion into a total farce. Congratulatins danielkueh (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Once again, the guidelines do not require hatnotes. And right now, there is no consensus for them. Do you understand how this actually works? If not, read WP:BRD. That's a guideline that actually matters. danielkueh (talk) 21:45, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what your point is. I'm aware that there are other types of section hatnote templates like template:see also The void century (talk) 21:33, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- First of all, it is not a policy. It is a guideline. Second, using the hatnote is just a technique, which we are free to apply or disregard. Also see [1] danielkueh (talk) 21:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
- Stylistic convention, not preference. That's why it's discussed in the hatnote policy. There's already a consensus inherent in the policy, specifically to prevent a drawn-out discussion for every minor change. The void century (talk) 21:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)