This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Wikipedia articles refer to an important peptide associated with Alzheimer's disease in a few different ways: amyloid beta, amyloid-beta, beta amyloid or beta-amyloid. The literature seems to use the two interchangeably between publications (though consistently within the same publication). Biological databases also refer to the molecule differently. Which version of the peptide name is best?
I'm inclined to say "beta-amyloid". This formulation matches protein names used in literature, e.g. alpha- and beta- adrenergic receptors, beta-arrestin, beta-secretase, beta-thromboglobulin, etc. The (Greek letter)-(protein name) pattern is also used consistently for protein names modified by alpha, beta or gamma in Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 4th ed..
I ask this here because I think having a consistent, systematic way to refer to this peptide and other such proteins would reduce potential confusion, help readers when searching within an article for an explicit string, and make automatic analysis easier. Emw ( talk) 02:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This recently described type of programmed cell death is mentioned in a couple of our articles, but I think we should have at least a short article about it. Unfortunately I'm not capable of writing one. Looie496 ( talk) 15:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
... Talk:GTP_cyclohydrolase_I#A_note_from_the_article. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I see a conflict with the medicine project people, who prevent insertion of data regarding molecular effects on cells, with claims that the data is not from a review article, and if it is from a review, then they claim that the info is out of due weight, despite it being mainstream knowledge, or other excuses which I think are just excuses, where their goal is just to hide the information from the public. I read in the WP:MEDRS different rules than the medicine project people employ, including that their rules apply only to medicine texts, yet they prevent describing molecular effects. Since molecular biology and physics are not necessarily medical claims, I think they should not be allowed to remove text that describe that. Is there a way to limit their scope? Terry Georgew ( talk) 13:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is WP:SCIRS still an essay and not a guideline? (If there's a better forum to post this question, please boldly move it there.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 08:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
User:Alensha kindly translated some information about the biochemist Emerich Szörényi (see e.g. Arginine kinase) from the article here. The translation is on my talk page. I will try to add part of the information to the article about his son, the philologist Omry Ronen, but I think there is actually enough information for a stub about Emerich Szörényi (which I do not want to write due to my incompetence, but I would be glad to help if an expert would like to invest some time in this).
Best regards, Sasha ( talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hepatitis B virus PRE alpha and Hepatitis B virus PRE beta have redlinked images. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up about this new page, also briefly discussed here. — MistyMorn ( talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
found this File:Tert picture.jpg , if you need it, please fill in the fair use rationales. -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 07:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment welcome at this AfD on a new article. It shares a title with this 2011 Trends Biochem Sci. paper and may be copied from it - does anyone have access to the text of the paper? JohnCD ( talk) 10:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Why are so many protein and gene article titles in the abbreviated rather than full form? This seems to go against WP:TITLEFORMAT: "Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation". For example, Triadin is titled TRDN, and I had to get a redirect made at WP:AfC/R so that a search for the full name would result in the reader being brought to the correct article. Would it not make more sense for these articles to be titled in the full form, and make the abbreviated form a redirect? On a separate issue, in many cases, the full name is not a redirect to the proper article, a quick poll of Category:Chromosome 15 gene stubs, which the above article is in, reveals that this is the case for almost all of them. 137.43.188.209 ( talk) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In my understanding and experience in scientific community, at least most of the genes and most of the proteins are addressed by the acronyms. The original verbose title, the acronym was derived from, is memorized only sometimes and merely as inspiration for the gene's actual acronymous three-leter "name". That said, the short one would not be probably the official name. Still, the gene/protein had become to be almost exclusively called by the abbreviation. Then again, this custom might be different in different sub-field of molecular biology or biology in general. I am working in plant_molecular_biology/plant_physiology and the genes are referred almost exclusively by the shortest version possible. -- Reo + 18:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Back in August, I mentioned here that a JHU professor and I are doing a Wikipedia project having students make improvements to Wikipedia articles. There are now six days left in the semester. Apologies, in that I should have thought of this earlier, but here is a last-minute invitation to anyone who would like, to review and make suggestions on those articles. If you'd like to, then please:
Here are the lists of articles: Section 81 articles, Section 83 articles.
Klortho ( talk) 17:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
What should be done in the case of Wikipedia:Help_desk#Article_with_.CE.91_.28Alpha.29_rather_than_A_.28Latin.29, please help with the name of the article. Naraht ( talk) 21:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I just found two mutually redundant pages, Drug metabolism and Xenobiotic metabolism, which have been known to be in need of merging since '09. I am busy writing a new article ( Enzyme promiscuity) despite having "retired" from editing wikipedia some years back, so I don't have the time. In light of the cobwebs on the two pages, I reckon the guidelines on merger proposals can be defenestrated and a merger can be performed without delay. Anyone want to detoxify these two pages? Cheers -- Squidonius ( talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not feeling up to properly assessing the article on blockmir, but it definitely feels like spam. Can someone more trained in the field have a look to assess whether this term is actually in use by anyone who doesn't have a financial interest in it? Thanks. DS ( talk) 18:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to bring to Your attention the following merge proposal:
Talk:ATP-binding_cassette_transporter#Merge_proposal_-_Merge.7CATP-binding_cassette_family
... some rewriting is probably also needed
Reo
+
02:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The above article has been nominated for deletion. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 12:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cell_Signaling#Wikipedia_Education_Project_in_a_Signal_Transduction_Class:_Advice_requested, FYI. If anyone has a preference that the class occasionally communicate here instead of there, please say so. I figured that through my help, the professors' interest, and the classroom edits, we'd let the semi-active project "reactivate" for Spring 2013 at least. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)#Suggested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi I'm working on a thesis on Bioluminescence. I saw that there were no sources or references on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence#Characteristics
Where does the information in this section come from, please?
Thanks /Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.103.48 ( talk) 15:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! A Biochemistry class at Stanford will be editing Wikipedia as a brief classroom assignment this quarter. The professor is working with the Wikipedia Education Program, where Wikipedia Ambassadors work with students online and in-person to help them through their class edits. I'm wondering if anyone who is a member of this WikiProject is interested in becoming a Campus Ambassador and hosting some in-person training sessions with the students in this class. I can probably find somebody in the Bay Area, but I'd love for somebody with an interest in the topic to work with these new users, so we can hopefully work to transition them into regular editors. If anyone is interested, please let me know on my talk page, and I can connect you with the prof. Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) ( talk) 21:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a note at WT:MED about the title for DNA computing (2013) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Portal: Viruses has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 06:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this article has been somewhat neglected. I happened to notice it was tagged with a "ref improve" tag, so I turned to the most logical source for citations.. the Protein Science "In Memoriam" article from 2009. Unfortunately, it appears that much of the current page is copied verbatim from the "In Memoriam" article. Tanford's a pretty significant figure in protein chemistry, so it would probably be worth expanding the article beyond just being a carbon copy of the obituary. Does anyone have time to work on such an expansion? Thanks. (+)H3N- Protein\Chemist- CO2(-) 18:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I just made thiamine diphosphate top importance because I assume it would be, although maybe that's more strictly in terms of biochemistry. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Please come help sort out the structured side of knowledge in Wikipedia at the new MediaWiki sponsored, WikiData initiative http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Molecular_Biology_task_force We are currently soliciting proposals for properties to capture about genes and proteins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genewiki123 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please, could anyone with some knowledge in this area check this new article? It was nominated for speedy deletion as a {{ db-hoax}} shortly after creation. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 07:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I have had trouble finding a place to request a re-assessment of an article ( Branched-chain alpha-keto acid dehydrogenase complex). I am more familiar with WP:MED which has WP:MEDA to request an assessment/reassessment, but i see no similar place to do so here, other than Peer Review (which, to my mind is more for GA/FA). I noted a new user has brought this article up from stub to at least start, if not C/B, in the last 12 houts or so, and i wanted to encourage them to continue. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 00:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Ensembl Genomes (EG) provides a genome browser for around 110 publicly available genome sequence (excluding vertebrates and bacterial genomes). Where a corresponding article exists, would it be OK to add a link to the genome browser in EG?
Cheers, -- Dan Bolser ( talk) 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been working up a Lua script to take an NCBI protein record and turn it into a figure for Wikipedia. It isn't yet ready for prime time but far along enough that I could ask for reactions.
See Module_talk:ImportProtein for a sample run with Src (gene). Wnt ( talk) 23:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't merging glutathione S-transferase, C-terminal domain and bacterial glutathione transferase into the parent article glutathione S-transferase be a reasonable approach, given the lengths of the articles? Biosthmors ( talk) 05:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't HGSNAT and Heparan-alpha-glucosaminide N-acetyltransferase be merged? kashmiri 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
On the page regarding "Laminins" it refers to "Laminins are trimeric proteins that contain an α-chain, a β-chain," and " Thus, laminin-511 contains α5, β1, and γ1 chains" What is the chain they're talking about? Is it B-chain or 31 chain? what is that little line in front of the 3? It's confusing! Please help! Thanks! 184.1.8.151 ( talk) 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anybody draw a scheme like this [2] for the Permeability section of the Cell membrane article? Thanks Zorahia ( talk) 23:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have just been looking at a couple of articles like Glycolysis and TCA cycle. There are a number of databases about these pathways and it would seem to make sense to me to have an infobox for these. Some examples of databases are Wikipathways, Kegg and Reactome. Has this been discussed previously? Any other thoughts about what would go in such a infobox. Thanks Alexbateman ( talk) 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
{{Infobox metabolic pathway | Symbol = | Name = TCA cycle VII (mammalian) | image = | width = | caption = | MetaCyc = PWY66-398 | KEGG = map00020 }}
Hi all,
I was hoping some volunteers could check out the peer review article on SR proteins that I have been editing. It is an assignment for this graduate-level course and we were asked to try and get feedback from other reviewers. Thanks much. MChapman5 ( talk) 23:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
We have an edit war ongoing at African admixture in Europe - could we get a few experienced editors to look over this edit - see what is going on here, Moxy ( talk) 19:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm reworking the above article. A source mentions cell growth suppressor proteins, where could I wikilink this term to please? Am I also ok with my layperson descriptions of carotenes and retinoids, or are they inaccurate? Thank you, Lesion ( talk) 17:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Pls see Talk:Genetic history of Europe#Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago -- Moxy ( talk) 02:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, there are two ongoing discussions at Talk:Hoyle's fallacy which have relevance to this project, one move request and one content suggestion. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 16:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! Got another submission for you people. I suspect these articles all belong to an educational project, given we've had quite an influx of late. The reason why I show you this particular one is that it carries a bit of original research. I think it's as simple as getting in touch with the editor and advising him or her on the appropriate policies and Wikipedia's ways. They're certainly making great contributions. Thanks for the help! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear biochemists:
You may wish to take a look at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbomycin
— Anne Delong ( talk) 21:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I was editing the page for the Tenascin C protein, and I noticed that Tenascin C is currently listed in the fibrous proteins template, when it is actually a conjugated protein. I'm fairly certain Tnc plays no structural roles like a fibrous protein, but I'll make a lit search to be sure. In the event that it doesn't, I don't know how to remove it from the template. Also, Tnc might be an article to consider making a part of the Molecular and Cellular Biology wikiproject. (I'm not sure what that process is.) Serotonick ( talk) 05:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the vitamin U article, which used to be a redirect to S-methylmethionine. So far 3 reliable secondary sources describe vitamin U as a synonym of this single chemical, or alternatively Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride. I feel the editor created the new stand alone vitamin U page with mostly primary sources, to state that it is not the above, but a term that refers to several chemicals. Primary sources are being used to over-ride mainstream definitions found in secondary sources. The article has already been nominated for merging back to Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride and tagged with notability issues. A previous consensus of 3 vs 1 (mainly using WP:COMMONNAME as an argument) failed to merge the page. I feel that this article has WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:CHERRY issues and needs attention. I have requested that the editor remove the primary sources and provide reliable secondary sources to support the content they have created, and so far this has not happened. Comments requested here please, thanks Lesion ( talk) 15:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
AfC: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GeneTalk. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Crocodillin has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right WikiProject, but what the hell. We need an article about dopaquinone (also known as dopamine-quinone), a precursor of melanin. I could create a two-sentence stub, but I'm helpless with chemistry and wouldn't be able to do an infobox or any of the other standard stuff. Looie496 ( talk) 14:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I was trying recently to clean up mess in my home wiki (czech) in articles about electrophoresis (but don't worry, I made some edits here as well in the process). So I came here for inspiration how to organize such articles, however local ones have similar problems with duplicity and redundancy. I would like to ask if there is any consensus how to organize such articles. My main issue (in both wikipedias) is (in three permutations):
Thanks, -- Faskal ( talk) 16:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to thank both of you for response. I would argue that sections "Gel conditions", "Buffers", and "Visualization" are relevant for both articles. Well, definitely, they should be there, but current content is: gel condition: variations of SDS-PAGE, but not a word about agarose gel electrophoresis or other types of gels; buffer: only discussion about TAE/TBE; visualization is currently only about EtBr. This is my main problem - it is clearly conglomerate of two articles and it is not clear which section corresponds to general topic and which to special features of subtypes. Reader without knowledge about this topic will be probably unable to recognize what is common for gel electrophoresis and what is some specificity.
My original question was if it is better to expand the general article and link it from most articles that mention some kind of electrophoresis or to truncate general article, keep only really general stuff and put specific information to specific articles (lets say into agarose gel electrophoresis and/or gel electrophoresis of NA/proteins). Gel electrophoresis of nucleic acids could serve as general article for different topics about analysis of nucleic acids and genetic engineering (sequencing, isolation from gel,...) Gel electrophoresis can be more physical. As you can see, I respect your decision about merging and I don't plan any guerilla edits and revert wars, I just think there is really big opportunity to improve en.wiki. I think that Sheehan's Physical biochemistry [1] has quite nice outline:
Sorry for long post, but I thing that current state of articles about electrophoresis is not clear enough for high-school-class-level-reader and above is my suggestion how to improve them. I would be glad to help.-- Faskal ( talk) 08:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
..in that the structure is really of a fragment of the protein bound to another larger protein (usually an antibody). Tau protein is an example. This appears to be particularly a problem for intinsicaly disordered proteins and other hard to crystallize proteins. Are the strucures currently added by bots or humans? If by bots can some protein boxes be locked? -- Biophysik ( talk) 20:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please could someone have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Skin immunity. Not really sure what to make of this one. By my reasoning it needs merging into an existing article, if anything? But not sure if Skin is appropriate. Anybody got any suggestions? Pol430 talk to me 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
File:C1orf123 Protein Predicted Secondary Structure.png has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 02:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled on (RS)-1-benzyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline N-methyltransferase, and found it lacking in the basic introductory and non-specialist context required by WP:ARTICLE and WP:NOTJOURNAL. I then sampled a dozen articles in its category, and they all seem to have that problem. They are written in a style that gives the impression that they are machine-generated. The article history suggests that's a possibility.
As the article stands right now, I think it violates the WP:NOTJOURNAL policy, and should undergo the WP:PROD process on that basis.
And then I read this on your wikiproject page:
It says "providing an entry point"—that makes me wonder if your project members see (RS)-1-benzyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline N-methyltransferase as a page that belongs in Wikipedia as a stub, but not an article stub. Wikipedia has lists, it has disambig pages, it has other kinds of pages that don't qualify as articles. Perhaps (RS)-1-benzyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline N-methyltransferase is one of these non-article pages, and shouldn't be held to article standards of WP:GNG. Perhaps the most trivial of enzymes is by definition notable, so even if the average lay person's eye would glaze over trying to make sense of the description, an encyclopedic goal is served by having such pages.
If so, to avoid WP:NOTJOURNAL policy challenges to a bunch of pages in your domain of interest, I am wondering if what is really needed is acknowledgement that "entry points" are a legitimate type of page. They could be flagged with a template of some sort, perhaps at the bottom:
or perhaps at the top:
This is an entry point to biological data on enzymes that is available in databases and journal articles. |
Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.201 ( talk) 23:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Tertiary structure 2.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been involved in a content dispute involving human genome over how to describe what the term represents. Additional eyes would be helpful. Agricolae ( talk) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Metabolism - Skysmith ( talk) 11:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Phosphoribosylanthranilate isomerase Structure.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 04:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If you have ideas or suggestions as to which data NCBI should make available about traffic they get from Wikimedia servers, please list them here. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello biochemists! This article which has been submitted at Afc may be of interest. Would anyone like to review it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Cytoplasmic streaming recently had an anon completely rewrite it. I merged their version with that which preceded it as best I could, but it's now a mess. Sorry about that. See ya! Josh Parris 11:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Could I have some more eyes over at FNDC5? It's quite a controversial protein, given that it was reported last year to produce a peptide hormone that turns white fat into brown fat and there is some debate around whether this is really true in humans. I rewrote it a few days ago, but it looks as if scientists from either side of the debate are editing it, so more neutral eyes would be very helpful. I'm not sure how to balance the sides at the moment, but considering WP:MEDRS, I would prefer to be overly cautious. Cheers SmartSE ( talk) 12:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This new article contains a few instances of close paraphrasing from http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/other/crystalinks/stemcells.html Duplication Detector Report. It is not so prevalent as to constitute a copyright violation, but this needs to be addressed. The article should also be checked to ensure there are no further instances of close paraphrasing/copying from other texts listed in the references.
The title capitalisation also needs to be changed. However, Pluripotent stem cell currently exists as a redirect to Cell potency#Pluripotency and needs an admin to move it over the redirect. Not being a specialist in this area, I am unclear as to whether this should exist as a separate article or should be merged into Cell potency#Pluripotency. - Voceditenore ( talk) 11:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been trying to normalize the naming of Epstein–Barr virus related pages on Wikipedia: Talk:Epstein–Barr virus. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Walternmoss ( talk) 12:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be important enough to even be stubbed (mentioned in [3]), but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything significantly related, at least as far as the non-expert (me) can tell. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
[4] An editor has been averaging the Ki values found at http://pdsp.med.unc.edu/pdsp.php
I've asked the editor to explain but his/her answer is out of my depth. Do we have anyone who can review these edits and the calculations the editor did to arrive at these values, anyone with biochemistry expertise who can check for WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc.? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 11:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a source published by Nova Science Publishers that is not peer reviewed is used in many important articles relevant to this WikiProject (cell, bacteria etc.) From the articles I have checked, the source has been added by Bernstein0275 ( talk · contribs) who it would appear is the author of the source. They have added other seemingly good content by other authors to articles as well, but I'm concerned that they are propagating a fringe view that may not be accepted by other academics. There is also the potential that they are using Wikipedia to promote their own work, although I will assume good faith for now. Could someone with more expertise take a look at the content? Unless there is a strong reason not to, I would suggest that we remove the references and any material cited to it. SmartSE ( talk) 15:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
A few of us have been OA-ing for two sections of a molecular biology class, and they are almost over. We'd like to do some final reviews of the students' articles this weekend, after which the students will have one more week to complete their edits. (The final day is December 12). If anyone here could help out with that, it would be appreciated. Any feedback/advice you can give would be helpful. The criteria we've given the students to use to review each other are listed here. If you feel up to it, it's good to check for plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
The list of articles is here. I know it's short notice, but even if you can only do one article, and only cursorily, it would be a big help.
Thanks! Klortho ( talk) 04:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The link on the portal's main page includes the sentence:
'Please also see our discussion about how to standardize the depiction of proteins.'
It simply links to the proposals section of the wikiproject which isn't really the relevant page. Perhaps it would be better to link directly to here, the diagram guide page?
Additionally, that diagram guide page needs to make some sort of definitive comment on how to represent protein structures which is discussed here (original discussion in this page's archives), here (a vote on which rendering program to use) and here (discussion on digaram guide's talk page) but without firm conclusions. Shall we try to distil a final set up recommendations out of the discussion? I'm happy to help, but I feel that more experienced editors and admins may be better suited. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 00:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
#hide repeated chains in crystal as cartoon set cartoon_color, white bg white set ray_trace_mode, 1 set antialias, 2 ray
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 19:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following article mergers:
Each of these pairs of articles cover the exact same gene/protein, just under a different name. MT-XXX is the abbreviation most commonly used when discussing the gene in humans, but the MT-XXX articles do not seem limited to human contexts, nor should they be, IMO. I would prefer that the articles live at the "Cytochrome c oxidase subunit X" titles as these are more descriptive and more commonly used overall (especially outside of medical lit). Kaldari ( talk) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Since MEROPS is the dominant repository for protease classification and information, is there a way that the enzyme infobox could be updated to include a link to the MEROPS page for each enzyme? I don't have the technical know-how to go about it. Any strong opinions? T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm hoping someone here can assist me in getting an article into wikipedia.
The article is here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Identifiers.org
Over the past year or so, this article has been rejected 4 times, and I am becoming increasingly frustrated.
The first rejection was due to providing 'insufficient context'. I addressed this by significantly expanding the section on URI schemes.
The second rejection then stated that 'the subject of this article already exists', referring to it being a URI scheme! I commented that there were already articles on other URI schemes, and hence did not accept this as a valid criticism. (Words to that effect anyway).
The next rejection suggested we 'improve the submission's referencing', which I responded to by adding more references, and resubmitting.
The final rejection (to date), states that 'All of the references provided for this subject have been produced by closely connected authors'.
I could add some more references, for example to articles written by us in book chapters, or to conference proceedings, but again these are authored by us.
Any help would be gratefully received!
Nsjuty ( talk) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Wikipedia articles refer to an important peptide associated with Alzheimer's disease in a few different ways: amyloid beta, amyloid-beta, beta amyloid or beta-amyloid. The literature seems to use the two interchangeably between publications (though consistently within the same publication). Biological databases also refer to the molecule differently. Which version of the peptide name is best?
I'm inclined to say "beta-amyloid". This formulation matches protein names used in literature, e.g. alpha- and beta- adrenergic receptors, beta-arrestin, beta-secretase, beta-thromboglobulin, etc. The (Greek letter)-(protein name) pattern is also used consistently for protein names modified by alpha, beta or gamma in Lehninger Principles of Biochemistry, 4th ed..
I ask this here because I think having a consistent, systematic way to refer to this peptide and other such proteins would reduce potential confusion, help readers when searching within an article for an explicit string, and make automatic analysis easier. Emw ( talk) 02:10, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
This recently described type of programmed cell death is mentioned in a couple of our articles, but I think we should have at least a short article about it. Unfortunately I'm not capable of writing one. Looie496 ( talk) 15:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
... Talk:GTP_cyclohydrolase_I#A_note_from_the_article. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 05:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
I see a conflict with the medicine project people, who prevent insertion of data regarding molecular effects on cells, with claims that the data is not from a review article, and if it is from a review, then they claim that the info is out of due weight, despite it being mainstream knowledge, or other excuses which I think are just excuses, where their goal is just to hide the information from the public. I read in the WP:MEDRS different rules than the medicine project people employ, including that their rules apply only to medicine texts, yet they prevent describing molecular effects. Since molecular biology and physics are not necessarily medical claims, I think they should not be allowed to remove text that describe that. Is there a way to limit their scope? Terry Georgew ( talk) 13:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is WP:SCIRS still an essay and not a guideline? (If there's a better forum to post this question, please boldly move it there.) -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 08:38, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello,
User:Alensha kindly translated some information about the biochemist Emerich Szörényi (see e.g. Arginine kinase) from the article here. The translation is on my talk page. I will try to add part of the information to the article about his son, the philologist Omry Ronen, but I think there is actually enough information for a stub about Emerich Szörényi (which I do not want to write due to my incompetence, but I would be glad to help if an expert would like to invest some time in this).
Best regards, Sasha ( talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Hepatitis B virus PRE alpha and Hepatitis B virus PRE beta have redlinked images. Cheers. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:44, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
Just a heads up about this new page, also briefly discussed here. — MistyMorn ( talk) 11:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
found this File:Tert picture.jpg , if you need it, please fill in the fair use rationales. -- 70.24.250.26 ( talk) 07:46, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Comment welcome at this AfD on a new article. It shares a title with this 2011 Trends Biochem Sci. paper and may be copied from it - does anyone have access to the text of the paper? JohnCD ( talk) 10:42, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
Why are so many protein and gene article titles in the abbreviated rather than full form? This seems to go against WP:TITLEFORMAT: "Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation". For example, Triadin is titled TRDN, and I had to get a redirect made at WP:AfC/R so that a search for the full name would result in the reader being brought to the correct article. Would it not make more sense for these articles to be titled in the full form, and make the abbreviated form a redirect? On a separate issue, in many cases, the full name is not a redirect to the proper article, a quick poll of Category:Chromosome 15 gene stubs, which the above article is in, reveals that this is the case for almost all of them. 137.43.188.209 ( talk) 17:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
In my understanding and experience in scientific community, at least most of the genes and most of the proteins are addressed by the acronyms. The original verbose title, the acronym was derived from, is memorized only sometimes and merely as inspiration for the gene's actual acronymous three-leter "name". That said, the short one would not be probably the official name. Still, the gene/protein had become to be almost exclusively called by the abbreviation. Then again, this custom might be different in different sub-field of molecular biology or biology in general. I am working in plant_molecular_biology/plant_physiology and the genes are referred almost exclusively by the shortest version possible. -- Reo + 18:28, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
Back in August, I mentioned here that a JHU professor and I are doing a Wikipedia project having students make improvements to Wikipedia articles. There are now six days left in the semester. Apologies, in that I should have thought of this earlier, but here is a last-minute invitation to anyone who would like, to review and make suggestions on those articles. If you'd like to, then please:
Here are the lists of articles: Section 81 articles, Section 83 articles.
Klortho ( talk) 17:16, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
What should be done in the case of Wikipedia:Help_desk#Article_with_.CE.91_.28Alpha.29_rather_than_A_.28Latin.29, please help with the name of the article. Naraht ( talk) 21:36, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi folks, I just found two mutually redundant pages, Drug metabolism and Xenobiotic metabolism, which have been known to be in need of merging since '09. I am busy writing a new article ( Enzyme promiscuity) despite having "retired" from editing wikipedia some years back, so I don't have the time. In light of the cobwebs on the two pages, I reckon the guidelines on merger proposals can be defenestrated and a merger can be performed without delay. Anyone want to detoxify these two pages? Cheers -- Squidonius ( talk) 22:17, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not feeling up to properly assessing the article on blockmir, but it definitely feels like spam. Can someone more trained in the field have a look to assess whether this term is actually in use by anyone who doesn't have a financial interest in it? Thanks. DS ( talk) 18:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
I would like to bring to Your attention the following merge proposal:
Talk:ATP-binding_cassette_transporter#Merge_proposal_-_Merge.7CATP-binding_cassette_family
... some rewriting is probably also needed
Reo
+
02:54, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
The above article has been nominated for deletion. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 12:40, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
Comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cell_Signaling#Wikipedia_Education_Project_in_a_Signal_Transduction_Class:_Advice_requested, FYI. If anyone has a preference that the class occasionally communicate here instead of there, please say so. I figured that through my help, the professors' interest, and the classroom edits, we'd let the semi-active project "reactivate" for Spring 2013 at least. Thanks. Biosthmors ( talk) 20:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA)#Suggested move, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Tyrol5 [Talk] 00:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi I'm working on a thesis on Bioluminescence. I saw that there were no sources or references on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioluminescence#Characteristics
Where does the information in this section come from, please?
Thanks /Patrick — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.242.103.48 ( talk) 15:01, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi! A Biochemistry class at Stanford will be editing Wikipedia as a brief classroom assignment this quarter. The professor is working with the Wikipedia Education Program, where Wikipedia Ambassadors work with students online and in-person to help them through their class edits. I'm wondering if anyone who is a member of this WikiProject is interested in becoming a Campus Ambassador and hosting some in-person training sessions with the students in this class. I can probably find somebody in the Bay Area, but I'd love for somebody with an interest in the topic to work with these new users, so we can hopefully work to transition them into regular editors. If anyone is interested, please let me know on my talk page, and I can connect you with the prof. Thanks! JMathewson (WMF) ( talk) 21:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
FYI, there's a note at WT:MED about the title for DNA computing (2013) -- 76.65.128.43 ( talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Portal: Viruses has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.246.233 ( talk) 06:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)
Looks like this article has been somewhat neglected. I happened to notice it was tagged with a "ref improve" tag, so I turned to the most logical source for citations.. the Protein Science "In Memoriam" article from 2009. Unfortunately, it appears that much of the current page is copied verbatim from the "In Memoriam" article. Tanford's a pretty significant figure in protein chemistry, so it would probably be worth expanding the article beyond just being a carbon copy of the obituary. Does anyone have time to work on such an expansion? Thanks. (+)H3N- Protein\Chemist- CO2(-) 18:33, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
I just made thiamine diphosphate top importance because I assume it would be, although maybe that's more strictly in terms of biochemistry. Biosthmors ( talk) 21:00, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Please come help sort out the structured side of knowledge in Wikipedia at the new MediaWiki sponsored, WikiData initiative http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Molecular_Biology_task_force We are currently soliciting proposals for properties to capture about genes and proteins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genewiki123 ( talk • contribs) 00:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Please, could anyone with some knowledge in this area check this new article? It was nominated for speedy deletion as a {{ db-hoax}} shortly after creation. -- Vejvančický ( talk / contribs) 07:36, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I have had trouble finding a place to request a re-assessment of an article ( Branched-chain alpha-keto acid dehydrogenase complex). I am more familiar with WP:MED which has WP:MEDA to request an assessment/reassessment, but i see no similar place to do so here, other than Peer Review (which, to my mind is more for GA/FA). I noted a new user has brought this article up from stub to at least start, if not C/B, in the last 12 houts or so, and i wanted to encourage them to continue. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk] #_ 00:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi,
Ensembl Genomes (EG) provides a genome browser for around 110 publicly available genome sequence (excluding vertebrates and bacterial genomes). Where a corresponding article exists, would it be OK to add a link to the genome browser in EG?
Cheers, -- Dan Bolser ( talk) 15:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I've been working up a Lua script to take an NCBI protein record and turn it into a figure for Wikipedia. It isn't yet ready for prime time but far along enough that I could ask for reactions.
See Module_talk:ImportProtein for a sample run with Src (gene). Wnt ( talk) 23:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't merging glutathione S-transferase, C-terminal domain and bacterial glutathione transferase into the parent article glutathione S-transferase be a reasonable approach, given the lengths of the articles? Biosthmors ( talk) 05:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
Shouldn't HGSNAT and Heparan-alpha-glucosaminide N-acetyltransferase be merged? kashmiri 22:19, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
On the page regarding "Laminins" it refers to "Laminins are trimeric proteins that contain an α-chain, a β-chain," and " Thus, laminin-511 contains α5, β1, and γ1 chains" What is the chain they're talking about? Is it B-chain or 31 chain? what is that little line in front of the 3? It's confusing! Please help! Thanks! 184.1.8.151 ( talk) 19:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Can anybody draw a scheme like this [2] for the Permeability section of the Cell membrane article? Thanks Zorahia ( talk) 23:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
I have just been looking at a couple of articles like Glycolysis and TCA cycle. There are a number of databases about these pathways and it would seem to make sense to me to have an infobox for these. Some examples of databases are Wikipathways, Kegg and Reactome. Has this been discussed previously? Any other thoughts about what would go in such a infobox. Thanks Alexbateman ( talk) 15:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
{{Infobox metabolic pathway | Symbol = | Name = TCA cycle VII (mammalian) | image = | width = | caption = | MetaCyc = PWY66-398 | KEGG = map00020 }}
Hi all,
I was hoping some volunteers could check out the peer review article on SR proteins that I have been editing. It is an assignment for this graduate-level course and we were asked to try and get feedback from other reviewers. Thanks much. MChapman5 ( talk) 23:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
We have an edit war ongoing at African admixture in Europe - could we get a few experienced editors to look over this edit - see what is going on here, Moxy ( talk) 19:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm reworking the above article. A source mentions cell growth suppressor proteins, where could I wikilink this term to please? Am I also ok with my layperson descriptions of carotenes and retinoids, or are they inaccurate? Thank you, Lesion ( talk) 17:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Pls see Talk:Genetic history of Europe#Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago -- Moxy ( talk) 02:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello, there are two ongoing discussions at Talk:Hoyle's fallacy which have relevance to this project, one move request and one content suggestion. -- Cerebellum ( talk) 16:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Hello there! Got another submission for you people. I suspect these articles all belong to an educational project, given we've had quite an influx of late. The reason why I show you this particular one is that it carries a bit of original research. I think it's as simple as getting in touch with the editor and advising him or her on the appropriate policies and Wikipedia's ways. They're certainly making great contributions. Thanks for the help! FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:37, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Dear biochemists:
You may wish to take a look at: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Carbomycin
— Anne Delong ( talk) 21:02, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I was editing the page for the Tenascin C protein, and I noticed that Tenascin C is currently listed in the fibrous proteins template, when it is actually a conjugated protein. I'm fairly certain Tnc plays no structural roles like a fibrous protein, but I'll make a lit search to be sure. In the event that it doesn't, I don't know how to remove it from the template. Also, Tnc might be an article to consider making a part of the Molecular and Cellular Biology wikiproject. (I'm not sure what that process is.) Serotonick ( talk) 05:44, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
There is a discussion about the vitamin U article, which used to be a redirect to S-methylmethionine. So far 3 reliable secondary sources describe vitamin U as a synonym of this single chemical, or alternatively Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride. I feel the editor created the new stand alone vitamin U page with mostly primary sources, to state that it is not the above, but a term that refers to several chemicals. Primary sources are being used to over-ride mainstream definitions found in secondary sources. The article has already been nominated for merging back to Methylmethionine sulfonium chloride and tagged with notability issues. A previous consensus of 3 vs 1 (mainly using WP:COMMONNAME as an argument) failed to merge the page. I feel that this article has WP:OR, WP:COI, WP:CHERRY issues and needs attention. I have requested that the editor remove the primary sources and provide reliable secondary sources to support the content they have created, and so far this has not happened. Comments requested here please, thanks Lesion ( talk) 15:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
AfC: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/GeneTalk. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Crocodillin has been nominated for deletion -- 65.94.76.126 ( talk) 07:00, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right WikiProject, but what the hell. We need an article about dopaquinone (also known as dopamine-quinone), a precursor of melanin. I could create a two-sentence stub, but I'm helpless with chemistry and wouldn't be able to do an infobox or any of the other standard stuff. Looie496 ( talk) 14:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi there, I was trying recently to clean up mess in my home wiki (czech) in articles about electrophoresis (but don't worry, I made some edits here as well in the process). So I came here for inspiration how to organize such articles, however local ones have similar problems with duplicity and redundancy. I would like to ask if there is any consensus how to organize such articles. My main issue (in both wikipedias) is (in three permutations):
Thanks, -- Faskal ( talk) 16:55, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
I would like to thank both of you for response. I would argue that sections "Gel conditions", "Buffers", and "Visualization" are relevant for both articles. Well, definitely, they should be there, but current content is: gel condition: variations of SDS-PAGE, but not a word about agarose gel electrophoresis or other types of gels; buffer: only discussion about TAE/TBE; visualization is currently only about EtBr. This is my main problem - it is clearly conglomerate of two articles and it is not clear which section corresponds to general topic and which to special features of subtypes. Reader without knowledge about this topic will be probably unable to recognize what is common for gel electrophoresis and what is some specificity.
My original question was if it is better to expand the general article and link it from most articles that mention some kind of electrophoresis or to truncate general article, keep only really general stuff and put specific information to specific articles (lets say into agarose gel electrophoresis and/or gel electrophoresis of NA/proteins). Gel electrophoresis of nucleic acids could serve as general article for different topics about analysis of nucleic acids and genetic engineering (sequencing, isolation from gel,...) Gel electrophoresis can be more physical. As you can see, I respect your decision about merging and I don't plan any guerilla edits and revert wars, I just think there is really big opportunity to improve en.wiki. I think that Sheehan's Physical biochemistry [1] has quite nice outline:
Sorry for long post, but I thing that current state of articles about electrophoresis is not clear enough for high-school-class-level-reader and above is my suggestion how to improve them. I would be glad to help.-- Faskal ( talk) 08:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
..in that the structure is really of a fragment of the protein bound to another larger protein (usually an antibody). Tau protein is an example. This appears to be particularly a problem for intinsicaly disordered proteins and other hard to crystallize proteins. Are the strucures currently added by bots or humans? If by bots can some protein boxes be locked? -- Biophysik ( talk) 20:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please could someone have a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Skin immunity. Not really sure what to make of this one. By my reasoning it needs merging into an existing article, if anything? But not sure if Skin is appropriate. Anybody got any suggestions? Pol430 talk to me 15:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
File:C1orf123 Protein Predicted Secondary Structure.png has been nominated for deletion. -- 65.94.79.6 ( talk) 02:29, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History#Guidelines desperately needed. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 13:38, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
I stumbled on (RS)-1-benzyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline N-methyltransferase, and found it lacking in the basic introductory and non-specialist context required by WP:ARTICLE and WP:NOTJOURNAL. I then sampled a dozen articles in its category, and they all seem to have that problem. They are written in a style that gives the impression that they are machine-generated. The article history suggests that's a possibility.
As the article stands right now, I think it violates the WP:NOTJOURNAL policy, and should undergo the WP:PROD process on that basis.
And then I read this on your wikiproject page:
It says "providing an entry point"—that makes me wonder if your project members see (RS)-1-benzyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline N-methyltransferase as a page that belongs in Wikipedia as a stub, but not an article stub. Wikipedia has lists, it has disambig pages, it has other kinds of pages that don't qualify as articles. Perhaps (RS)-1-benzyl-1,2,3,4-tetrahydroisoquinoline N-methyltransferase is one of these non-article pages, and shouldn't be held to article standards of WP:GNG. Perhaps the most trivial of enzymes is by definition notable, so even if the average lay person's eye would glaze over trying to make sense of the description, an encyclopedic goal is served by having such pages.
If so, to avoid WP:NOTJOURNAL policy challenges to a bunch of pages in your domain of interest, I am wondering if what is really needed is acknowledgement that "entry points" are a legitimate type of page. They could be flagged with a template of some sort, perhaps at the bottom:
or perhaps at the top:
This is an entry point to biological data on enzymes that is available in databases and journal articles. |
Thanks in advance. 72.244.204.201 ( talk) 23:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
File:Tertiary structure 2.PNG has been nominated for deletion -- 76.65.128.222 ( talk) 04:51, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
I have been involved in a content dispute involving human genome over how to describe what the term represents. Additional eyes would be helpful. Agricolae ( talk) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I have updated Missing topics about Metabolism - Skysmith ( talk) 11:05, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
image:Phosphoribosylanthranilate isomerase Structure.png has been nominated for deletion -- 65.92.181.39 ( talk) 04:10, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
If you have ideas or suggestions as to which data NCBI should make available about traffic they get from Wikimedia servers, please list them here. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 21:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello biochemists! This article which has been submitted at Afc may be of interest. Would anyone like to review it? — Anne Delong ( talk) 09:22, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
Cytoplasmic streaming recently had an anon completely rewrite it. I merged their version with that which preceded it as best I could, but it's now a mess. Sorry about that. See ya! Josh Parris 11:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
Could I have some more eyes over at FNDC5? It's quite a controversial protein, given that it was reported last year to produce a peptide hormone that turns white fat into brown fat and there is some debate around whether this is really true in humans. I rewrote it a few days ago, but it looks as if scientists from either side of the debate are editing it, so more neutral eyes would be very helpful. I'm not sure how to balance the sides at the moment, but considering WP:MEDRS, I would prefer to be overly cautious. Cheers SmartSE ( talk) 12:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
This new article contains a few instances of close paraphrasing from http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/other/crystalinks/stemcells.html Duplication Detector Report. It is not so prevalent as to constitute a copyright violation, but this needs to be addressed. The article should also be checked to ensure there are no further instances of close paraphrasing/copying from other texts listed in the references.
The title capitalisation also needs to be changed. However, Pluripotent stem cell currently exists as a redirect to Cell potency#Pluripotency and needs an admin to move it over the redirect. Not being a specialist in this area, I am unclear as to whether this should exist as a separate article or should be merged into Cell potency#Pluripotency. - Voceditenore ( talk) 11:16, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
I have been trying to normalize the naming of Epstein–Barr virus related pages on Wikipedia: Talk:Epstein–Barr virus. Any input would be greatly appreciated. Thank you! Walternmoss ( talk) 12:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Seems to be important enough to even be stubbed (mentioned in [3]), but Wikipedia doesn't seem to have anything significantly related, at least as far as the non-expert (me) can tell. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
[4] An editor has been averaging the Ki values found at http://pdsp.med.unc.edu/pdsp.php
I've asked the editor to explain but his/her answer is out of my depth. Do we have anyone who can review these edits and the calculations the editor did to arrive at these values, anyone with biochemistry expertise who can check for WP:OR, WP:NPOV, etc.? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 11:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed that a source published by Nova Science Publishers that is not peer reviewed is used in many important articles relevant to this WikiProject (cell, bacteria etc.) From the articles I have checked, the source has been added by Bernstein0275 ( talk · contribs) who it would appear is the author of the source. They have added other seemingly good content by other authors to articles as well, but I'm concerned that they are propagating a fringe view that may not be accepted by other academics. There is also the potential that they are using Wikipedia to promote their own work, although I will assume good faith for now. Could someone with more expertise take a look at the content? Unless there is a strong reason not to, I would suggest that we remove the references and any material cited to it. SmartSE ( talk) 15:47, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
A few of us have been OA-ing for two sections of a molecular biology class, and they are almost over. We'd like to do some final reviews of the students' articles this weekend, after which the students will have one more week to complete their edits. (The final day is December 12). If anyone here could help out with that, it would be appreciated. Any feedback/advice you can give would be helpful. The criteria we've given the students to use to review each other are listed here. If you feel up to it, it's good to check for plagiarism or too-close paraphrasing.
The list of articles is here. I know it's short notice, but even if you can only do one article, and only cursorily, it would be a big help.
Thanks! Klortho ( talk) 04:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
The link on the portal's main page includes the sentence:
'Please also see our discussion about how to standardize the depiction of proteins.'
It simply links to the proposals section of the wikiproject which isn't really the relevant page. Perhaps it would be better to link directly to here, the diagram guide page?
Additionally, that diagram guide page needs to make some sort of definitive comment on how to represent protein structures which is discussed here (original discussion in this page's archives), here (a vote on which rendering program to use) and here (discussion on digaram guide's talk page) but without firm conclusions. Shall we try to distil a final set up recommendations out of the discussion? I'm happy to help, but I feel that more experienced editors and admins may be better suited. T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 00:44, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
#hide repeated chains in crystal as cartoon set cartoon_color, white bg white set ray_trace_mode, 1 set antialias, 2 ray
A request for comment has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog ( talk) 19:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I would like to propose the following article mergers:
Each of these pairs of articles cover the exact same gene/protein, just under a different name. MT-XXX is the abbreviation most commonly used when discussing the gene in humans, but the MT-XXX articles do not seem limited to human contexts, nor should they be, IMO. I would prefer that the articles live at the "Cytochrome c oxidase subunit X" titles as these are more descriptive and more commonly used overall (especially outside of medical lit). Kaldari ( talk) 17:24, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Since MEROPS is the dominant repository for protease classification and information, is there a way that the enzyme infobox could be updated to include a link to the MEROPS page for each enzyme? I don't have the technical know-how to go about it. Any strong opinions? T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 16:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
Hi, I'm hoping someone here can assist me in getting an article into wikipedia.
The article is here: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Identifiers.org
Over the past year or so, this article has been rejected 4 times, and I am becoming increasingly frustrated.
The first rejection was due to providing 'insufficient context'. I addressed this by significantly expanding the section on URI schemes.
The second rejection then stated that 'the subject of this article already exists', referring to it being a URI scheme! I commented that there were already articles on other URI schemes, and hence did not accept this as a valid criticism. (Words to that effect anyway).
The next rejection suggested we 'improve the submission's referencing', which I responded to by adding more references, and resubmitting.
The final rejection (to date), states that 'All of the references provided for this subject have been produced by closely connected authors'.
I could add some more references, for example to articles written by us in book chapters, or to conference proceedings, but again these are authored by us.
Any help would be gratefully received!
Nsjuty ( talk) 13:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)