Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the relationship between this project and the Protein wikiProject? The Molecular and Cellular Biology project and the Protein project deal with proteins and it is confusing to me where I should go to post info on proteins.
The Molecular and Cellular Biology project currently has two daughter projects: Cell Signaling and Metabolic pathways. Perhaps the protein project could become a daughter project of the more well established Molecular and Cellular Biology project. I can see potential drawbacks to this: the idea of protein is more general and extends further than Molecular and Cellular Biology. In any case, proteins should not be at a parallel and equivalent level as Molecular and Cellular Biology, as they are currently with the Protein project. There is a wiki category called protein, and a category is something which many different wiki projects can be "interested in," so the category method removes the problem of one particular project having ownership of the idea "protein". At the same time, however, a wiki category is fairly vague and, from what I can tell, is not nearly as directed as a wikiProject. It seems that proteins need a home in some project, and despite the existence of this separate Protein project, most of the community is behind the Molecular and Cellular Biology project. In any case a decision must be made as to what project handles proteins, otherwise the community will be divided and confused.
This article needs a lot of attention. XYZ CrVo 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Beginning cross-post.
End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.
Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. -- ScienceApologist 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As a part of WikiProject Stub sorting, I noticed that you are using the following stub template/category: {{ Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub}} / Category:Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs. Did you know that we already have a stub that covers this: {{ cell-biology-stub}} / Category:Cell biology stubs? A couple more things: 1) You need to propose any stubs at the stub proposal page before creating them. 2) Your stub violates our stub naming guidelines. I have put both of your stubs up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is in need of clearing up as to whether it's an article-space category, in which case it should be Category:Molecular and cellular biology, and not contain non-article pages, or a project-space category, in which case it should be something like Category:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, and not contain articles. The current mixture is not so good. Please comment at the renaming nomination, either way (or otherwise). Thanks. Alai 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that this is now "parent project" for the Category:Biochemistry stubs? These have been rather large for some time, and don't seem to be especially well-categorised. I do notice a number of them are categorised under Category:Molecular biology: I've made a list: User:Alai/biochem-molecular. (I don't want to just 'bot these over, as it probably requires more of a case-by-case determination by someone with a notion what they're doing.) There's also about 400 articles with no category at all other than that stub type. (I could upload a list of these, or else populate a maintenance category if people would find that convenient...) Alai 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I made a page Radioactivity in biology as all the radioactivity pages are about nuclear physics and so on, but I am not sure if I should merge it into a chemistry page. As a title it sounds strange. is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius ( talk • contribs)
I've updating the front page of the project (as well as the style guidelines) with the new stubs, with an updated hierarchy. I followed the permcats when organizing the stub cats, so hopefully the articles will line up nicely. I have deleted the deprecated and now unused {{ Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub}} / Category:Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel welcome to comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Cladistics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy ( Talk) 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If any editors have time, would someone please have a look at angiotensin? The images/templates are messing up the page, and by adding an image and trying to fix thing I seem to have made them worse. I realize this is mostly a copy editing issue and probably not top priority here, but thanks anyway. Fvasconcellos 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As a chmists it looks really fishy to me. Might be a joke or it is real enzyme. If anybody knows something about it give it the right category!-- Stone 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you want to also delete the associated talk page? TimVickers 23:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, you may be interested in reviewing the subtle debates about "inline citations" over at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. And, if you have not already done so, you may want to review Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. You may want to indicate consensus agreement (or not) on the talk pages there. linas 05:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for people interested in starting Wikiproject Microbiology. I have just put a proposal up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microbiology and I invite anyone that thinks they would like to join to express their interest there. Thanks. ◄ §ĉҺɑʀκs ► 04:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody. Hope you all have a happy Christmas.
TimVickers 19:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cell Signaling.
An editor has raised awareness to PAC-1 on WP:DRUGS. I thought some MCB contributors may have heard of it/be interested in contributing to the article. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for clarification regarding ergadenylic acid. I nominated the article for deletion, but am now leaning towards redirecting it to adenosine monophosphate. However, there are some confounding issues, since the article states that it is purportedly "vitamin B8", whose identity is unclear at the moment. If you have time, please share your views at the AfD page. -- Uthbrian ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please try to use the appropriate discussion page for your topics of discussion and avoid using this page for help requests, proposals etc. which are catered for by the relevant pages. If you think your post is not covered by an existing discussion subpage, put it here and I might get some time to sort it out. -- Username132 ( talk) 10:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow biologists!
I used to contribute to a number of biology articles, but as my own studies have intensified, I haven't found the time to continue writing. However, I do often come across good articles that could serve either as references for Wikipedia, or as "further reading" that covers topics in more detail than an encyclopedia article would.
For example, PLOS Comp Bio has an Education series, of which the most recent article provides a good overview of Modularity and Dynamics of Cellular Networks.
Do you think that there's any use in collecting a list of these types of articles for future incorporation into Wikipedia? Is there any established method for doing so? If not, perhaps we could choose a "del.icio.us" tag for these articles? If I were to tag such articles with something like "WikiProjMCB" do you think you would use them?
Have a good one, AdamRetchless 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, just dropping by to give you the heads up on what's been happening on this high-importance article. I was going to nominate the article for the COTM before noticing that it failed to pass it previously. D'oh. To make it a little more attractive to potential editors I made a few changes:
So what needs to be done? The "Functions" part of the article is very weak, diagrams are needed, and "Structure" needs a bit more work. Pop over and see if you can do anything, it's a crime to have this fundamental article languishing in start-class! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I received a request on my talk page from a user at the Hungarian wikipedia to add a field to Template:Protein. Rather than answer it on my talk page, I've directed the thread to Template talk:Protein, to facilitate your comments and feedback. -- Arcadian 14:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Article has been prod'ed for deletion (reason - not notable). It starts "STING (Sequence To and withIN Graphics) is a free Web-based suite of programs for a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between protein sequence, structure, function, and stability." Can anyone help me to determine whether this is notable. The original author has not been here for nearly a year. Should we let it go, or should we remove the prod and let it go to AfD? I have also asked the Chemistry Project which is more my line than here, but this article could come under both projects-- Bduke 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I dropped a note at the talk page [1]. -- Boris 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with this article. Some people, most of them random "stop-by"s and none of them working on this project, insist on keeping the FULL (?!?) name of the protein, which is about 28 K amino acids long, written in "arginyltyrosyl.....etc.yl"-kinda way, which make the article to jump from . The reason - someone came up with the idea that when written like that the name of titin is to be the longest word in English. So people that work on this project keep removing this linguistic junk, while unregistered users and editors that have no idea, including some guy who thinks he is the supreme judge in this case and who isn't convinced that there is consensus to remove it from there, keep putting it back. -- Boris 12:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've asked for Peer review for Eicosanoid. I was spurred to work on it when I saw the MCB template on its talk page. I'd like input from the MCB crowd.. David.Throop 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
ATP synthase, V-ATPase, F-ATPase and Transmembrane ATPase seem to be in a confused mess! These articles do not refer to each other at all and seem to spend a lot of time reiterating the same basic concepts in a very human-centric way. Does anyone have a good fundamental understanding of these terms, their definitions and their relationships to help tidy up these very important articles? - Zephyris Talk 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.
Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.
If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. -- Bduke 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In reading pretty much every taxonomical article I can get my hands on, I've come across terms such as tubular cristae, discoid cristae, and lamellar cristae. These terms are rampant across the internet (including Wikipedia) and yet I have not been able to find a single article discussing what these terms mean. Can anyone help me out here? And then maybe put that information on the crista page? Werothegreat 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The terms simply refer to the shape of the cristae: tubular = tube-like, discoid = disc-like, lamellar = thin layers. There's another type: vesicular = small bubbles. Apparently changes in cristae shape are important in cell death and cancer, so I agree that this information should be in an article about them. - tameeria 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I update the collaboration of the month. Did I do everything alright? -- Scientizzle 05:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on some infobox templates in the chemical area lately (mainly {{ chembox new}} and {{ drugbox}}, and (a.o.) programmed some templates with an automatic image request function. This puts pages with an infobox which do not have the image-field set into categories (subcategories of Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures). I have been so bold that I added the same functionality to the protein box. Pages having such a box now categorise in the subcategory Category:Protein pages needing a picture; this specific subcategory links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Requested pictures. I have also added a section to this image request page. I hope I have not been too bold in this. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Chemical synapse has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A few days ago the page Protein domains was created. This should likely be merged with Structural domain. However the editor who created the page put in a lot of info. It appears that the editor, User:Dicky2206 is Dr. Richard George, a post doc at Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Sydney, Australia. The information is mostly from his dissertation and I think we should go through it and add a lot of it into the structural domain article. I'll try to do this over the next few days so please don't go deleting it all just yet. Thanks. Jvbishop 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The very term "structural domain" is very unhelpful - since it doesn't clearly refer to proteins. The "protein domains" article, however, is quite a good start; what is missing is a comprehensive list of protein-protein interaction domains... (that's a huge job, and may be too much for a particular article). I'd keep the new article, and add in what is useful and not out-dated from the structural domains piece, and then refer those searching for "structural domains" to the new article...
Having said that, it does seem that there should be individual articles for particularly important protein domains (this can be a whole new category). For example, there whould be articles on: PH (plekstrin homology domains); SH2 ; SH3; UBD (ubiquitin binding domains); Coil-coil; RING; Fbox; Zing-finger; Transmembrane; signal-sequence; IgG domains; etc etc...
Gacggt 21:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a few of us are working on a system for generating the taxonomic references for arbitrary taxa, but we need help checking that the references produced are OK, i.e., proofreading them. It's described on my Talk page, if you have time to help out — thank you very much! :) Willow 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oleosin needs attention from this project. It's apparently a protein used in plant oil organelles, but I have no idea what to do with it, especially where under category:proteins it should go. Circeus 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, are there any members of the project who would like to volunteer to be additional contacts for verification and sources of the DNA article? In practice, you get a couple of e-mails a month and a bit more traffic on your talk page. TimVickers 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to include all of our featured articles in the MCB trophy case on our front page, arranged by their date of promotion. Is that OK with everyone? We could add an extra line for those that have appeared on the front page. If there are no objections, I'll make the change in a few days. Thanks for your opinions, Willow 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A bunch of misconception about this cross was inadvertently spread on several wikipedia pages (suggesting it's a genetically enginereed cross) which I have corrected. It's a wide cross of some sort, possibly embryo resuce was involved but I'm not certain. I couldn't find anything (only searched Google) which was clear, if anyone knows please add it Nil Einne 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Glioma says: "Gene therapy using lytic viruses ... is being studied for the treatment of gliomas." -- I've made lytic viruses redirect to Lytic cycle for the time being. Please correct if necessary. IANAV. IANAMB. :-) We apparently need an article on Lytic virus / Lytic viruses. -- Writtenonsand 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we (or if not, should we) have a template for enzymes based on their EC identifier that links to the ExPASy database? {{ ec}} is already used for something else, but {{ enzyme}} is open. DMacks 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I simply cannot believe we don't have an article on the AOX! I'm in the middle of finals revision at the moment so now is perhaps not the best time but I'll get round to making a contribution in the future (it's a lot of work given all the potential roles, etc). In the emantime I warmly encourage anyone else who agrees with me that it would be an important addition and a potentially very interesting article, to get started! Philbradley 10:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone had anything to say about [ Citizendium] (Sanger's answer to the challenge of vandalism (you have to sign up)). Has anyone thought about this? Anyone who didn't even know it existed? It might be nice if some of our better articles could be moved to a more secure area. -- Seans Potato Business 18:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Is there any chance that if there is anyone free for the next few hours, that they would be so kind as to help me as i expand and reference both these articles? Would be muchly appreciated! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Cell (biology) is the current collaboration of the month...and almost no improvements have been made in two weeks. In fact, relative interest in the CotM has seemingly waned in general--the nominating & voting for future collaborations has fallen off. What's the deal? What would encourage more participation? — Scien tizzle 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Interest still appears low... In fact, last month there were only 7 total nomination support votes (or new nominations) from users other than me (4 total users). Come on, people! — Scien tizzle 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Three similar titled articles covering similar topics could do with a bit of clarification:
It is not clear what each article is about just from it's title. Not sure how to deal with it, though. Suggestions? 82.16.7.63 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
guys i i'm just exploring this wiki thing and i find it very curious indeed! anyway i cleaned up the intro to the eukaryote page and noticed that god knows the rest of it needs a lot of work. then i noticed there is a cell page. alot of duplication.
what should we do? do we want them to remain independant? Wikiskimmer 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Mdm2 and MDM2 appear to be the same topic. If so, could someone merge/redirect MDM2 into mdm2 and cross it off on User:Cmh/List of page titles with multiple capitalizations. John Vandenberg 10:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This afternoon, PZ Myers noted on Pharyngula that the WP article morphogenetic field did not discuss the developmental biology concept of that name, but rather the pseudoscientific idea cooked up by Rupert Sheldrake [2]. I moved the page to a new spot and started afresh, but this is quite a bit outside my experience, and I'll probably have to leave it in stub-form.
Assistance with expansion would be greatly appreciated.
Anville 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone here is not busy writing MCB articles, can you please help the Uncategorized Good articles task force by adding the |topic=Natsci to the GA templates on MCB articles along with the |oldid= from the date the article was reviewed? Thanks. Tarret 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a look at this article, up for deletion? It needs a mass of work or just let it go and maybe start again later. -- Bduke 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is now at Good Article Review for possible delisting of its Good Article status. Concerns are listed at the good article review page. I'm drawing attention to it here because I've seen how quickly this project works - I'm sure that with some quick work in the inline citations department, the article could remain as a GA. Please remember to assume good faith and improve the article to meet the Good Article criteria. - Malkinann 10:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone PLEASE (who knows what they're talking about) detail the various shapes that cristae take (discoid, flat, etc.), describing their differences, and possibly the purposes for different shaped cristae, either in the eukaryote, mitochondria, or cristae articles, or even create a new one. I would have done this by now, except the whole subject confuses me, and I don't have any sources that clearly explain them. Werothegreat 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at these two articles. Shouldn't they be merged? The protein is also called TP53, but it is not enough clearly stated and obvious in the TP53, to my opinion. I guess the best thing would be to merge them, or, otherwise, rename them to TP53 (protein) and TP53 (gene). -- Maxxicum 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by this edit. It could be an excellent clarification (assuming the editor is who he says he is), but it also could be a violation of WP:COI. I wouldn't have worried too much about it if it was just an addition, but the edit replaced the old content crediting Art Horwich (added Jan 2006), which implies that we may be observing a turf battle. The nuance of the timeline is beyond my capacity to evaluate, and I'd welcome further review from editors with more subject matter expertise. -- Arcadian 00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month has received one vote since August 3. C'mon folks! — Scien tizzle 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A few years ago I has a series of essays deleted which were theories on hormonal action based on this site from this user. He seems to be actively editing plant hormone articles again adding material based on his synthesis of scientific literature; these articles are in pretty bad shape regardless so it would be nice if some interested editors could help make these article more reliable. The Arabidopsis book is a pretty good place to find current information on the known biological function of all the major plant hormones. I've started a rewrite on brassinosteroids, but there is lots more to do. Thanks -- Peta 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The article above has been up for FA already for some time, but has not attacted a lot of remarks. Any comments and suggestions on the article are welcome and will be addressed. The FAC discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exosome complex. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There's some discussion at talk:chromosomal duplication as to how this overlaps with gene duplication, and the like. Could someone knowledgeable have a look, please? My own understanding is that there's several different cases of gene dup. (e.g. involving a number of genes on a single chromosome, of a whole chromosome, and of the entire genome), but I'm no expert, and this could stand to be made much clearer in the different articles. Alai 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed today that some articles on enzyme families have plural titles (like DNA glycosylases and AP endonucleases while others are singular ( DNA ligase, DNA polymerase). Is there a standard that all of these should follow? For the plural titles, the article with the singular name is a redirect to the plural. If I want to edit these articles and make them all follow the same convention, what is the correct way to do it? Moving the article from the plural title to the singular title doesn't work because of the redirect pages. Thanks in advance for any help. Amazinglarry 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
In another attempt to chip a few off the huge Category:Biochemistry stubs, I've proposed types for lipids, and for carbs. If anyone has any additional ideas for further sub-types, I'd be very glad to hear them... Alai 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure this topic has come up before, so if someone can point me to any previous discussions of it I'd appreciate it. Opabinia regalis made these changes to the article on Amyloid precursor protein. I understand the concern -- that it is confusing that an article on amyloid precursor protein has extensive text referring to it as a gene. Was it decided that we will have separate pages for the gene and the protein? If so, would anyone support a revisiting of this decision (reasons below). If not, then does anyone have a suggestion on a wording that makes it clear that the page refers to both the protein and the gene? The ProteinBoxBot plans on inserting a similar line to this in all pages it creates (as suggested during the bot approval, so we'd like to get the wording right)...
While I think we all can agree that genes and proteins are different things (genes being the DNA template from which one or more types of proteins are created), from an encyclopedic standpoint I believe that in general they deserve one entry. "Gene function" and "protein function", for example, are often used interchangeably. And knowing about a gene's transcriptional regulation is intimately tied with the role of the protein. I feel that having separate entries as the default unnecessarily and unnaturally splits knowledge on something that most biologists consider a single topic. AndrewGNF 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of David Goodsell's amazing illustrations for the PDB's Molecule of the Month series, and I've been experimenting with QuteMol to produce similar images. I just uploaded one and added it to thyroxine-binding globulin, but now it strikes me as a bit of a "copycat" thing. I know that all PDB images are in the public domain, but I'm not talking about copyright infringement; it just sort of feels like ripping off an artist's style. Does anyone have any thoughts? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey
I have created a new daughter project under Wikipedia: WIkiproject Plants titled Wikipedia: WIkiproject Plant evo devo and will be working over the next few months to generate comprehensive information related to the topic. My focus is primarily on the molecular aspects, the genes and gene networks that function in development, and their evolutionary synthesis. The resources on this Wikiproject are enormous, and would like to ask for participation from all the plant biologists out here for the Plant evo devo subproject.
The project would function more like a task - updating existing incomplete and generating new wikis related to plant development while more focussing on the evolutionary aspects of development.
Hey!
I have created a new daughter project under WP:PLANTS titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Plant Evo Devo and will be working over the next few months to generate comprehensive information related to the topic. My focus is primarily on the molecular aspects, the genes and gene networks that function in development, and their evolutionary synthesis. The project would function more like a task - updating existing incomplete and generating new wikis related to plant development while focussing more on the evolutionary aspects of development.
The resources on this Wikiproject are enormous, and would like to ask for participation from all the plant biologists out here for the Plant evo devo subproject. Maybe we can work out a collaborative function? Gauravm1312 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is being rather too quiet. Could people register their opinions or even their apathy at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Votes/2007 director vote? All the best Tim Vickers 20:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor seems convinced that molarity is an archaic measurement and is insisting on using mmol L-1 rather than just mM in the Ellman's reagent article. Could somebody else try to explain to him that the standard usage is biochemistry is molarity? Tim Vickers 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:
Into:
Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Would someone like to add the |needs-photo parameter into the MCB template? Richard001 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all!
On kind of a whim, I've decided to fill some gaps in our coverage of enzymes, starting with Category:EC 1.1.1. Would you all be so good as to look them over, and give me suggestions? You might find this page useful. They're just stubs and I know that the pathways are messed up (the "participates in" sentence) because I only now figured out how it should be presented. The rest of it might not be too bad, but I would welcome any advice to improve them, since there's only, ummm, 3500 enzyme classes left to go. ;) Hoping everyone here is happy and healthy, Willow 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. One question was whether there were too many external links in the {{ Enzyme links}} and {{ Enzyme references}} templates found on all the new enzyme pages? I wasn't sure which ones could be safely deleted, though; they all seem good!
PPS. OK, I finished Category:EC 1.1.1, with the exception of a few enzymes that catalyze more than one reaction, which I was too tired to think through how to do. I hope you like them! Please send along any suggestions for improvments or wish-lists of additional features, Willow 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim, both for fixing them up and for detecting classes of errors that I should work to improve. I'll try to use the protonated form in my future enzyme articles, although I confess that the "ate" ending sounds more euphonic to my ears. :) Willow 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the usnic acid glitch; I'll try to fix that up once I get home from my sister's house! I can also send along a list linking the EC numbers with the human and mouse genes — would that be helpful, Andrew? Please let me know what you'd find helpful, and I'll try to do that. :) Willow 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Umm, well, I think you might be able to use this file for linking EC numbers and human genes, although if you work for a company, they might ask you to get permission first. Hoping it's helpful, Willow 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I periodically edit articles on amino acids, which can be lively area. These articles desperately need this group (if there is a group that I am appealing to) to strike some agreement about the guidelines/templates for amino acids, at least the ones that are coded for, otherwise the lede really gets jerked around depending on each editor's prejudices. So can the MCB group set up some sort of guidelines?
If such a template could be agreed upon, this could be posted on the talk pages of the 20-21 amino acids. Presumably similar standardization has occured with the articles on other biochemical building blocks. -- Smokefoot 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please comment here. Alai 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I also notice that many of these stubs have category redlinks for their "EC" cats. I'd be a good idea to complete those. Alai 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. -- Quiddity 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. -- Bduke 03:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Feedback loops are a key element in molecular biology, but they are lost around and are inside general articles, or I did not find them, ergo hard to find. A page feedbacks and oscillations in molecular biology or something similar would be the solution but it would be a mix-mash of ideas and references (original data logo) and most people know it anyway. threshold (stochastic inhibitor) and exponential activation. Plus to actually explain these mechanisms, one needs to build on the mathematical biology page that is small to start with, plus I just saw that the background applied mathematics terms here are confused to put it is lightly. I do not have much free time, and . I think i better leave it to a more seasoned wikipedia editor. so I will just contribute this idea (or add the maths later on). -- Squidonius ( talk) 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Great to see the WikiProject recognized by EMBO. [5] Keep up the excellent work. -- Aude ( talk) 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Computer Science article Genetic Algorithms has a template on it's talk page for membership in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Project, which is confusing some folks. We probably want to remove that template, but I want to mention it here first, and also explain why I think it was put there in the first place.
So we are talking about using a biological model as the basis of a software engineering technique, and the current work in GA per se is done by Control Engineers (who are basically consumers), Computer Scientists, Software Engineers, and even the occasional deranged mathematician. So, please visit, skim over the page, and then please delete the Molecular and Cellular Biology Project template from the Talk page. And here's to standing on each others' shoulders, and not stepping on each others' toes :-) Thanks. Pete St.John ( talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I put the MCB template on that article, it seems, back when I was tagging a lot of articles. My reason for tagging it was based on an interest in bioinformatics, and GAs are certainly part of that. I can assure you I had no clue about any credit disputes (I certainly didn't read the talk page before placing the template) nor was I confused by the title. Plain and simple: It is likely the page will be visited by people with zero background in computer science, e.g. biology students taking a bioinformatics class. The template is there to indicate that this is a topic of interest to molecular biology and to invite editors from the "bio side" of bioinformatics to look at it and maybe help by making it more relevant and useful to those biology students. I'm not quite sure I understand the reasons for the proposed removal of the MCB template. What is the problem with indicating that a molecular biologist might be interested in it? I don't find it confusing at all, but then I'm reasonably familiar with bioinformatics so maybe I'm missing something. - tameeria ( talk) 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Paul Chun (professor) seems to be in line for a speedy delete on grounds on non-notability. If anyone has any info to the contrary, now would be the time to add it. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 13:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Caesura ( talk · contribs) and I independently redirected the new article Parts of a cell to Cell (biology)#Anatomy of cells. The article creator, Warrior4321 ( talk · contribs), however disagrees with the redirect, stating that
the article I have written can help users who are searching for Parts Of A Cell.The article that you have redirected it to doesn't really talk about the specific parts of the cell rather than the whole cell. [6]
I undid the redirect, stating that I would bring the topic here for further input. As I outlined in my redirect edit, I believe the redirect is more appropriate as the article was not an inclusive list—If you look at the section to which it was redirected, it includes detailed anatomies of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells (particularly, in the diagrams) with links to sub-articles about each.
Perhaps other members of this WikiProject will have some ideas as to the correct course of action...? Thanks, — Scien tizzle 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Cell (biology) covers the same ground but in a more comprehensive way. I think this should just be redirected to the main page. However, that material here might be useful in Simple Wikipedia (maybe their cell article) since it is a nice, basic summary. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In case it's gone unnoticed, everything on the Parts of a cell page that Warrior4321 "wrote" is just copied and pasted from other Wikipedia articles. None of that content is original to Warrior4321. (It's not copyvio or anything, of course, since it's from Wikipedia, but it is uselessly duplicative.) It really doesn't belong there; the redirect should stand. — Caesura (t) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't clear whether or not this project [7] is notable--there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Cycle Ontology, and some expert help would be appreciated. DGG ( talk) 02:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Mitochondrion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is on WP:FAC. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitochondrion. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxygen. -- mav ( talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it might be useful to split the random coil article into 2 separate articles? With the first being used to describe the mathematical theory, and the second to describe the protein related aspects of the model?-- 69.118.143.107 ( talk) 18:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone find a better way to phrase this? I find my own wording slightly awkward, and could benefit from a second opinion.-- 69.118.143.107 ( talk) 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I realize this third question is slightly outside the scope of this WikiProject, but could someone take a look at the SigmaPlot article, and hopefully rewrite it in a way that isn't as spammy and self-promotional as the original was? I had to blank most of the content as it was directly copyvio'd from systat's website. Surely someone in this WikiProject has used SigmaPlot and can attest to its notability. -- 69.118.143.107 ( talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose to merge most of the content Iron-sulfur cluster into iron-sulfur protein. Way too much redundancy. We also have an article on ferredoxin as well as shorter ones on more specific proteins High potential iron-sulfur protein, Aconitase, nitrogenase, and adrenodoxin. Maybe some non-bio Fe-S clusters can be mentioned in the article "iron-sulfur clusters." Someone might set up a category for Fe-S clusters. If people have views or concerns on the merger, drop a note on the relevant talk pages.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm not an expert, but I had a go at trying to improve the nucleotide page. Diff. The page had some very odd formatting which I tried to fix, and added some prose, but I'm very far from an expert and I'm sure have either made mistakes, ommissions or added complications that don't need to be there. If someone could have a look at it to try to fix it, it'd be a big favour to me, but more to wikipedia. Given it's way out of my expertise I can't really contribute beyond what I already have. WLU ( talk) 15:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Philip Greenspun illustration project will be paying professional illustrators to create images for Wikipedia. The Wikiprojects have been requested to look over their core articles and think about which new illustrations (particularly line drawings and diagrams) we could ask for. Suggestions please! Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Signaling pathways aren't very difficult to draw though. Looking through our core articles, how about a cutaway diagram of a Microscope? Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a simple optical microscope, but with a cutaway showing the various elements. The translation animation is a current request, perhaps DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase animations? The electron transport chain would not be all that informative an animation though, just blobs moving between boxes. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Samuel H. Wood needs attention. It is a stub. CM ( talk) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This article's only categories where wikiproject (this one infact) related cats which dont belong on mainspace, so I had them moved to the talk page and the article is now categoryless. Since this is not my field I'm not too sure where it belongs (Is there a cat better suited for this than the DNA one?). Would someone be kind enough to go there and add a cat or two? Thanks RIP-Acer ( talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Any comments on the changing of official gene names for grammatical errors? For example, [9]... (Clearly, this is a very subtle "error".) On the one hand, I'm all for being technically correct in the use of language. On the other hand, given the choice of using the HUGO-approved name or a variant that is more gramatically correct, I think I'd err on the side of using the version from the naming authority. In any case, perhaps it should be discussed. Since Drphilharmonic appears to be making these changes systematically, this isn't just an isolated case or a hypothetical example. (Drphilharmonic's page moves according to this principle has also been introducing several double redirects, a fact which I've note on his talk page.) AndrewGNF ( talk) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a member of WP:Chem, so I'm not a subject expert, but I happened to be looking at Lipid which was assessed (appropriately) as Start-Class in 2006. It appears to have greatly improved since that time (when it was demoted from GA) to at least B-Class, so you may wish to re-assess this. I think perhaps it could even be good enough to go to WP:GAN, but that would be your call. Walkerma ( talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to promote the project and highlight a few of the things people are doing in the current episode of the podcast. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Action potential has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Medos2 ( Talk) 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved Bifidus Factor to Bifidus factor and am updating pages that link to it. I d0n't know whether to alter Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/MCB articles by quality/8 Thank you for your time. ColorfulNumbers ( talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that much of Chromium deficiency is fringe science, aimed toward promoting chromium as importantly beneficial biologically. There is no characterized metalloprotein. The credibility of chromium picolinate (Googling "chromium picolinate" gave 1.3M hits) is supported by the wobbly nature of the wiki report which makes it appear that bio-chromium is settled science. This editor is afraid, due to NPOV concerns, to forcefully state that a healthful role for Cr is unproven. Similar problems relate to other possible ultra trace elements, and it is difficult to argue such cases. It would be useful if this group were to develop some guidelines for proof of a biochemical role. The ultratrace proponents will always be able to find a variety of publications in specialized journals that support their claim. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject (or WikiSubProject), WikiProject: Genetic History.
To quote from what I've written there:
If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.
Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.
Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History
Thanks, Jheald ( talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Pardon the intrusion, but I found this project through Vitamin and was hoping that someone could help me out with Bioflavinoid, which I found via new page patrol. What the article currently is, is a mess. Whether it's notable or not, I have no idea and Google doesn't help. Can anyone here help? Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Base Encoding (2nd nomination). Expert help may be useful to decide whether the article should be deleted or this is just a matter of cleanup. -- Itub ( talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wrote something for the KCNJ15 article. It should be factually correct, but I'm not a wiki-veteran, so if anybody would look over if I did some formatting errors (what with templates and Protein Box Bots and such).-- LasseFolkersen ( talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I already posted this as a response to a thread above, but I think that this deserves a thread of its own. I'm currently in the process of developing a nifty multi-funtional WikiProject management tool that'll provide - at first - the following functions:
The first part is nearly complete, and when it is I'll make the tool available for testing while I work on the second part. As time goes on, I hope to add functions and make it general enough for all WikiProjects to make use of it. Hopefully, a tool like this one will help to make WP's in general somewhat more standardized and easier to manage, hopefully with the effect of increasing project participation and reducing the number of abandoned projects somewhat. Anybody have any thoughts or suggestions regarding features they might want to see? How about a really, really witty name? – Clockwork Soul 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's coming along very nicely. A few bugs to work out here and there, but it's getting close to release for some alpha testing. Here's some screenshots:
Let me know what you think! – Clockwork Soul 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment moved to Igor's talk page.
I'm already getting some great suggestions! If you have any ideas (good or bad, or whatever!), go ahead and post them on Igor's talk page. Thanks! – Clockwork Soul 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Some new images are avalible here people might find useful. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This may be of interest to some members of this project – I've recently proposed the creation of a WikiProject on Microscopy. If interested, add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microscopy. Peter G Werner ( talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just proposed splitting up the present Category:Protein stubs, many of which are actually on the (human) genes which code for particular proteins, rather than the proteins themselves. Alai ( talk) 04:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
At the moment there are a lot of protein stubs categorised as gene-stub. I think we should follow Ciar's suggestion and rename the category to "protein encoded on chromosome 1-stub". — Tirk·fl “…” 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that some articles have importance rankings that differ greatly from their popularity as counted by page views. Looking at the access stats collected 2/01/08 to 2/23/08 I put together a table of the 500 most-accessed articles in the MCB wikiproject and the outliers for the Top and Low importance rankings — the top ten most accessed "Low" articles were 10 times more popular than the ten least accessed "Top" articles. What do people think about how page views should influence article importance rankings? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Should we keep articles that are mostly pure chemistry, like dimer and oil, or tissue types, like fat and periosteum? – Clockwork Soul 05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Many of these subjects will be falling under multiple WikiProjects, and that is not a problem. I would leave actual pharmaceuticals primarily under WP:PHARM, but a substance like caffeine is harder to push into that corner because most people using caffeine will not do it medicinally (... little do they know ...). Similarly, subjects like periosteum are primarily WP:MED and WP:Anatomy, but MCB has a role to play when it comes to their molecular/cellular aspects.
Collaboration between WikiProjects is still quite rudimentary, and presently seems to be happening more on a personal basis. I'm not suggesting there should be any other cross-talk at the moment, but it is well possible that an article is "high"-importance for MCB while being of only modest interest to Pharm, Med and Anatomy. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a member of WP:MCB, but I'm a chemist who's been heavily involved in the assessments at WP:1.0, so hopefully you'll forgive me intruding a little! Firstly, you may be interested in looking at some of our test output here, this is a collection of 1403 MCB articles ranked by a combination of (mainly) importance and (less) quality. It also shows a hit count for one month (Feb 2008, I think), as well as other measures of importance such as links-in and interwikis. Please note that we are still tweaking the system, but we hope that these data will become official soon, and you will be able to see them updated regularly. Secondly, our system at WP:1.0 expects that multiple projects will tag the same article (many have 6 or more projects). So if you want to tag an article like nitric oxide or oxygen, WP:Chemistry, WP:Chemicals or WP:1.0 certainly won't mind - and it may help you to keep track of topics within your area of interest. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The first release of Igor is available, if you want to take a look. It's still early in its development, but it still lets you see all of the project's articles and sort them in order of class and importance. I've used it to assign values to a few hundred articles in the past couple of days :) – Clockwork Soul 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there some way this can be included in the template? For example, on phycocyanin I was going to add a request, but the project's template doesn't have the |needs-photo parameter that many others do. In this case it's not so much a photo that we want though - it's difficult to photograph pigments themselves. Unfortunately Wikipedia's image requests are very photo-centric, so I'm no sure what category this request could go in. Richard001 ( talk) 09:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
{{Unanswered}} Some pages, such as this one have lots of post and it requires some work to see what has been answered or acknowledged. therefore I made the {{ Unanswered}} template that can be put above a section allowing one to quickly glimpse what has been answered. For now I will tag mine and any post I am 100% sure is unanswered. If you were waiting for an answer but never got one as the post in somewhere in the middle tag it! please voice any queries or comments in the talk Template:Unanswered ( links, talk) and not here. Cheers -- Squidonius ( talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is really really sad: Post-transcriptional regulation. It has been nominated for deletion, by someone who is obviously not a biologist. I asked that the AfD be closed. But, really, the article should be in far better shape than this. If any editors have some time, please develop this article. I see many of the genetics and protein synthesis articles need major work, so I understand if editors have their own priorities. Still.... -- Blechnic ( talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I bulked up the page by using a project report I had on genome-wide detection on transcription rates. but it still needs TLC. I kind of have too many pet articles, anyone what gene reg & co. as a pet? -- Squidonius ( talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Better tune in to the discussion at WP:CITE. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone somewhere said that a better table was needed. here is example. Please modify it freely (vde on top left). -- Squidonius ( talk) 01:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate commentary and critique on whether the current action potential article is worthy to be a Featured Article. It's a long article, I know, but please read through it and vote your conscience, Keep or Remove, at its FAR. If you don't like it, then let me know what needs to be fixed! Willow ( talk) 19:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Input requested on potential disambiguation (Please do not respond on my talk page as it is shared by a large number of library computers at Stony Brook University. Please also note that my only edits are to lysozyme, its talk page, and to this WikiProject. All other edits from this IP are the result of other users behind the same router in other physical locations within our library system).-- 129.49.7.125 ( talk) 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
A very stubby article, nitroindazole, has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitroindazole. It looks like this WikiProject is the one that would be most likely to supply some informed opinion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to this Wikiproject. I have started working on the Post-transcriptional modification article, however, I am not deleting anything which was there prior to my editing. I am not sure as to what I should do, so for now I am just leaving the older version in the article with my newer edits in it. Shall I just leave the article for an editor to clear up? SholeemGriffin ( talk) 12:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, can you help improve this article. It seems that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cell Signaling is inactive.-- Lenticel ( talk) 04:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is on the main page in the DYK section, but the image might be improved by someone who knows about structure rendering from the Protein Data Bank... See Image:Cystatin C 1r4c.jpg. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up for those involved in biomedical topics, PubMed Central as well as longstanding PMID now both have parameter options (pmc & pmid) in {{ cite journal}}. Diberri has also kindly upgraded his tool to take pmc article numbers to generate full cite journal markups too (see example) :-) David Ruben Talk 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Category:Membrane protein stubs are very oversized: I've proposed splitting off the Category:Transmembrane receptor stubs from those. Let us know if this makes sense, or if some other scheme would be preferable. Alai ( talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a parameter or any other way to get rid of the category:Human proteins it has automatically added? I'm looking at H19 (gene), which isn't a protein. Narayanese ( talk) 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proteostasis, your informed opinions would be helpful. Rockpocke t 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I just started an article for Richard Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment, which has been in the news lately since Lenski's lab reported a dramatic mutation of the ability to grow on citrate. Feel free to chip in.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Fnielsen ( talk · contribs) has created {{ Infobox Single nucleotide polymorphism}} and a raft of articles using it. I have great difficulty imagining the need for articles on every known SNP in a general purpose encyclopedia. Most of these articles don't presently assert notability and may be candidates for deletion. I have asked the contributor for clarification. JFW | T@lk 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has time to take a look at this article it would be appreciated. The creating
editor has stated that this alkaloid has undiscovered properties. In addition, other dubious comments include stating that this is a semi-synthetic alkaloid (which is surely an oxymoron?) and stating appearance is 'dark green'. Thanks,
Nk.sheridan
Talk
23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I've nominated this article as a FA, comments and reviews would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaea. Thank you Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This article could use a little more meat and accuracy, along with a more professional tone. RegiG ( talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
On Gaucher's disease, a user continues to insert links to Proteopedia using the template {{ Proteopedia}}. A few questions to ponder:
Keen to hear opinions. JFW | T@lk 11:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd file it as a bug report on Bugzilla. Jmol rocks. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion a convention for the terminology of the topology of HIV protease based on its resemblance to bulldog, proposed in a single peer-reviewed article [14], is too idiosyncratic and too fringe to be part of an encyclopedic article as long as it is not applied also in other scientific papers. What do others think? Do such papers exist perhaps? -- Eleassar my talk 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, could someone perhaps provide the missing info for the images [15] uploaded by User:Nikiness (she/he is not active anymore)? Namely, what do they represent and what software program was used to create them. I'm not sure whether they are truly public domain. Thanks for any help. -- Eleassar my talk 13:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The article currently estimates the number of human protein-coding genes between 20,000 and 25,000. How relevant is the research published by Clamp et al. [16] that shows humans have only 20,500 protein-coding genes? Do other geneticists agree with this lower number? It's interesting that the article Gene mentions a very similar number as the estimate of another recent research: [17] 20,488 plus perhaps 100 more. Should the number given in Human genome be revised? Please comment at Talk:Human genome#Number of genes. -- Eleassar my talk 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 580 of the articles assigned to this project, or 17.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to locate any publications on the topic so I'm stuck working with second hand descriptions from the BBC and the AP. These sources fail to say whether methylene blue is the only ingredient of rember or if it's just one of many active ingredients. Since this distinction is at best unclear I'm leaving it up to this WikiProject to decide whether Rember should have its own article or me merged into Methylene blue.--VectorPotential Talk 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaking, or is Scavenger (chemistry) the best article we have on free radical and reactive oxygen species scavenging? -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CEX has identified this as a topic of High importance with a target class of at least B (IMO it should be GA). I've posted a proposed structure at Talk:Molecular_phylogeny#Outline_for_possible_rewrite. My biggest concern is that my own knowledge of mol phylo relates entirely to paleontology - I can handle the paleo aspects easily as I've worked on Cambrian explosion and related articles, and wrote Evolution of mammals, so I have plenty of cites to paste in. But if I do this alone, there's a strong risk that the paleo aspects will totally dominate and others will wind up in a "miscellaneous" section at the end. So please comment on the outline and on why non-paleo aspects are significant. I'll create a "Sources" thread at Talk:Molecular_phylogeny with sub-headings and would be grateful if you guys could add there any sources not related to paleontology, with brief explanations of what the sources can do for the article.
The article's main title at present (to which others redirect) is "Molecular phylogeny". I'm proposing a rename to "Molecular phylogenetics" - see Talk:Molecular_phylogeny.
Hope to hear from you soon. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Could someone who knows something about DNA -- which is why it I am posting here -- have a look at Image:DNAbasePairing.jpg and determine if there is an error in the graphic? There are claims that there are. If there are errors, the image should be deleted. It is only used in the discussion on the talk page of an article regarding its accuracy. If it is incorrect, please nominate it for deletion following the instuctions at WP:IfD or leave me a note on my talk page and I will nominate it. -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 01:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The article on Rosetta@home got promoted to GA status as a Natural sciences good article this morning. What is the process for getting articles reassessed in the MCB Wikiproject? Does being GA imply that status across Wikiprojects, after it's been promoted by a general review? If not, then I would greatly appreciate someone from MCB reviewing the article. I plan on nominating it at FAC by the end of this week, barring any unresolved concerns raised by Wikiproject-specific reviews. Emw2012 ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I submitted the article to Peer Review shortly ago. The several incorrectly positioned references have been moved to be after punctuation. 'Publisher' attributes have been filled in for most references. I've refrained from using them on journal references, since from my experience they're so rarely seen there and not included in WP:REF/ES#Journal_articles. Because I am unsure of who would be the publisher of forum posts (which only include reliable information from project scientists and forum moderators not otherwise available), I also omitted them from that particular type of web reference. Another exception was on references to 'BOINCstats', a very widely used statistics website for BOINC (Rosetta@home's distributed computing platform) that is both hosted and author by the same individual. Thanks for the help thus far. Emw2012 ( talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has gone through PR and is now in its second week at FAC. SandyGeorgia has expressed concern about there not being any review of individually sourced statements nor any check of scholarly sources for coverage of any criticism, controversy or weaknesses about Rosetta@home. I will be adding content about any criticism/controversy/weakness I find, but if anyone in the project could help in reviewing sources per SandyGeorgia's request (or otherwise providing input at Rosetta@home's FAC), I'd be eternally grateful. Emw2012 ( talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I could use a hand on the vesicle (biology) article. I've been rewriting for readability, but it could really use some outside references. Thanks in advance. Rozzychan ( talk) 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone made a new article at Sorbitol Pathway that was written pretty disgustingly. First of all, "Sorbitol Pathway" is synonymous with "Polyol pathway," so for the time being I have made it a redirect and have put the information the person put at this page here: User:Andrew Nutter/Sorbitol Pathway. The current state of what was the article (I think it was really only about how it relates to diabetes) is unacceptable to be in a Wikipedia article, so it is just sitting there at my user subpage. I have done a lot of markup to it to make it slightly more coherent, but at this point all that biology terminology is completely lost on me and I can't make it much better than it is. If someone could please edit it to make it coherent, then put it on the Polyol pathway page, it would be greatly appreciated. Again, feel free to edit my subpage User:Andrew Nutter/Sorbitol Pathway. Andrew Nutter Talk | Contribs 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Some content is wanted for Mitochondrion, particularly mitochondrial copy numbers. Thanks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The article failed in Good article reassessment and should be set back in the quality scale! A GAN is underway for Amino acid to get it back to GA!.-- Stone ( talk) 14:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Endomembrane system has been the subject of an AP Biology class effort at Croatan High School's Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 which is intended to involve students in Wikipedia. The primary contributor VivaLaLacyhas offered it up for GA review. At present, the inadequacies in citations will prevent it from passing; however, he will be addressing those concerns. Unfortunately, the nature of such articles makes them difficult to critique since they tend to be laden with technical concepts. Is their anyone here with the expertise that could perhaps pass some judgement on his efforts? or at least provide advice? -- JimmyButler ( talk) 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I assume people have seen this: Publish in Wikipedia or perish: Journal to require authors to post in the free online encyclopaedia. What does everyone think? Was this discussed by project members beforehand? -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of wikipedia articles that mention things copurifying with other things, but there is no explanation anywhere on Wikipedia as to what "copurify" means. Anyone want to volunteer to write an article on copurification? Even a stub would be quite useful. Kaldari ( talk) 23:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. We have had a article requested with the above title at WP:AFC. I have little idea whether it should be created or not and am looking for advice. There's not much to it yet; it seems to be a loosely rewritten version of http://compbio.epm.br/kunitz/. If anyone would care to take a look and venture an opinion, it can be found at Articles for creation/Submissions/KUNITZ STI protease inhibitors. Thanks, Martin 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is Phosphoinositide-dependent kinase-1 listed as a good article? This must have been an oversight? Greetings -- hroest 10:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
To help organize articles for a MCB worklist, would it be useful to have categories that list articles likely needing attention? If so, it seems like this could be done quite easily by filtering articles by both their importance and class ratings (e.g. "Top-importance and Start-Class MCB articles"). Wikilinks could be added to categories' corresponding cells in the "Statistics" table midway down the right panel of WP:MCB. Currently, it is a chore to do that type of filtering. The quickest option is to use AWB, which is far slower than having the proposed matrix of categories.
Before making those categories, I'd like to get the input of some MCB members. What do you think? Emw2012 ( talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Which one is correct? does the reaction use a nucleoside triphosphate or not? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.28.232 ( talk) 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be added to the this wikiproject as well? Currently they are listed only on wikiproject chemicals. Xasodfuih ( talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For instance UGT2B4 is a page about the gene, while UGT2B7 is a page about the enzyme coded by that gene. According to uniprot.org the name for the gene should be UGT2B7, while the name of the protein should be UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B7. Since these articles have little content, I guess the main difference is the infobox. Xasodfuih ( talk) 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a dispute here with User:IvoShandor whether the sub-articles Building 101 and Building 257 he recently wrote should be merged with main article or not. Xasodfuih ( talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I´m trying to get affirmation for an additional hyperlink for EC Numbers.
Currently enzymes are only linked to
ExPASy e.g. in the article
List of enzymes.
Perhaps it would be a good idea not only to provide links to ExPASy but also to the BRENDA-Database (
BRENDA). BRENDA contains manually curated information to all known enzymes and provides a more complete list on the enzymes properties than ExPASy. BRENDA is already linked from many articles that holds information on enzymes and is the recommended link for a list of literature on certain enzymes.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Andreas
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.169.106.8 (
talk)
09:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Xasodfuih raises an important question above that has also been discussed here and a number of other places. The question is how best to make clear that:
We need something that is clear, concise, and accurate. AndrewGNF has proposed something similar to:
G protein-coupled receptor 3 is a protein which in humans is encoded by the GPR3 gene
I support Andrew's suggestion since in my opinion accomplishes all three goals. Is this wording sufficient? Does anyone else have a suggestion for a better lead sentence? Cheers. Boghog2 ( talk) 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
All, we may be able to package this into a student project -- can we try to get consensus on what the change would be? Two proposals so far:
G protein-coupled receptor 3 is a protein which in humans is encoded by the GPR3 gene.
G protein-coupled receptor 3 is a protein encoded by the human GPR3 gene.
I think the first is slightly more precise, the second is slightly more readable. Unless there is a strong objection (or other suggestions), I'm inclined to go with the first. AndrewGNF ( talk) 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks everyone. Looks like there is consensus around wording #1. Hopefully we'll get a student this quarter to do the change. But, of course, I think we all agree that this is a rather lame opening sentence, so we should all feel empowered and encouraged to change the default on our favorite genes of interest as soon as possible... Cheers, AndrewGNF ( talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Some protein families are not encoded by a single gene. These should not (erroneously) give a single gene symbol. E.g. UDP-glucuronosyltransferase gives only UGT1A1. Xasodfuih ( talk) 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
What is the relationship between this project and the Protein wikiProject? The Molecular and Cellular Biology project and the Protein project deal with proteins and it is confusing to me where I should go to post info on proteins.
The Molecular and Cellular Biology project currently has two daughter projects: Cell Signaling and Metabolic pathways. Perhaps the protein project could become a daughter project of the more well established Molecular and Cellular Biology project. I can see potential drawbacks to this: the idea of protein is more general and extends further than Molecular and Cellular Biology. In any case, proteins should not be at a parallel and equivalent level as Molecular and Cellular Biology, as they are currently with the Protein project. There is a wiki category called protein, and a category is something which many different wiki projects can be "interested in," so the category method removes the problem of one particular project having ownership of the idea "protein". At the same time, however, a wiki category is fairly vague and, from what I can tell, is not nearly as directed as a wikiProject. It seems that proteins need a home in some project, and despite the existence of this separate Protein project, most of the community is behind the Molecular and Cellular Biology project. In any case a decision must be made as to what project handles proteins, otherwise the community will be divided and confused.
This article needs a lot of attention. XYZ CrVo 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Beginning cross-post.
End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.
Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. -- ScienceApologist 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
As a part of WikiProject Stub sorting, I noticed that you are using the following stub template/category: {{ Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub}} / Category:Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs. Did you know that we already have a stub that covers this: {{ cell-biology-stub}} / Category:Cell biology stubs? A couple more things: 1) You need to propose any stubs at the stub proposal page before creating them. 2) Your stub violates our stub naming guidelines. I have put both of your stubs up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
This is in need of clearing up as to whether it's an article-space category, in which case it should be Category:Molecular and cellular biology, and not contain non-article pages, or a project-space category, in which case it should be something like Category:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, and not contain articles. The current mixture is not so good. Please comment at the renaming nomination, either way (or otherwise). Thanks. Alai 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Am I correct in thinking that this is now "parent project" for the Category:Biochemistry stubs? These have been rather large for some time, and don't seem to be especially well-categorised. I do notice a number of them are categorised under Category:Molecular biology: I've made a list: User:Alai/biochem-molecular. (I don't want to just 'bot these over, as it probably requires more of a case-by-case determination by someone with a notion what they're doing.) There's also about 400 articles with no category at all other than that stub type. (I could upload a list of these, or else populate a maintenance category if people would find that convenient...) Alai 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I made a page Radioactivity in biology as all the radioactivity pages are about nuclear physics and so on, but I am not sure if I should merge it into a chemistry page. As a title it sounds strange. is it ok? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius ( talk • contribs)
I've updating the front page of the project (as well as the style guidelines) with the new stubs, with an updated hierarchy. I followed the permcats when organizing the stub cats, so hopefully the articles will line up nicely. I have deleted the deprecated and now unused {{ Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub}} / Category:Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Amalas rawr =^_^= 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Feel welcome to comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin. Samsara ( talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Cladistics has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Sandy ( Talk) 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
If any editors have time, would someone please have a look at angiotensin? The images/templates are messing up the page, and by adding an image and trying to fix thing I seem to have made them worse. I realize this is mostly a copy editing issue and probably not top priority here, but thanks anyway. Fvasconcellos 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
As a chmists it looks really fishy to me. Might be a joke or it is real enzyme. If anybody knows something about it give it the right category!-- Stone 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you want to also delete the associated talk page? TimVickers 23:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
FYI, you may be interested in reviewing the subtle debates about "inline citations" over at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. And, if you have not already done so, you may want to review Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. You may want to indicate consensus agreement (or not) on the talk pages there. linas 05:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for people interested in starting Wikiproject Microbiology. I have just put a proposal up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microbiology and I invite anyone that thinks they would like to join to express their interest there. Thanks. ◄ §ĉҺɑʀκs ► 04:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi everybody. Hope you all have a happy Christmas.
TimVickers 19:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cell Signaling.
An editor has raised awareness to PAC-1 on WP:DRUGS. I thought some MCB contributors may have heard of it/be interested in contributing to the article. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
Hello, I'm looking for clarification regarding ergadenylic acid. I nominated the article for deletion, but am now leaning towards redirecting it to adenosine monophosphate. However, there are some confounding issues, since the article states that it is purportedly "vitamin B8", whose identity is unclear at the moment. If you have time, please share your views at the AfD page. -- Uthbrian ( talk) 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Please try to use the appropriate discussion page for your topics of discussion and avoid using this page for help requests, proposals etc. which are catered for by the relevant pages. If you think your post is not covered by an existing discussion subpage, put it here and I might get some time to sort it out. -- Username132 ( talk) 10:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
Hello fellow biologists!
I used to contribute to a number of biology articles, but as my own studies have intensified, I haven't found the time to continue writing. However, I do often come across good articles that could serve either as references for Wikipedia, or as "further reading" that covers topics in more detail than an encyclopedia article would.
For example, PLOS Comp Bio has an Education series, of which the most recent article provides a good overview of Modularity and Dynamics of Cellular Networks.
Do you think that there's any use in collecting a list of these types of articles for future incorporation into Wikipedia? Is there any established method for doing so? If not, perhaps we could choose a "del.icio.us" tag for these articles? If I were to tag such articles with something like "WikiProjMCB" do you think you would use them?
Have a good one, AdamRetchless 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi guys, just dropping by to give you the heads up on what's been happening on this high-importance article. I was going to nominate the article for the COTM before noticing that it failed to pass it previously. D'oh. To make it a little more attractive to potential editors I made a few changes:
So what needs to be done? The "Functions" part of the article is very weak, diagrams are needed, and "Structure" needs a bit more work. Pop over and see if you can do anything, it's a crime to have this fundamental article languishing in start-class! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I received a request on my talk page from a user at the Hungarian wikipedia to add a field to Template:Protein. Rather than answer it on my talk page, I've directed the thread to Template talk:Protein, to facilitate your comments and feedback. -- Arcadian 14:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Article has been prod'ed for deletion (reason - not notable). It starts "STING (Sequence To and withIN Graphics) is a free Web-based suite of programs for a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between protein sequence, structure, function, and stability." Can anyone help me to determine whether this is notable. The original author has not been here for nearly a year. Should we let it go, or should we remove the prod and let it go to AfD? I have also asked the Chemistry Project which is more my line than here, but this article could come under both projects-- Bduke 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
I dropped a note at the talk page [1]. -- Boris 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
There is a problem with this article. Some people, most of them random "stop-by"s and none of them working on this project, insist on keeping the FULL (?!?) name of the protein, which is about 28 K amino acids long, written in "arginyltyrosyl.....etc.yl"-kinda way, which make the article to jump from . The reason - someone came up with the idea that when written like that the name of titin is to be the longest word in English. So people that work on this project keep removing this linguistic junk, while unregistered users and editors that have no idea, including some guy who thinks he is the supreme judge in this case and who isn't convinced that there is consensus to remove it from there, keep putting it back. -- Boris 12:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I've asked for Peer review for Eicosanoid. I was spurred to work on it when I saw the MCB template on its talk page. I'd like input from the MCB crowd.. David.Throop 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
ATP synthase, V-ATPase, F-ATPase and Transmembrane ATPase seem to be in a confused mess! These articles do not refer to each other at all and seem to spend a lot of time reiterating the same basic concepts in a very human-centric way. Does anyone have a good fundamental understanding of these terms, their definitions and their relationships to help tidy up these very important articles? - Zephyris Talk 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.
Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.
If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. -- Bduke 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
In reading pretty much every taxonomical article I can get my hands on, I've come across terms such as tubular cristae, discoid cristae, and lamellar cristae. These terms are rampant across the internet (including Wikipedia) and yet I have not been able to find a single article discussing what these terms mean. Can anyone help me out here? And then maybe put that information on the crista page? Werothegreat 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
The terms simply refer to the shape of the cristae: tubular = tube-like, discoid = disc-like, lamellar = thin layers. There's another type: vesicular = small bubbles. Apparently changes in cristae shape are important in cell death and cancer, so I agree that this information should be in an article about them. - tameeria 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I update the collaboration of the month. Did I do everything alright? -- Scientizzle 05:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I have been working on some infobox templates in the chemical area lately (mainly {{ chembox new}} and {{ drugbox}}, and (a.o.) programmed some templates with an automatic image request function. This puts pages with an infobox which do not have the image-field set into categories (subcategories of Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures). I have been so bold that I added the same functionality to the protein box. Pages having such a box now categorise in the subcategory Category:Protein pages needing a picture; this specific subcategory links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Requested pictures. I have also added a section to this image request page. I hope I have not been too bold in this. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Chemical synapse has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
A few days ago the page Protein domains was created. This should likely be merged with Structural domain. However the editor who created the page put in a lot of info. It appears that the editor, User:Dicky2206 is Dr. Richard George, a post doc at Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Sydney, Australia. The information is mostly from his dissertation and I think we should go through it and add a lot of it into the structural domain article. I'll try to do this over the next few days so please don't go deleting it all just yet. Thanks. Jvbishop 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
The very term "structural domain" is very unhelpful - since it doesn't clearly refer to proteins. The "protein domains" article, however, is quite a good start; what is missing is a comprehensive list of protein-protein interaction domains... (that's a huge job, and may be too much for a particular article). I'd keep the new article, and add in what is useful and not out-dated from the structural domains piece, and then refer those searching for "structural domains" to the new article...
Having said that, it does seem that there should be individual articles for particularly important protein domains (this can be a whole new category). For example, there whould be articles on: PH (plekstrin homology domains); SH2 ; SH3; UBD (ubiquitin binding domains); Coil-coil; RING; Fbox; Zing-finger; Transmembrane; signal-sequence; IgG domains; etc etc...
Gacggt 21:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, a few of us are working on a system for generating the taxonomic references for arbitrary taxa, but we need help checking that the references produced are OK, i.e., proofreading them. It's described on my Talk page, if you have time to help out — thank you very much! :) Willow 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Oleosin needs attention from this project. It's apparently a protein used in plant oil organelles, but I have no idea what to do with it, especially where under category:proteins it should go. Circeus 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, are there any members of the project who would like to volunteer to be additional contacts for verification and sources of the DNA article? In practice, you get a couple of e-mails a month and a bit more traffic on your talk page. TimVickers 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I'd like to include all of our featured articles in the MCB trophy case on our front page, arranged by their date of promotion. Is that OK with everyone? We could add an extra line for those that have appeared on the front page. If there are no objections, I'll make the change in a few days. Thanks for your opinions, Willow 16:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) is a proposed guideline discussed and developed over recent months. Please visit the talk page to indicate whether you support or oppose Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) becoming a guideline. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 20:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
A bunch of misconception about this cross was inadvertently spread on several wikipedia pages (suggesting it's a genetically enginereed cross) which I have corrected. It's a wide cross of some sort, possibly embryo resuce was involved but I'm not certain. I couldn't find anything (only searched Google) which was clear, if anyone knows please add it Nil Einne 12:41, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
Glioma says: "Gene therapy using lytic viruses ... is being studied for the treatment of gliomas." -- I've made lytic viruses redirect to Lytic cycle for the time being. Please correct if necessary. IANAV. IANAMB. :-) We apparently need an article on Lytic virus / Lytic viruses. -- Writtenonsand 15:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
Do we (or if not, should we) have a template for enzymes based on their EC identifier that links to the ExPASy database? {{ ec}} is already used for something else, but {{ enzyme}} is open. DMacks 17:58, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I simply cannot believe we don't have an article on the AOX! I'm in the middle of finals revision at the moment so now is perhaps not the best time but I'll get round to making a contribution in the future (it's a lot of work given all the potential roles, etc). In the emantime I warmly encourage anyone else who agrees with me that it would be an important addition and a potentially very interesting article, to get started! Philbradley 10:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone had anything to say about [ Citizendium] (Sanger's answer to the challenge of vandalism (you have to sign up)). Has anyone thought about this? Anyone who didn't even know it existed? It might be nice if some of our better articles could be moved to a more secure area. -- Seans Potato Business 18:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi there! Is there any chance that if there is anyone free for the next few hours, that they would be so kind as to help me as i expand and reference both these articles? Would be muchly appreciated! ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 21:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Cell (biology) is the current collaboration of the month...and almost no improvements have been made in two weeks. In fact, relative interest in the CotM has seemingly waned in general--the nominating & voting for future collaborations has fallen off. What's the deal? What would encourage more participation? — Scien tizzle 21:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
Interest still appears low... In fact, last month there were only 7 total nomination support votes (or new nominations) from users other than me (4 total users). Come on, people! — Scien tizzle 21:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
Three similar titled articles covering similar topics could do with a bit of clarification:
It is not clear what each article is about just from it's title. Not sure how to deal with it, though. Suggestions? 82.16.7.63 20:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
guys i i'm just exploring this wiki thing and i find it very curious indeed! anyway i cleaned up the intro to the eukaryote page and noticed that god knows the rest of it needs a lot of work. then i noticed there is a cell page. alot of duplication.
what should we do? do we want them to remain independant? Wikiskimmer 01:58, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
Mdm2 and MDM2 appear to be the same topic. If so, could someone merge/redirect MDM2 into mdm2 and cross it off on User:Cmh/List of page titles with multiple capitalizations. John Vandenberg 10:37, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
This afternoon, PZ Myers noted on Pharyngula that the WP article morphogenetic field did not discuss the developmental biology concept of that name, but rather the pseudoscientific idea cooked up by Rupert Sheldrake [2]. I moved the page to a new spot and started afresh, but this is quite a bit outside my experience, and I'll probably have to leave it in stub-form.
Assistance with expansion would be greatly appreciated.
Anville 19:48, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
If anyone here is not busy writing MCB articles, can you please help the Uncategorized Good articles task force by adding the |topic=Natsci to the GA templates on MCB articles along with the |oldid= from the date the article was reviewed? Thanks. Tarret 17:26, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone want to take a look at this article, up for deletion? It needs a mass of work or just let it go and maybe start again later. -- Bduke 00:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This article is now at Good Article Review for possible delisting of its Good Article status. Concerns are listed at the good article review page. I'm drawing attention to it here because I've seen how quickly this project works - I'm sure that with some quick work in the inline citations department, the article could remain as a GA. Please remember to assume good faith and improve the article to meet the Good Article criteria. - Malkinann 10:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Can someone PLEASE (who knows what they're talking about) detail the various shapes that cristae take (discoid, flat, etc.), describing their differences, and possibly the purposes for different shaped cristae, either in the eukaryote, mitochondria, or cristae articles, or even create a new one. I would have done this by now, except the whole subject confuses me, and I don't have any sources that clearly explain them. Werothegreat 19:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at these two articles. Shouldn't they be merged? The protein is also called TP53, but it is not enough clearly stated and obvious in the TP53, to my opinion. I guess the best thing would be to merge them, or, otherwise, rename them to TP53 (protein) and TP53 (gene). -- Maxxicum 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm intrigued by this edit. It could be an excellent clarification (assuming the editor is who he says he is), but it also could be a violation of WP:COI. I wouldn't have worried too much about it if it was just an addition, but the edit replaced the old content crediting Art Horwich (added Jan 2006), which implies that we may be observing a turf battle. The nuance of the timeline is beyond my capacity to evaluate, and I'd welcome further review from editors with more subject matter expertise. -- Arcadian 00:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month has received one vote since August 3. C'mon folks! — Scien tizzle 19:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
A few years ago I has a series of essays deleted which were theories on hormonal action based on this site from this user. He seems to be actively editing plant hormone articles again adding material based on his synthesis of scientific literature; these articles are in pretty bad shape regardless so it would be nice if some interested editors could help make these article more reliable. The Arabidopsis book is a pretty good place to find current information on the known biological function of all the major plant hormones. I've started a rewrite on brassinosteroids, but there is lots more to do. Thanks -- Peta 03:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The article above has been up for FA already for some time, but has not attacted a lot of remarks. Any comments and suggestions on the article are welcome and will be addressed. The FAC discussion can be found here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exosome complex. -- Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 18:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
There's some discussion at talk:chromosomal duplication as to how this overlaps with gene duplication, and the like. Could someone knowledgeable have a look, please? My own understanding is that there's several different cases of gene dup. (e.g. involving a number of genes on a single chromosome, of a whole chromosome, and of the entire genome), but I'm no expert, and this could stand to be made much clearer in the different articles. Alai 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I noticed today that some articles on enzyme families have plural titles (like DNA glycosylases and AP endonucleases while others are singular ( DNA ligase, DNA polymerase). Is there a standard that all of these should follow? For the plural titles, the article with the singular name is a redirect to the plural. If I want to edit these articles and make them all follow the same convention, what is the correct way to do it? Moving the article from the plural title to the singular title doesn't work because of the redirect pages. Thanks in advance for any help. Amazinglarry 19:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
In another attempt to chip a few off the huge Category:Biochemistry stubs, I've proposed types for lipids, and for carbs. If anyone has any additional ideas for further sub-types, I'd be very glad to hear them... Alai 21:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure this topic has come up before, so if someone can point me to any previous discussions of it I'd appreciate it. Opabinia regalis made these changes to the article on Amyloid precursor protein. I understand the concern -- that it is confusing that an article on amyloid precursor protein has extensive text referring to it as a gene. Was it decided that we will have separate pages for the gene and the protein? If so, would anyone support a revisiting of this decision (reasons below). If not, then does anyone have a suggestion on a wording that makes it clear that the page refers to both the protein and the gene? The ProteinBoxBot plans on inserting a similar line to this in all pages it creates (as suggested during the bot approval, so we'd like to get the wording right)...
While I think we all can agree that genes and proteins are different things (genes being the DNA template from which one or more types of proteins are created), from an encyclopedic standpoint I believe that in general they deserve one entry. "Gene function" and "protein function", for example, are often used interchangeably. And knowing about a gene's transcriptional regulation is intimately tied with the role of the protein. I feel that having separate entries as the default unnecessarily and unnaturally splits knowledge on something that most biologists consider a single topic. AndrewGNF 16:15, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm a big fan of David Goodsell's amazing illustrations for the PDB's Molecule of the Month series, and I've been experimenting with QuteMol to produce similar images. I just uploaded one and added it to thyroxine-binding globulin, but now it strikes me as a bit of a "copycat" thing. I know that all PDB images are in the public domain, but I'm not talking about copyright infringement; it just sort of feels like ripping off an artist's style. Does anyone have any thoughts? Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 03:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Hey
I have created a new daughter project under Wikipedia: WIkiproject Plants titled Wikipedia: WIkiproject Plant evo devo and will be working over the next few months to generate comprehensive information related to the topic. My focus is primarily on the molecular aspects, the genes and gene networks that function in development, and their evolutionary synthesis. The resources on this Wikiproject are enormous, and would like to ask for participation from all the plant biologists out here for the Plant evo devo subproject.
The project would function more like a task - updating existing incomplete and generating new wikis related to plant development while more focussing on the evolutionary aspects of development.
Hey!
I have created a new daughter project under WP:PLANTS titled Wikipedia:WikiProject Plant Evo Devo and will be working over the next few months to generate comprehensive information related to the topic. My focus is primarily on the molecular aspects, the genes and gene networks that function in development, and their evolutionary synthesis. The project would function more like a task - updating existing incomplete and generating new wikis related to plant development while focussing more on the evolutionary aspects of development.
The resources on this Wikiproject are enormous, and would like to ask for participation from all the plant biologists out here for the Plant evo devo subproject. Maybe we can work out a collaborative function? Gauravm1312 21:11, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
This is being rather too quiet. Could people register their opinions or even their apathy at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Votes/2007 director vote? All the best Tim Vickers 20:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
An editor seems convinced that molarity is an archaic measurement and is insisting on using mmol L-1 rather than just mM in the Ellman's reagent article. Could somebody else try to explain to him that the standard usage is biochemistry is molarity? Tim Vickers 04:06, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
The section on choosing measurement systems has been changed from:
Into:
Comments on this change are welcome at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement. Thank you Tim Vickers 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Would someone like to add the |needs-photo parameter into the MCB template? Richard001 05:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi all!
On kind of a whim, I've decided to fill some gaps in our coverage of enzymes, starting with Category:EC 1.1.1. Would you all be so good as to look them over, and give me suggestions? You might find this page useful. They're just stubs and I know that the pathways are messed up (the "participates in" sentence) because I only now figured out how it should be presented. The rest of it might not be too bad, but I would welcome any advice to improve them, since there's only, ummm, 3500 enzyme classes left to go. ;) Hoping everyone here is happy and healthy, Willow 01:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
PS. One question was whether there were too many external links in the {{ Enzyme links}} and {{ Enzyme references}} templates found on all the new enzyme pages? I wasn't sure which ones could be safely deleted, though; they all seem good!
PPS. OK, I finished Category:EC 1.1.1, with the exception of a few enzymes that catalyze more than one reaction, which I was too tired to think through how to do. I hope you like them! Please send along any suggestions for improvments or wish-lists of additional features, Willow 03:38, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Tim, both for fixing them up and for detecting classes of errors that I should work to improve. I'll try to use the protonated form in my future enzyme articles, although I confess that the "ate" ending sounds more euphonic to my ears. :) Willow 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the usnic acid glitch; I'll try to fix that up once I get home from my sister's house! I can also send along a list linking the EC numbers with the human and mouse genes — would that be helpful, Andrew? Please let me know what you'd find helpful, and I'll try to do that. :) Willow 14:57, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Umm, well, I think you might be able to use this file for linking EC numbers and human genes, although if you work for a company, they might ask you to get permission first. Hoping it's helpful, Willow 14:48, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I periodically edit articles on amino acids, which can be lively area. These articles desperately need this group (if there is a group that I am appealing to) to strike some agreement about the guidelines/templates for amino acids, at least the ones that are coded for, otherwise the lede really gets jerked around depending on each editor's prejudices. So can the MCB group set up some sort of guidelines?
If such a template could be agreed upon, this could be posted on the talk pages of the 20-21 amino acids. Presumably similar standardization has occured with the articles on other biochemical building blocks. -- Smokefoot 14:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Please comment here. Alai 04:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I also notice that many of these stubs have category redlinks for their "EC" cats. I'd be a good idea to complete those. Alai 00:37, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Page(s) related to this project have been created and/or added to one of the Wikipedia:Contents subpages (not by me).
This note is to let you know, so that experts in the field can expand them and check them for accuracy, and so that they can be added to any watchlists/tasklists, and have any appropriate project banners added, etc. Thanks. -- Quiddity 19:36, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
This Scientific Peer Review project can hardly be called successful. While there have been a steady but small flow of articles submitted for review, the actual reviews have been either non-existent or in no real way different from those done through the standard Wikipedia:Peer review process. Some editors will recall that the project was started with an enthusiastic discussion about identifying expert reviewers through an elected board. Unfortunately as time went by, it became clear there was no consensus on whether we had a board, or on how it was to be set up or on what it was supposed to do. There was also a lack of consensus on what "sciences" we were covering, and on many other aspects. In the end we sort of lapsed into a minimal review process which has staggered on for about 18 months. I think it is time we decided what to do about the project. Unless people can come up with a new way forward and enthusiastically implement it, I think we have to declare that this project be no longer active in any sense and that editors should ask for review at WP:PR. I am posting this on the talk pages of the major Science WikiProjects. Please feel free to publicize it elsewhere. Please add you comments at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review#Is this inactive?. -- Bduke 03:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Feedback loops are a key element in molecular biology, but they are lost around and are inside general articles, or I did not find them, ergo hard to find. A page feedbacks and oscillations in molecular biology or something similar would be the solution but it would be a mix-mash of ideas and references (original data logo) and most people know it anyway. threshold (stochastic inhibitor) and exponential activation. Plus to actually explain these mechanisms, one needs to build on the mathematical biology page that is small to start with, plus I just saw that the background applied mathematics terms here are confused to put it is lightly. I do not have much free time, and . I think i better leave it to a more seasoned wikipedia editor. so I will just contribute this idea (or add the maths later on). -- Squidonius ( talk) 18:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Great to see the WikiProject recognized by EMBO. [5] Keep up the excellent work. -- Aude ( talk) 01:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The Computer Science article Genetic Algorithms has a template on it's talk page for membership in the Molecular and Cellular Biology Project, which is confusing some folks. We probably want to remove that template, but I want to mention it here first, and also explain why I think it was put there in the first place.
So we are talking about using a biological model as the basis of a software engineering technique, and the current work in GA per se is done by Control Engineers (who are basically consumers), Computer Scientists, Software Engineers, and even the occasional deranged mathematician. So, please visit, skim over the page, and then please delete the Molecular and Cellular Biology Project template from the Talk page. And here's to standing on each others' shoulders, and not stepping on each others' toes :-) Thanks. Pete St.John ( talk) 20:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
I put the MCB template on that article, it seems, back when I was tagging a lot of articles. My reason for tagging it was based on an interest in bioinformatics, and GAs are certainly part of that. I can assure you I had no clue about any credit disputes (I certainly didn't read the talk page before placing the template) nor was I confused by the title. Plain and simple: It is likely the page will be visited by people with zero background in computer science, e.g. biology students taking a bioinformatics class. The template is there to indicate that this is a topic of interest to molecular biology and to invite editors from the "bio side" of bioinformatics to look at it and maybe help by making it more relevant and useful to those biology students. I'm not quite sure I understand the reasons for the proposed removal of the MCB template. What is the problem with indicating that a molecular biologist might be interested in it? I don't find it confusing at all, but then I'm reasonably familiar with bioinformatics so maybe I'm missing something. - tameeria ( talk) 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
Paul Chun (professor) seems to be in line for a speedy delete on grounds on non-notability. If anyone has any info to the contrary, now would be the time to add it. -- Writtenonsand ( talk) 13:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Caesura ( talk · contribs) and I independently redirected the new article Parts of a cell to Cell (biology)#Anatomy of cells. The article creator, Warrior4321 ( talk · contribs), however disagrees with the redirect, stating that
the article I have written can help users who are searching for Parts Of A Cell.The article that you have redirected it to doesn't really talk about the specific parts of the cell rather than the whole cell. [6]
I undid the redirect, stating that I would bring the topic here for further input. As I outlined in my redirect edit, I believe the redirect is more appropriate as the article was not an inclusive list—If you look at the section to which it was redirected, it includes detailed anatomies of prokaryotic and eukaryotic cells (particularly, in the diagrams) with links to sub-articles about each.
Perhaps other members of this WikiProject will have some ideas as to the correct course of action...? Thanks, — Scien tizzle 23:41, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
Cell (biology) covers the same ground but in a more comprehensive way. I think this should just be redirected to the main page. However, that material here might be useful in Simple Wikipedia (maybe their cell article) since it is a nice, basic summary. Tim Vickers ( talk) 00:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
In case it's gone unnoticed, everything on the Parts of a cell page that Warrior4321 "wrote" is just copied and pasted from other Wikipedia articles. None of that content is original to Warrior4321. (It's not copyvio or anything, of course, since it's from Wikipedia, but it is uselessly duplicative.) It really doesn't belong there; the redirect should stand. — Caesura (t) 00:26, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
It isn't clear whether or not this project [7] is notable--there's a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cell Cycle Ontology, and some expert help would be appreciated. DGG ( talk) 02:52, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Mitochondrion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is on WP:FAC. Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mitochondrion. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Please comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxygen. -- mav ( talk) 21:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else think it might be useful to split the random coil article into 2 separate articles? With the first being used to describe the mathematical theory, and the second to describe the protein related aspects of the model?-- 69.118.143.107 ( talk) 18:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Can someone find a better way to phrase this? I find my own wording slightly awkward, and could benefit from a second opinion.-- 69.118.143.107 ( talk) 19:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I realize this third question is slightly outside the scope of this WikiProject, but could someone take a look at the SigmaPlot article, and hopefully rewrite it in a way that isn't as spammy and self-promotional as the original was? I had to blank most of the content as it was directly copyvio'd from systat's website. Surely someone in this WikiProject has used SigmaPlot and can attest to its notability. -- 69.118.143.107 ( talk) 19:55, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
I propose to merge most of the content Iron-sulfur cluster into iron-sulfur protein. Way too much redundancy. We also have an article on ferredoxin as well as shorter ones on more specific proteins High potential iron-sulfur protein, Aconitase, nitrogenase, and adrenodoxin. Maybe some non-bio Fe-S clusters can be mentioned in the article "iron-sulfur clusters." Someone might set up a category for Fe-S clusters. If people have views or concerns on the merger, drop a note on the relevant talk pages.-- Smokefoot ( talk) 02:18, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi,
I'm not an expert, but I had a go at trying to improve the nucleotide page. Diff. The page had some very odd formatting which I tried to fix, and added some prose, but I'm very far from an expert and I'm sure have either made mistakes, ommissions or added complications that don't need to be there. If someone could have a look at it to try to fix it, it'd be a big favour to me, but more to wikipedia. Given it's way out of my expertise I can't really contribute beyond what I already have. WLU ( talk) 15:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The Philip Greenspun illustration project will be paying professional illustrators to create images for Wikipedia. The Wikiprojects have been requested to look over their core articles and think about which new illustrations (particularly line drawings and diagrams) we could ask for. Suggestions please! Tim Vickers ( talk) 01:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Signaling pathways aren't very difficult to draw though. Looking through our core articles, how about a cutaway diagram of a Microscope? Tim Vickers ( talk) 19:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Just a simple optical microscope, but with a cutaway showing the various elements. The translation animation is a current request, perhaps DNA polymerase and RNA polymerase animations? The electron transport chain would not be all that informative an animation though, just blobs moving between boxes. Tim Vickers ( talk) 20:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Samuel H. Wood needs attention. It is a stub. CM ( talk) 19:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
This article's only categories where wikiproject (this one infact) related cats which dont belong on mainspace, so I had them moved to the talk page and the article is now categoryless. Since this is not my field I'm not too sure where it belongs (Is there a cat better suited for this than the DNA one?). Would someone be kind enough to go there and add a cat or two? Thanks RIP-Acer ( talk) 01:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Any comments on the changing of official gene names for grammatical errors? For example, [9]... (Clearly, this is a very subtle "error".) On the one hand, I'm all for being technically correct in the use of language. On the other hand, given the choice of using the HUGO-approved name or a variant that is more gramatically correct, I think I'd err on the side of using the version from the naming authority. In any case, perhaps it should be discussed. Since Drphilharmonic appears to be making these changes systematically, this isn't just an isolated case or a hypothetical example. (Drphilharmonic's page moves according to this principle has also been introducing several double redirects, a fact which I've note on his talk page.) AndrewGNF ( talk) 02:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm a member of WP:Chem, so I'm not a subject expert, but I happened to be looking at Lipid which was assessed (appropriately) as Start-Class in 2006. It appears to have greatly improved since that time (when it was demoted from GA) to at least B-Class, so you may wish to re-assess this. I think perhaps it could even be good enough to go to WP:GAN, but that would be your call. Walkerma ( talk) 15:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I tried to promote the project and highlight a few of the things people are doing in the current episode of the podcast. Tim Vickers ( talk) 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Action potential has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Medos2 ( Talk) 10:31, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I moved Bifidus Factor to Bifidus factor and am updating pages that link to it. I d0n't know whether to alter Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/MCB articles by quality/8 Thank you for your time. ColorfulNumbers ( talk) 18:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
My guess is that much of Chromium deficiency is fringe science, aimed toward promoting chromium as importantly beneficial biologically. There is no characterized metalloprotein. The credibility of chromium picolinate (Googling "chromium picolinate" gave 1.3M hits) is supported by the wobbly nature of the wiki report which makes it appear that bio-chromium is settled science. This editor is afraid, due to NPOV concerns, to forcefully state that a healthful role for Cr is unproven. Similar problems relate to other possible ultra trace elements, and it is difficult to argue such cases. It would be useful if this group were to develop some guidelines for proof of a biochemical role. The ultratrace proponents will always be able to find a variety of publications in specialized journals that support their claim. -- Smokefoot ( talk) 16:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I have put up a suggestion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to create a new WikiProject (or WikiSubProject), WikiProject: Genetic History.
To quote from what I've written there:
If people think this would be a good idea, it's a target for WikiProjects to have at least five "interested" signatures to show there's some support, before they get going.
Alternatively, if people think it would be a bad idea, please leave a comment in the comments section.
Either way, please show what you think, at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetic_History
Thanks, Jheald ( talk) 13:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi! Pardon the intrusion, but I found this project through Vitamin and was hoping that someone could help me out with Bioflavinoid, which I found via new page patrol. What the article currently is, is a mess. Whether it's notable or not, I have no idea and Google doesn't help. Can anyone here help? Thanks! TRAVELLINGCARI My story Tell me yours 20:47, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2 Base Encoding (2nd nomination). Expert help may be useful to decide whether the article should be deleted or this is just a matter of cleanup. -- Itub ( talk) 09:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I just wrote something for the KCNJ15 article. It should be factually correct, but I'm not a wiki-veteran, so if anybody would look over if I did some formatting errors (what with templates and Protein Box Bots and such).-- LasseFolkersen ( talk) 17:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
I already posted this as a response to a thread above, but I think that this deserves a thread of its own. I'm currently in the process of developing a nifty multi-funtional WikiProject management tool that'll provide - at first - the following functions:
The first part is nearly complete, and when it is I'll make the tool available for testing while I work on the second part. As time goes on, I hope to add functions and make it general enough for all WikiProjects to make use of it. Hopefully, a tool like this one will help to make WP's in general somewhat more standardized and easier to manage, hopefully with the effect of increasing project participation and reducing the number of abandoned projects somewhat. Anybody have any thoughts or suggestions regarding features they might want to see? How about a really, really witty name? – Clockwork Soul 18:06, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
It's coming along very nicely. A few bugs to work out here and there, but it's getting close to release for some alpha testing. Here's some screenshots:
Let me know what you think! – Clockwork Soul 21:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment moved to Igor's talk page.
I'm already getting some great suggestions! If you have any ideas (good or bad, or whatever!), go ahead and post them on Igor's talk page. Thanks! – Clockwork Soul 22:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
Some new images are avalible here people might find useful. Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
This may be of interest to some members of this project – I've recently proposed the creation of a WikiProject on Microscopy. If interested, add your name here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microscopy. Peter G Werner ( talk) 18:46, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I've just proposed splitting up the present Category:Protein stubs, many of which are actually on the (human) genes which code for particular proteins, rather than the proteins themselves. Alai ( talk) 04:56, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
At the moment there are a lot of protein stubs categorised as gene-stub. I think we should follow Ciar's suggestion and rename the category to "protein encoded on chromosome 1-stub". — Tirk·fl “…” 09:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've noticed that some articles have importance rankings that differ greatly from their popularity as counted by page views. Looking at the access stats collected 2/01/08 to 2/23/08 I put together a table of the 500 most-accessed articles in the MCB wikiproject and the outliers for the Top and Low importance rankings — the top ten most accessed "Low" articles were 10 times more popular than the ten least accessed "Top" articles. What do people think about how page views should influence article importance rankings? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 04:07, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Should we keep articles that are mostly pure chemistry, like dimer and oil, or tissue types, like fat and periosteum? – Clockwork Soul 05:03, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Many of these subjects will be falling under multiple WikiProjects, and that is not a problem. I would leave actual pharmaceuticals primarily under WP:PHARM, but a substance like caffeine is harder to push into that corner because most people using caffeine will not do it medicinally (... little do they know ...). Similarly, subjects like periosteum are primarily WP:MED and WP:Anatomy, but MCB has a role to play when it comes to their molecular/cellular aspects.
Collaboration between WikiProjects is still quite rudimentary, and presently seems to be happening more on a personal basis. I'm not suggesting there should be any other cross-talk at the moment, but it is well possible that an article is "high"-importance for MCB while being of only modest interest to Pharm, Med and Anatomy. JFW | T@lk 06:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a member of WP:MCB, but I'm a chemist who's been heavily involved in the assessments at WP:1.0, so hopefully you'll forgive me intruding a little! Firstly, you may be interested in looking at some of our test output here, this is a collection of 1403 MCB articles ranked by a combination of (mainly) importance and (less) quality. It also shows a hit count for one month (Feb 2008, I think), as well as other measures of importance such as links-in and interwikis. Please note that we are still tweaking the system, but we hope that these data will become official soon, and you will be able to see them updated regularly. Secondly, our system at WP:1.0 expects that multiple projects will tag the same article (many have 6 or more projects). So if you want to tag an article like nitric oxide or oxygen, WP:Chemistry, WP:Chemicals or WP:1.0 certainly won't mind - and it may help you to keep track of topics within your area of interest. Cheers, Walkerma ( talk) 00:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The first release of Igor is available, if you want to take a look. It's still early in its development, but it still lets you see all of the project's articles and sort them in order of class and importance. I've used it to assign values to a few hundred articles in the past couple of days :) – Clockwork Soul 06:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Is there some way this can be included in the template? For example, on phycocyanin I was going to add a request, but the project's template doesn't have the |needs-photo parameter that many others do. In this case it's not so much a photo that we want though - it's difficult to photograph pigments themselves. Unfortunately Wikipedia's image requests are very photo-centric, so I'm no sure what category this request could go in. Richard001 ( talk) 09:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
{{Unanswered}} Some pages, such as this one have lots of post and it requires some work to see what has been answered or acknowledged. therefore I made the {{ Unanswered}} template that can be put above a section allowing one to quickly glimpse what has been answered. For now I will tag mine and any post I am 100% sure is unanswered. If you were waiting for an answer but never got one as the post in somewhere in the middle tag it! please voice any queries or comments in the talk Template:Unanswered ( links, talk) and not here. Cheers -- Squidonius ( talk) 14:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
This article is really really sad: Post-transcriptional regulation. It has been nominated for deletion, by someone who is obviously not a biologist. I asked that the AfD be closed. But, really, the article should be in far better shape than this. If any editors have some time, please develop this article. I see many of the genetics and protein synthesis articles need major work, so I understand if editors have their own priorities. Still.... -- Blechnic ( talk) 00:51, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
I bulked up the page by using a project report I had on genome-wide detection on transcription rates. but it still needs TLC. I kind of have too many pet articles, anyone what gene reg & co. as a pet? -- Squidonius ( talk) 17:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Better tune in to the discussion at WP:CITE. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Someone somewhere said that a better table was needed. here is example. Please modify it freely (vde on top left). -- Squidonius ( talk) 01:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I would appreciate commentary and critique on whether the current action potential article is worthy to be a Featured Article. It's a long article, I know, but please read through it and vote your conscience, Keep or Remove, at its FAR. If you don't like it, then let me know what needs to be fixed! Willow ( talk) 19:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Input requested on potential disambiguation (Please do not respond on my talk page as it is shared by a large number of library computers at Stony Brook University. Please also note that my only edits are to lysozyme, its talk page, and to this WikiProject. All other edits from this IP are the result of other users behind the same router in other physical locations within our library system).-- 129.49.7.125 ( talk) 15:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
A very stubby article, nitroindazole, has been nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitroindazole. It looks like this WikiProject is the one that would be most likely to supply some informed opinion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 03:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi, I am new to this Wikiproject. I have started working on the Post-transcriptional modification article, however, I am not deleting anything which was there prior to my editing. I am not sure as to what I should do, so for now I am just leaving the older version in the article with my newer edits in it. Shall I just leave the article for an editor to clear up? SholeemGriffin ( talk) 12:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey guys, can you help improve this article. It seems that Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cell Signaling is inactive.-- Lenticel ( talk) 04:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This article is on the main page in the DYK section, but the image might be improved by someone who knows about structure rendering from the Protein Data Bank... See Image:Cystatin C 1r4c.jpg. -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 14:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Just a heads up for those involved in biomedical topics, PubMed Central as well as longstanding PMID now both have parameter options (pmc & pmid) in {{ cite journal}}. Diberri has also kindly upgraded his tool to take pmc article numbers to generate full cite journal markups too (see example) :-) David Ruben Talk 22:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Category:Membrane protein stubs are very oversized: I've proposed splitting off the Category:Transmembrane receptor stubs from those. Let us know if this makes sense, or if some other scheme would be preferable. Alai ( talk) 13:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
Is there a parameter or any other way to get rid of the category:Human proteins it has automatically added? I'm looking at H19 (gene), which isn't a protein. Narayanese ( talk) 11:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proteostasis, your informed opinions would be helpful. Rockpocke t 00:40, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I just started an article for Richard Lenski's E. coli long-term evolution experiment, which has been in the news lately since Lenski's lab reported a dramatic mutation of the ability to grow on citrate. Feel free to chip in.-- ragesoss ( talk) 03:56, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
Fnielsen ( talk · contribs) has created {{ Infobox Single nucleotide polymorphism}} and a raft of articles using it. I have great difficulty imagining the need for articles on every known SNP in a general purpose encyclopedia. Most of these articles don't presently assert notability and may be candidates for deletion. I have asked the contributor for clarification. JFW | T@lk 17:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
If anyone has time to take a look at this article it would be appreciated. The creating
editor has stated that this alkaloid has undiscovered properties. In addition, other dubious comments include stating that this is a semi-synthetic alkaloid (which is surely an oxymoron?) and stating appearance is 'dark green'. Thanks,
Nk.sheridan
Talk
23:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Hi everybody. I've nominated this article as a FA, comments and reviews would be most welcome at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archaea. Thank you Tim Vickers ( talk) 18:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
This article could use a little more meat and accuracy, along with a more professional tone. RegiG ( talk) 21:20, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
On Gaucher's disease, a user continues to insert links to Proteopedia using the template {{ Proteopedia}}. A few questions to ponder:
Keen to hear opinions. JFW | T@lk 11:26, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I'd file it as a bug report on Bugzilla. Jmol rocks. JFW | T@lk 20:22, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion a convention for the terminology of the topology of HIV protease based on its resemblance to bulldog, proposed in a single peer-reviewed article [14], is too idiosyncratic and too fringe to be part of an encyclopedic article as long as it is not applied also in other scientific papers. What do others think? Do such papers exist perhaps? -- Eleassar my talk 12:54, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Another thing, could someone perhaps provide the missing info for the images [15] uploaded by User:Nikiness (she/he is not active anymore)? Namely, what do they represent and what software program was used to create them. I'm not sure whether they are truly public domain. Thanks for any help. -- Eleassar my talk 13:06, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The article currently estimates the number of human protein-coding genes between 20,000 and 25,000. How relevant is the research published by Clamp et al. [16] that shows humans have only 20,500 protein-coding genes? Do other geneticists agree with this lower number? It's interesting that the article Gene mentions a very similar number as the estimate of another recent research: [17] 20,488 plus perhaps 100 more. Should the number given in Human genome be revised? Please comment at Talk:Human genome#Number of genes. -- Eleassar my talk 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 580 of the articles assigned to this project, or 17.0%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 17:52, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:00, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to locate any publications on the topic so I'm stuck working with second hand descriptions from the BBC and the AP. These sources fail to say whether methylene blue is the only ingredient of rember or if it's just one of many active ingredients. Since this distinction is at best unclear I'm leaving it up to this WikiProject to decide whether Rember should have its own article or me merged into Methylene blue.--VectorPotential Talk 13:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Am I mistaking, or is Scavenger (chemistry) the best article we have on free radical and reactive oxygen species scavenging? -- Steven Fruitsmaak ( Reply) 21:19, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:CEX has identified this as a topic of High importance with a target class of at least B (IMO it should be GA). I've posted a proposed structure at Talk:Molecular_phylogeny#Outline_for_possible_rewrite. My biggest concern is that my own knowledge of mol phylo relates entirely to paleontology - I can handle the paleo aspects easily as I've worked on Cambrian explosion and related articles, and wrote Evolution of mammals, so I have plenty of cites to paste in. But if I do this alone, there's a strong risk that the paleo aspects will totally dominate and others will wind up in a "miscellaneous" section at the end. So please comment on the outline and on why non-paleo aspects are significant. I'll create a "Sources" thread at Talk:Molecular_phylogeny with sub-headings and would be grateful if you guys could add there any sources not related to paleontology, with brief explanations of what the sources can do for the article.
The article's main title at present (to which others redirect) is "Molecular phylogeny". I'm proposing a rename to "Molecular phylogenetics" - see Talk:Molecular_phylogeny.
Hope to hear from you soon. -- Philcha ( talk) 11:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Could someone who knows something about DNA -- which is why it I am posting here -- have a look at Image:DNAbasePairing.jpg and determine if there is an error in the graphic? There are claims that there are. If there are errors, the image should be deleted. It is only used in the discussion on the talk page of an article regarding its accuracy. If it is incorrect, please nominate it for deletion following the instuctions at WP:IfD or leave me a note on my talk page and I will nominate it. -- Jordan 1972 ( talk) 01:15, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
The article on Rosetta@home got promoted to GA status as a Natural sciences good article this morning. What is the process for getting articles reassessed in the MCB Wikiproject? Does being GA imply that status across Wikiprojects, after it's been promoted by a general review? If not, then I would greatly appreciate someone from MCB reviewing the article. I plan on nominating it at FAC by the end of this week, barring any unresolved concerns raised by Wikiproject-specific reviews. Emw2012 ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I submitted the article to Peer Review shortly ago. The several incorrectly positioned references have been moved to be after punctuation. 'Publisher' attributes have been filled in for most references. I've refrained from using them on journal references, since from my experience they're so rarely seen there and not included in WP:REF/ES#Journal_articles. Because I am unsure of who would be the publisher of forum posts (which only include reliable information from project scientists and forum moderators not otherwise available), I also omitted them from that particular type of web reference. Another exception was on references to 'BOINCstats', a very widely used statistics website for BOINC (Rosetta@home's distributed computing platform) that is both hosted and author by the same individual. Thanks for the help thus far. Emw2012 ( talk) 03:39, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
The article has gone through PR and is now in its second week at FAC. SandyGeorgia has expressed concern about there not being any review of individually sourced statements nor any check of scholarly sources for coverage of any criticism, controversy or weaknesses about Rosetta@home. I will be adding content about any criticism/controversy/weakness I find, but if anyone in the project could help in reviewing sources per SandyGeorgia's request (or otherwise providing input at Rosetta@home's FAC), I'd be eternally grateful. Emw2012 ( talk) 15:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I could use a hand on the vesicle (biology) article. I've been rewriting for readability, but it could really use some outside references. Thanks in advance. Rozzychan ( talk) 18:35, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Someone made a new article at Sorbitol Pathway that was written pretty disgustingly. First of all, "Sorbitol Pathway" is synonymous with "Polyol pathway," so for the time being I have made it a redirect and have put the information the person put at this page here: User:Andrew Nutter/Sorbitol Pathway. The current state of what was the article (I think it was really only about how it relates to diabetes) is unacceptable to be in a Wikipedia article, so it is just sitting there at my user subpage. I have done a lot of markup to it to make it slightly more coherent, but at this point all that biology terminology is completely lost on me and I can't make it much better than it is. If someone could please edit it to make it coherent, then put it on the Polyol pathway page, it would be greatly appreciated. Again, feel free to edit my subpage User:Andrew Nutter/Sorbitol Pathway. Andrew Nutter Talk | Contribs 19:19, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
Some content is wanted for Mitochondrion, particularly mitochondrial copy numbers. Thanks. -- Una Smith ( talk) 14:37, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
The article failed in Good article reassessment and should be set back in the quality scale! A GAN is underway for Amino acid to get it back to GA!.-- Stone ( talk) 14:43, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
The article Endomembrane system has been the subject of an AP Biology class effort at Croatan High School's Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 which is intended to involve students in Wikipedia. The primary contributor VivaLaLacyhas offered it up for GA review. At present, the inadequacies in citations will prevent it from passing; however, he will be addressing those concerns. Unfortunately, the nature of such articles makes them difficult to critique since they tend to be laden with technical concepts. Is their anyone here with the expertise that could perhaps pass some judgement on his efforts? or at least provide advice? -- JimmyButler ( talk) 17:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
I assume people have seen this: Publish in Wikipedia or perish: Journal to require authors to post in the free online encyclopaedia. What does everyone think? Was this discussed by project members beforehand? -- phoebe / ( talk to me) 01:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
There are a lot of wikipedia articles that mention things copurifying with other things, but there is no explanation anywhere on Wikipedia as to what "copurify" means. Anyone want to volunteer to write an article on copurification? Even a stub would be quite useful. Kaldari ( talk) 23:51, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. We have had a article requested with the above title at WP:AFC. I have little idea whether it should be created or not and am looking for advice. There's not much to it yet; it seems to be a loosely rewritten version of http://compbio.epm.br/kunitz/. If anyone would care to take a look and venture an opinion, it can be found at Articles for creation/Submissions/KUNITZ STI protease inhibitors. Thanks, Martin 01:08, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Why is Phosphoinositide-dependent kinase-1 listed as a good article? This must have been an oversight? Greetings -- hroest 10:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
To help organize articles for a MCB worklist, would it be useful to have categories that list articles likely needing attention? If so, it seems like this could be done quite easily by filtering articles by both their importance and class ratings (e.g. "Top-importance and Start-Class MCB articles"). Wikilinks could be added to categories' corresponding cells in the "Statistics" table midway down the right panel of WP:MCB. Currently, it is a chore to do that type of filtering. The quickest option is to use AWB, which is far slower than having the proposed matrix of categories.
Before making those categories, I'd like to get the input of some MCB members. What do you think? Emw2012 ( talk) 00:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Which one is correct? does the reaction use a nucleoside triphosphate or not? Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.125.28.232 ( talk) 21:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Shouldn't these be added to the this wikiproject as well? Currently they are listed only on wikiproject chemicals. Xasodfuih ( talk) 21:41, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
For instance UGT2B4 is a page about the gene, while UGT2B7 is a page about the enzyme coded by that gene. According to uniprot.org the name for the gene should be UGT2B7, while the name of the protein should be UDP-glucuronosyltransferase 2B7. Since these articles have little content, I guess the main difference is the infobox. Xasodfuih ( talk) 22:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm having a dispute here with User:IvoShandor whether the sub-articles Building 101 and Building 257 he recently wrote should be merged with main article or not. Xasodfuih ( talk) 02:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
I´m trying to get affirmation for an additional hyperlink for EC Numbers.
Currently enzymes are only linked to
ExPASy e.g. in the article
List of enzymes.
Perhaps it would be a good idea not only to provide links to ExPASy but also to the BRENDA-Database (
BRENDA). BRENDA contains manually curated information to all known enzymes and provides a more complete list on the enzymes properties than ExPASy. BRENDA is already linked from many articles that holds information on enzymes and is the recommended link for a list of literature on certain enzymes.
What do you think?
Best regards,
Andreas
—Preceding
unsigned comment added by
134.169.106.8 (
talk)
09:49, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Xasodfuih raises an important question above that has also been discussed here and a number of other places. The question is how best to make clear that:
We need something that is clear, concise, and accurate. AndrewGNF has proposed something similar to:
G protein-coupled receptor 3 is a protein which in humans is encoded by the GPR3 gene
I support Andrew's suggestion since in my opinion accomplishes all three goals. Is this wording sufficient? Does anyone else have a suggestion for a better lead sentence? Cheers. Boghog2 ( talk) 20:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
All, we may be able to package this into a student project -- can we try to get consensus on what the change would be? Two proposals so far:
G protein-coupled receptor 3 is a protein which in humans is encoded by the GPR3 gene.
G protein-coupled receptor 3 is a protein encoded by the human GPR3 gene.
I think the first is slightly more precise, the second is slightly more readable. Unless there is a strong objection (or other suggestions), I'm inclined to go with the first. AndrewGNF ( talk) 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks everyone. Looks like there is consensus around wording #1. Hopefully we'll get a student this quarter to do the change. But, of course, I think we all agree that this is a rather lame opening sentence, so we should all feel empowered and encouraged to change the default on our favorite genes of interest as soon as possible... Cheers, AndrewGNF ( talk) 00:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Some protein families are not encoded by a single gene. These should not (erroneously) give a single gene symbol. E.g. UDP-glucuronosyltransferase gives only UGT1A1. Xasodfuih ( talk) 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)