Talk:List of biomedical terms

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] How and why I'm restoring this and its children

I'm restoring this and its children by fiat. The deletion discussion was so patently silly that it isn't enough to support the deletion of so useful a resource. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm actually a little bit annoyed at this. The hit rate for those articles is astonishingly high. This is a good resource for biomedicine. Don't try to delete it ever again. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

It was explained why the list was not useful. You did not contribute with a counter argument. You defend a list with more chaff than wheat? What are your arguments? Where can we find the stats for the hit rates? David D. 03:20, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Couldn't you have moved it to the Wikipedia namespace? JFW | T@lk 00:04, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

This must be the special "Tony Sidaway said so" exception to the rules I've never heard a damn thing about. -- Cyrius|✎ 01:21, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia exists to make an encyclopedia. One can say "Fuck the rules". The lists seem to me so self-evidently encyclopedic that I restored them. I still think they should exist on Wikpedia but I won't war over undeletion--if the mind-numbing stupidity of the deletion isn't evident to everyone then there's no point. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:38, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Tony 'it's obvious' is not an argument. For those of us who are new here what is the case for keeping a list where many of the terms are, in fact, NOT encylopedic, or are redundant with content that is already in the encylopedia. There are other reasons for not keeping this list that have been explained before too. This is a serious question, I am not trying to yank your chain. David D. 16:45, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

As a list in the article namespace it has no merits. Nobody is looking for an alphabetic list of completely unrelated terms that happen to be used in many disparate areas of research. It should be in the project namespace. Really. JFW | T@lk 17:40, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Can you post a link to an example of what you have in mind? David D. 20:29, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] redundancy re: biomedical lists

The List of medical topics has many ORGANISED sub categories with 1000's of red links. Anyone that tries to restore, and sort out, the List of biomedical terms will do no better than this resource. Again, what are the strong arguments for keeping an uncategorised list of red links when there are already better resources to find fed links in wikipedia? More to the point they are red links that have been identfied as being important, not just a random bunch on keywords.

A thoughtful well organised list such as the List of medical topics is much more likely to inspire authors to write new articles. The random key word dump will just convince newbies that wikipedia is unorganised and has no focus. There are already enough errors in the main articles to drive knowledgable biologists insane. Don't make it worse by restoring this list. David D. 22:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect time

I'm adding the redirect from this page to the List of medical topics article. There are currently 22173 red links to this page so it seems the obvious thing to do... for now, at least. thereverendeg 19:45, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Good idea David D. 19:59, 26 July 2005 (UTC)