![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm helping to run an Education program course for Molecular Biology this coming semester, two sections: section 81 and section 82. We've done this for the past three semesters, and now it's starting to look like we're running out of articles! I have our tentative lists up here, User:Klortho/Articles. If anyone has a chance, could you help us find more good candidates? The best would be top or high importance stubs. But I think that the article ratings from this group are pretty out-of-date. You can either edit the list in-place, or make suggestions on the talk page there. Thanks! Klortho ( talk) 13:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In a deletion discussion at the Dutch Wikipedia, I stated that an existing article invites improving, much more than a non-existent article invites creation adding that statistics show the truth of this statement. Naturally, people required me to come up with the facts, but I am unable to find the statement I remember to have read.
If I am true, the statement was not in Wikipedia itself, but in a more or less scientific article defending the creation of large numbers of bot stubs about genes, perhaps by someone who was involved in creating the bot articles. All of this has happened a few years ago. Can anyone remember or find this article or stats about improvement in Wikipedia texts? Regards, Bertux ( talk) Bertux ( talk) 06:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Please add
Wikipedia:WikiProject Transporter Classification Database to "Similar WikiProjects".
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Could any of you have a look at this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A story from the LA Times speculates that a pathogen is the likely cause of star fish dying. Is this of interest to this wikiproject?
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TcdA1. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone from this project should copyedit CYP1A2. See Talk. Thanks, Hordaland ( talk) 08:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
ATP:Cobalamin adenosyltransferase could use some attention from people who frequently edit such articles (which I do not). I imagine it could be expanded greatly with info from RSs. Jinkinson talk to me 02:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! A class ( course page here) at Louisiana State University about Prokaryotic diversity will be editing Wikipedia this semester. The professor has used Wikipedia as a teaching tool before, and the students at LSU tend to do pretty great work with the help of their Ambassador Becky. In the last few classes, the students have hoped for more interaction with experienced editors. Since those of you in this WikiProject are likely interested in the articles they'll edit, I wanted to reach out to see if anyone is interested in communicating with these new users during their Wikipedia assignment.
Even if you're only interested in participating very informally, it would be great to have editors who are familiar with the topics comment on the work they're doing! One of the great features of the course page is that you can even use this link to see a feed of their edits, which I find extremely useful for providing good feedback. You can also now leave messages on the talk page of the course, which will notify all students in the class. So if you happen to see a trend about references they're using, have suggestions for topics to edit, etc., that's a great way to reach them. Please let me and Becky know if you're interested in working with them this semester, either by notifying us on a talk page, sending me an email, or pinging us back here! Thanks so much, Jami (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a recent article about a U.S. Navy aircraft squadron called VP-16, which at this moment is named VP-16 (U.S. Navy). It is one of about 20 articles on squadrons named "VP-nn", and the only one that isn't named just "VP-nn". I would love to be able to rename the Navy article as plain "VP-16", and include in it a disambiguation link to Herpes simplex virus protein vmw65. Right now, VP16 is a disambiguation link to that article, which currently has no disambiguation link to VP-16 (U.S. Navy). I think that doing it in the suggested way would be what's best for all concerned, but I don't know if the Herpes simplex virus protein vmw65 people would agree. Who has any ideas? Lou Sander ( talk) 14:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intrinsically Disordered Protein (IDP) and help guide the writer. The topic seems notable (to this "high school biology only" AfC reviewer) but clearly the draft is nowhere near being an article yet. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intrinsically Disordered Protein (IDP) page reminded me that I've seen a few articles with lists or important labs at the end. Although they do seem useful, particularly for people looking to contact key members of a field, I worry that which labs make the cut as 'important' is very up to the discretion of the writer since no source of authority on which labs are the key players can be cited. Do we reckon that these sections are fine, or should they basically be included as the authors of references through the article? T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors.
— Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_sources
User:Kevincdick/sandbox. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Beta-Hydroxybutyric acid is described as being a ketone body both in the main article and various others discussing ketosis and ketoacidosis. Thing is, it's not a ketone in a chemical sense. I edit chemistry pages and would normally just start correcting all this, but sometimes biochemist have their own terms for things, so I though I'd raise the point here before I did anything. Project Osprey ( talk) 10:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TargetScan and help guide the writer. The topic is mentioned several places in Wikipedia, but the writer of this article is not an experienced member of the Wikipedia community. Since submission, external links have been removed from the body of the text. Much more information is contained, of course, in the references, and the writer would appreciate any recommendations about further content guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.4.1.141 ( talk) 19:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter ( WP:Permalink): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 02:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#endorphin and beta-endorphin for details. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there an evaluation process to change a gene article from stub to a different category? I have edited this article and it is no longer a stub. Please let me know if there is anything I can do on my part to reclassify this article. Rraju2 ( talk) 15:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am a new editor on Wikipedia and working on a gene page for a class. Many of the sources we found are primary sources but are cited as secondary sources in the introduction of other papers. There are not many secondary source review articles available. What would be the appropriate way to reference this material? Rraju2 ( talk) 15:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This needs some work on it, in that it promotes the incorrect concept that alloenzymes are by definition highly conserved. Lavateraguy ( talk) 13:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Should this be merged with Aequorin? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft:XB130 (gene). FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft:TANGO6: Transmembrane and Golgi Organization 6. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps someone would look at the "High-importance" article Circadian clock. On the Talk page it says:
It may have been a stub once, but it now appears to be well-developed. -- Hordaland ( talk) 01:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Q8N5Q1. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Partition system. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
13:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I remember using PDB ID templates before to link to specific structures, i.e. PDB: 1dan. I'd like to start building links to sequences in ENA/GCA/etc. is there a page within MCB that lists all the different recommended 'identifier' templates?
Many thanks, -- Dan Bolser ( talk) 12:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is my first attempt at an
ENA linking template (based on the
RefSeq linking template, e.g. {{
ENA|FN595246}}
. This lets you link to anything in ENA, including GCAs, for example. i.e. {{
ENA|GCA_000003745}}
. Should we also create an
INSDC template to link to
NCBI,
ENA and
DDBJ? Also, any value in making explicit templates for sample, gca, etc.? --
Dan Bolser (
talk)
11:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW, seems the Template:NCBI should be moved to Template:NCBI Taxonomy (or similar). Should I be bold? -- Dan Bolser ( talk) 11:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Family with Sequence Similarity 163 Member B. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not a biochemist. I looked up cellulase and found a previous version of the article that began this way:
Cellulase ( EC 3.2.1.4, endo-1,4-beta-D-glucanase, beta-1,4-glucanase, beta-1,4-endoglucan hydrolase, celluase A, cellulosin AP, endoglucanase D, alkali cellulase, cellulase A 3, celludextrinase, 9.5 cellulase, avicelase, pancellase SS, 1,4-(1,3, 1,4)-beta-D-glucan 4-glucanohydrolase) refers to a suite of enzymes produced chiefly by fungi, bacteria, and protozoans that catalyze cellulolysis (i.e. the hydrolysis of cellulose). However, there are also ...
Reaction: ...
I saw several problems with this text:
Some of these same problems were present in the article Glucan 1,4-beta-glucosidase, presumably they occur in many other articles. I tried to improve the cellulase article, but I am unable to sort out the list of "synonyms"; it would require some specialized help. Thanks... -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 20:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Nagalase previously linked to the Alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase article, which contained substantial amounts of uncited material, and what appeared to be a three-paragraph copyvio from an abstract. Given the recent controversy regarding nagalase research (for example, this article retraction, we should be very careful about ensuring all statements on this subject are both adequately cited, and that a retraction search has been performed on the cited papers. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The addiction diagram; collapsed by Seppi333
| |
---|---|
References
|
I'm still undecided on whether or not to use this image outside
ΔFosB, but if anyone has any feedback - technical, cosmetic or otherwise - for improving this, I'd appreciate it. This is probably the most apt wikiproject to ask for technical feedback, so chime in if you have any.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
06:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I nominated two technical diagrams (
the signaling cascade involved in psychostimulant addiction and
amphetamine pharmacodynamics in dopamine neurons) for featured picture.
I spent about 30 hours making the ΔFosB diagram alone, so I'd really appreciate it if anyone is willing to contribute an image review!
Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Cross-posting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Anybody_reviewing_Medgirl131.27s_edits.3F FYA. Thanks. Samsara ( FA • FP) 10:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I came across a draft today about Cytokine-induced killer cells, but I was unsure of whether it was notable enough to have its own topic or should be added as a section in the Lymphocyte article (or something related). Thoughts on how to proceed would be much appreciated. Thanks! Primefac ( talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyone here who could bring Morphogen up to date? It has been flagged for years as poorly cited, and is clearly far out of date in a changing field. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Parahuman#Requested move. Isn't this article relevant to this project? Dougweller ( talk) 10:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Input requested at Talk:Serotonin N-acetyltransferase. Dekimasu よ! 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been hoping to expand some articles under this project, but I have no idea what you'd write. There are a million variations on enzymes. Is there anything fun to say? Or at least expand on? What would you write? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 18:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The article energy systems is proposed to be renamed, for the discussion, see talk:energy systems ; it appears to be an ATP metabolism article
-- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 06:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, Quick question from someone with little experience editing protein pages. As we're all aware gene names and protein names can differ. In glancing at some pages about proteins, I've been a little curious about the fact that the titles for those pages appear to be gene names (see POLR2A, ABO (gene)). This strikes me as confusing. Is there an accepted practice/policy for dealing with this? NickCT ( talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As a student with a biotechnology certificate, it seems to me that articles on specific molecules should include space-filling models as the primary diagram for the top of the article page. I'm sure this has been discussed at some point, so if someone could point me toward that discussion, I would be interested in joining. Thanks for any guidance or consideration this has required on your part.
Regards,
Rrossmith ( talk) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)rrossmith
I guess I agree. The largest difficulty with the space-filling model would be to choose it's most suitable viewing angle. Without a system to view it from multiple angles, or zooming capacity, that seems difficult. I still have difficulty seeing the value of the ribbon diagrams, but maybe that's just where I am with my knowledge. Thanks for the response!
Rrossmith ( talk) 18:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Rrossmith
I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics. Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick post to both WP:MCB and WP:Chem. There are duplicate stub pages for substrate and product. Since in each case one copy just repeats the other I propose that they're merged into substrate_(chemistry) and product_(chemistry) with the biochem-specific parts just as a section.
Any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 09:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
For reference, I've performed the merge and expanded the articles a bit. Anyone interested in further improving them would be very welcome! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, here's a link to the category talk page, all the best, -- Ghilt ( talk) 10:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Enzyme for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Jarodalien ( talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
To me, a 'lay' reader, the subject (a broad solution to the protein folding problem) seems to be a fringe view, hardly discussed by any sources but its originator, who, coincidentally, seems to have written the Wikipedia article as well (technically a copyvio of his own journal article).
I am prodding it for now; if anyone with knowledge of the subject (or otherwise) disagrees, please de-prod.
הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 17:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Chromatophore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm editing the epsin article for a class and would like to add an info box. Can someone help me with this? I have the crystal structure downloaded on my computer, but have not yet uploaded to WP. Lnbond92 ( talk) 17:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Protein infobox template to copy-paste in
|
---|
{{Infobox protein | name = | image = | width = | caption = | Symbol = | AltSymbols = | IUPHAR_id = | ATC_prefix = | ATC_suffix = | ATC_supplemental = | CAS_number = | CAS_supplemental = | DrugBank = | EntrezGene = | HGNCid = | OMIM = | PDB = | RefSeq = | UniProt = | ECnumber = | Chromosome = | Arm = | Band = | LocusSupplementaryData = }} |
If anyone has an interest in interactive annotated images, I've made a post on WP:IUP to discuss when wikilinked image annotation is appropriate. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 02:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, biochemists. This old AfC submission appears to be related to this project. It will shortly be deleted because it is unsourced and abandoned. Last chance for someone to take an interest in it.— Anne Delong ( talk) 14:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been currently working on a revision of the peptidase 1 (mite) page in my sandbox, since I noticed that this article was heavily lacking in information. I left a message on the article's talk page, but because the said talk page seems to be completely dead, I figured that I'd also post this message to this project's talk page since that article is part of this project. It's still a work-in-progress (I'd like to include more info on Der f 1's function in promoting allergic immune responses, and I still have general clean-up of links, citation order, redundancies, etc. reserved for the end), though I hope to have it finished by tomorrow afternoon (EST). If anyone has any suggestions for improvement, please let me know - I'd appreciate the help! -- PeabodySam ( talk) 19:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please could someone with knowledge in biology/proteins look at this draft article- due to my lack of subject knowledge, I cannot determine if it's notable enough for Wikipedia or not. Joseph2302 ( talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you reckon Extrinsic pathway could use a disambiguation page? It's too vague a term in my opinion. Let me know your thoughts and ping me if possible. It came to my attention when reading Prothrombin time and noticing the wikilinks in the lede had nothing to do with coagulation. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, biochemists. I found this old draft, but I am not sure if this the correct venue to report it. Is this a notable topic? Are the references appropriate?— Anne Delong ( talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject MCB,
The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.
If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.
In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). Whereas our classroom program, as with many other extra-organizational initiatives, is premised on attracting and/or training new users, my aim is to figure out the sorts of things we can do to help the editors who are already engaged in the improvement of science content. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though, again, this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more biology-related articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?
These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.
I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning it is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.
Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 04:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)
Category renaming proposed at here. About 25 categories included in this category, renaming from, for example, Category:Genes on chromosome 1 → Category:Genes on human chromosome 1 is proposed (adding "human" to category name). Although I think there are no need to explain the reason of renaming to the members of this project, chromosome number which contains certain gene varies in species-to-species. So we need to specify species. -- Was a bee ( talk) 17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Members of this project are invited to comment. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
As the Gene article is about to be GA reviewed, it might be useful to check that there is consensus on the definitions ( Talk:Gene#Definitions). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
What do people think of a bit of a refresh of the WP:MCB page? We have a lot of subpages that have been inactive for a long time and it might be worthwhile consolidating into fewer pages (so that the project isn't as labyrinthine). For example, both the project and talk pages prominently display a link to the defunct Collaboration of the month page. We could put together a page more focussed on the active project areas (like this talk page). What do people think? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 11:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So currently I plan to:
Long term possibilities:
Anyone is welcome to help out. I'm relatively new to extensive use of templates and I've no idea about bots. I'll also try to keep an eye on the tools and design ideas that Wikiproject X is developing. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the cleanup. The participants list was recently edited to remove inactive editors and few new editors have been added in 2015. Hence I think this list should still be considered active. I agree that it is appropriate to retire the rest of the pages in the WP:MCB/Historical list. Boghog ( talk) 06:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
<noinclude>
to encompass the warning header.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)
talk
02:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)I've finished updating the Alerts and Statistics section ( WP:MCB/S) to contain the relevant automatically-updated information. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 08:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm hoping to nominate Catalytic triad to be reviewed for GA status soon. It's currently quite protease-heavy. If anyone has knowledge of examples from non-protease catalytic triads, it could help make sure the article is more thorough. Thanks in advance for any help! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 12:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For those interested, there was an interview in the Signpost
about this wikiproject recently.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)
talk
11:32, 29 June 2015 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm helping to run an Education program course for Molecular Biology this coming semester, two sections: section 81 and section 82. We've done this for the past three semesters, and now it's starting to look like we're running out of articles! I have our tentative lists up here, User:Klortho/Articles. If anyone has a chance, could you help us find more good candidates? The best would be top or high importance stubs. But I think that the article ratings from this group are pretty out-of-date. You can either edit the list in-place, or make suggestions on the talk page there. Thanks! Klortho ( talk) 13:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
In a deletion discussion at the Dutch Wikipedia, I stated that an existing article invites improving, much more than a non-existent article invites creation adding that statistics show the truth of this statement. Naturally, people required me to come up with the facts, but I am unable to find the statement I remember to have read.
If I am true, the statement was not in Wikipedia itself, but in a more or less scientific article defending the creation of large numbers of bot stubs about genes, perhaps by someone who was involved in creating the bot articles. All of this has happened a few years ago. Can anyone remember or find this article or stats about improvement in Wikipedia texts? Regards, Bertux ( talk) Bertux ( talk) 06:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Please add
Wikipedia:WikiProject Transporter Classification Database to "Similar WikiProjects".
—
Wavelength (
talk)
17:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Could any of you have a look at this submission? Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 14:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
A story from the LA Times speculates that a pathogen is the likely cause of star fish dying. Is this of interest to this wikiproject?
X Ottawahitech ( talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).
Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.
If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot ( talk) (for Mr. Z-man) 05:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
As Wikipedian in Residence at the Royal Society, the National Academy for the sciences of the UK, I am pleased to say that the two Royal Society History of Science journals will be fully accessible for free for 2 days on March 4th and 5th. This is in conjunction with the Women in Science Edit-a-thon on 4 March, slightly in advance of International Women's Day, on Saturday March 8th. The event is held by the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering, and is fully booked, but online participation is very welcome, and suggestions for articles relevant to the theme of "Women in Science" that need work, and topics that need coverage.
The journals will have full and free online access to all from 1am (GMT/UTC) on 4th March 2014 until 11pm (GMT/UTC) on 5th March 2014. Normally they are only free online for issues between 1 and 10 years old. They are:
The RS position is a "pilot" excercise, running between January and early July 2014. Please let me know on my talk page or the project page if you want to get involved or have suggestions. There will be further public events, as well as many for the RS's diverse audiences in the scientific community; these will be advertised first to the RS's emailing lists and Twitter feeds.
I am keen to get feedback on my personal Conflict of Interest statement for the position, and want to work out a general one for Royal Society staff in consultation with the community. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 12:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TcdA1. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 12:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Someone from this project should copyedit CYP1A2. See Talk. Thanks, Hordaland ( talk) 08:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
ATP:Cobalamin adenosyltransferase could use some attention from people who frequently edit such articles (which I do not). I imagine it could be expanded greatly with info from RSs. Jinkinson talk to me 02:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi! A class ( course page here) at Louisiana State University about Prokaryotic diversity will be editing Wikipedia this semester. The professor has used Wikipedia as a teaching tool before, and the students at LSU tend to do pretty great work with the help of their Ambassador Becky. In the last few classes, the students have hoped for more interaction with experienced editors. Since those of you in this WikiProject are likely interested in the articles they'll edit, I wanted to reach out to see if anyone is interested in communicating with these new users during their Wikipedia assignment.
Even if you're only interested in participating very informally, it would be great to have editors who are familiar with the topics comment on the work they're doing! One of the great features of the course page is that you can even use this link to see a feed of their edits, which I find extremely useful for providing good feedback. You can also now leave messages on the talk page of the course, which will notify all students in the class. So if you happen to see a trend about references they're using, have suggestions for topics to edit, etc., that's a great way to reach them. Please let me and Becky know if you're interested in working with them this semester, either by notifying us on a talk page, sending me an email, or pinging us back here! Thanks so much, Jami (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 19:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
There is a recent article about a U.S. Navy aircraft squadron called VP-16, which at this moment is named VP-16 (U.S. Navy). It is one of about 20 articles on squadrons named "VP-nn", and the only one that isn't named just "VP-nn". I would love to be able to rename the Navy article as plain "VP-16", and include in it a disambiguation link to Herpes simplex virus protein vmw65. Right now, VP16 is a disambiguation link to that article, which currently has no disambiguation link to VP-16 (U.S. Navy). I think that doing it in the suggested way would be what's best for all concerned, but I don't know if the Herpes simplex virus protein vmw65 people would agree. Who has any ideas? Lou Sander ( talk) 14:13, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intrinsically Disordered Protein (IDP) and help guide the writer. The topic seems notable (to this "high school biology only" AfC reviewer) but clearly the draft is nowhere near being an article yet. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 18:50, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Looking at the Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Intrinsically Disordered Protein (IDP) page reminded me that I've seen a few articles with lists or important labs at the end. Although they do seem useful, particularly for people looking to contact key members of a field, I worry that which labs make the cut as 'important' is very up to the discretion of the writer since no source of authority on which labs are the key players can be cited. Do we reckon that these sections are fine, or should they basically be included as the authors of references through the article? T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) ( talk) 22:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors.
— Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_sources
User:Kevincdick/sandbox. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Beta-Hydroxybutyric acid is described as being a ketone body both in the main article and various others discussing ketosis and ketoacidosis. Thing is, it's not a ketone in a chemical sense. I edit chemistry pages and would normally just start correcting all this, but sometimes biochemist have their own terms for things, so I though I'd raise the point here before I did anything. Project Osprey ( talk) 10:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Please take a look at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/TargetScan and help guide the writer. The topic is mentioned several places in Wikipedia, but the writer of this article is not an experienced member of the Wikipedia community. Since submission, external links have been removed from the body of the text. Much more information is contained, of course, in the references, and the writer would appreciate any recommendations about further content guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.4.1.141 ( talk) 19:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter ( WP:Permalink): Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Reverse Transcription Loop-mediated Isothermal Amplification. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:47, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John ( talk) 02:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology#endorphin and beta-endorphin for details. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
Is there an evaluation process to change a gene article from stub to a different category? I have edited this article and it is no longer a stub. Please let me know if there is anything I can do on my part to reclassify this article. Rraju2 ( talk) 15:41, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
I am a new editor on Wikipedia and working on a gene page for a class. Many of the sources we found are primary sources but are cited as secondary sources in the introduction of other papers. There are not many secondary source review articles available. What would be the appropriate way to reference this material? Rraju2 ( talk) 15:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
This needs some work on it, in that it promotes the incorrect concept that alloenzymes are by definition highly conserved. Lavateraguy ( talk) 13:58, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Should this be merged with Aequorin? FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 15:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft:XB130 (gene). FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 19:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Draft:TANGO6: Transmembrane and Golgi Organization 6. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 19:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps someone would look at the "High-importance" article Circadian clock. On the Talk page it says:
It may have been a stub once, but it now appears to be well-developed. -- Hordaland ( talk) 01:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Q8N5Q1. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Partition system. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.
One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.
This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:
• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film
• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.
• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.
• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____
• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost
For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (
talk)
13:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I remember using PDB ID templates before to link to specific structures, i.e. PDB: 1dan. I'd like to start building links to sequences in ENA/GCA/etc. is there a page within MCB that lists all the different recommended 'identifier' templates?
Many thanks, -- Dan Bolser ( talk) 12:03, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Here is my first attempt at an
ENA linking template (based on the
RefSeq linking template, e.g. {{
ENA|FN595246}}
. This lets you link to anything in ENA, including GCAs, for example. i.e. {{
ENA|GCA_000003745}}
. Should we also create an
INSDC template to link to
NCBI,
ENA and
DDBJ? Also, any value in making explicit templates for sample, gca, etc.? --
Dan Bolser (
talk)
11:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
BTW, seems the Template:NCBI should be moved to Template:NCBI Taxonomy (or similar). Should I be bold? -- Dan Bolser ( talk) 11:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Draft:Family with Sequence Similarity 163 Member B. FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I am not a biochemist. I looked up cellulase and found a previous version of the article that began this way:
Cellulase ( EC 3.2.1.4, endo-1,4-beta-D-glucanase, beta-1,4-glucanase, beta-1,4-endoglucan hydrolase, celluase A, cellulosin AP, endoglucanase D, alkali cellulase, cellulase A 3, celludextrinase, 9.5 cellulase, avicelase, pancellase SS, 1,4-(1,3, 1,4)-beta-D-glucan 4-glucanohydrolase) refers to a suite of enzymes produced chiefly by fungi, bacteria, and protozoans that catalyze cellulolysis (i.e. the hydrolysis of cellulose). However, there are also ...
Reaction: ...
I saw several problems with this text:
Some of these same problems were present in the article Glucan 1,4-beta-glucosidase, presumably they occur in many other articles. I tried to improve the cellulase article, but I am unable to sort out the list of "synonyms"; it would require some specialized help. Thanks... -- Jorge Stolfi ( talk) 20:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Nagalase previously linked to the Alpha-N-acetylgalactosaminidase article, which contained substantial amounts of uncited material, and what appeared to be a three-paragraph copyvio from an abstract. Given the recent controversy regarding nagalase research (for example, this article retraction, we should be very careful about ensuring all statements on this subject are both adequately cited, and that a retraction search has been performed on the cited papers. -- The Anome ( talk) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The addiction diagram; collapsed by Seppi333
| |
---|---|
References
|
I'm still undecided on whether or not to use this image outside
ΔFosB, but if anyone has any feedback - technical, cosmetic or otherwise - for improving this, I'd appreciate it. This is probably the most apt wikiproject to ask for technical feedback, so chime in if you have any.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
06:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
I nominated two technical diagrams (
the signaling cascade involved in psychostimulant addiction and
amphetamine pharmacodynamics in dopamine neurons) for featured picture.
I spent about 30 hours making the ΔFosB diagram alone, so I'd really appreciate it if anyone is willing to contribute an image review!
Regards, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 21:28, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Cross-posting Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Anybody_reviewing_Medgirl131.27s_edits.3F FYA. Thanks. Samsara ( FA • FP) 10:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I came across a draft today about Cytokine-induced killer cells, but I was unsure of whether it was notable enough to have its own topic or should be added as a section in the Lymphocyte article (or something related). Thoughts on how to proceed would be much appreciated. Thanks! Primefac ( talk) 19:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej ( talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyone here who could bring Morphogen up to date? It has been flagged for years as poorly cited, and is clearly far out of date in a changing field. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
See Talk:Parahuman#Requested move. Isn't this article relevant to this project? Dougweller ( talk) 10:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Input requested at Talk:Serotonin N-acetyltransferase. Dekimasu よ! 00:10, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
I've been hoping to expand some articles under this project, but I have no idea what you'd write. There are a million variations on enzymes. Is there anything fun to say? Or at least expand on? What would you write? Panyd The muffin is not subtle 18:28, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
The article energy systems is proposed to be renamed, for the discussion, see talk:energy systems ; it appears to be an ATP metabolism article
-- 67.70.35.44 ( talk) 06:22, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen ( talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey all, Quick question from someone with little experience editing protein pages. As we're all aware gene names and protein names can differ. In glancing at some pages about proteins, I've been a little curious about the fact that the titles for those pages appear to be gene names (see POLR2A, ABO (gene)). This strikes me as confusing. Is there an accepted practice/policy for dealing with this? NickCT ( talk) 18:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
As a student with a biotechnology certificate, it seems to me that articles on specific molecules should include space-filling models as the primary diagram for the top of the article page. I'm sure this has been discussed at some point, so if someone could point me toward that discussion, I would be interested in joining. Thanks for any guidance or consideration this has required on your part.
Regards,
Rrossmith ( talk) 16:50, 13 December 2014 (UTC)rrossmith
I guess I agree. The largest difficulty with the space-filling model would be to choose it's most suitable viewing angle. Without a system to view it from multiple angles, or zooming capacity, that seems difficult. I still have difficulty seeing the value of the ribbon diagrams, but maybe that's just where I am with my knowledge. Thanks for the response!
Rrossmith ( talk) 18:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Rrossmith
I am pleased to announce, as Wikimedian in Residence at the Royal Society of Chemistry, the donation of 100 "RSC Gold" accounts, for use by Wikipedia editors wishing to use RSC journal content to expand articles on chemistry-related topics. Please visit Wikipedia:RSC Gold for details, to check your eligibility, and to request an account. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Just a quick post to both WP:MCB and WP:Chem. There are duplicate stub pages for substrate and product. Since in each case one copy just repeats the other I propose that they're merged into substrate_(chemistry) and product_(chemistry) with the biochem-specific parts just as a section.
Any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 09:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
For reference, I've performed the merge and expanded the articles a bit. Anyone interested in further improving them would be very welcome! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, here's a link to the category talk page, all the best, -- Ghilt ( talk) 10:08, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Enzyme for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.-- Jarodalien ( talk) 07:02, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
To me, a 'lay' reader, the subject (a broad solution to the protein folding problem) seems to be a fringe view, hardly discussed by any sources but its originator, who, coincidentally, seems to have written the Wikipedia article as well (technically a copyvio of his own journal article).
I am prodding it for now; if anyone with knowledge of the subject (or otherwise) disagrees, please de-prod.
הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 17:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
I have nominated Chromatophore for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 18:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm editing the epsin article for a class and would like to add an info box. Can someone help me with this? I have the crystal structure downloaded on my computer, but have not yet uploaded to WP. Lnbond92 ( talk) 17:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Protein infobox template to copy-paste in
|
---|
{{Infobox protein | name = | image = | width = | caption = | Symbol = | AltSymbols = | IUPHAR_id = | ATC_prefix = | ATC_suffix = | ATC_supplemental = | CAS_number = | CAS_supplemental = | DrugBank = | EntrezGene = | HGNCid = | OMIM = | PDB = | RefSeq = | UniProt = | ECnumber = | Chromosome = | Arm = | Band = | LocusSupplementaryData = }} |
If anyone has an interest in interactive annotated images, I've made a post on WP:IUP to discuss when wikilinked image annotation is appropriate. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 02:23, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, biochemists. This old AfC submission appears to be related to this project. It will shortly be deleted because it is unsourced and abandoned. Last chance for someone to take an interest in it.— Anne Delong ( talk) 14:35, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
I have been currently working on a revision of the peptidase 1 (mite) page in my sandbox, since I noticed that this article was heavily lacking in information. I left a message on the article's talk page, but because the said talk page seems to be completely dead, I figured that I'd also post this message to this project's talk page since that article is part of this project. It's still a work-in-progress (I'd like to include more info on Der f 1's function in promoting allergic immune responses, and I still have general clean-up of links, citation order, redundancies, etc. reserved for the end), though I hope to have it finished by tomorrow afternoon (EST). If anyone has any suggestions for improvement, please let me know - I'd appreciate the help! -- PeabodySam ( talk) 19:19, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Please could someone with knowledge in biology/proteins look at this draft article- due to my lack of subject knowledge, I cannot determine if it's notable enough for Wikipedia or not. Joseph2302 ( talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Do you reckon Extrinsic pathway could use a disambiguation page? It's too vague a term in my opinion. Let me know your thoughts and ping me if possible. It came to my attention when reading Prothrombin time and noticing the wikilinks in the lede had nothing to do with coagulation. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN ( talk) 21:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, biochemists. I found this old draft, but I am not sure if this the correct venue to report it. Is this a notable topic? Are the references appropriate?— Anne Delong ( talk) 16:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi WikiProject MCB,
The Wiki Education Foundation wants to know what it can do to empower editors who work on science-related content on Wikipedia.
If you're familiar with Wiki Ed, it's likely by way of our classroom program, which grew out of the Wikipedia Education Program and through which we provide support for instructors and students who work on Wikipedia as part of a class assignment. This post is about something different, though. We'll be continuing to develop that program, of course, but we also want to start working on ways to help the existing Wikipedia community directly.
In 2016, Wiki Ed will be running a campaign tentatively titled, "Wikipedia Year of Science". The goal, generally stated, will be to improve the content and coverage of science-related content on Wikipedia ("science" interpreted loosely). Whereas our classroom program, as with many other extra-organizational initiatives, is premised on attracting and/or training new users, my aim is to figure out the sorts of things we can do to help the editors who are already engaged in the improvement of science content. The question is indeed wide open, but think about it this way: we have staff and a lot of institutional connections; how can we use our resources and relationships to support you? For example, is there a special collection of photos we should try to get on Commons? What about a document archive? Databases or specific journals? Organizationally, is there software that could be built that would help people working on these topics? What kinds of research could we conduct or help to organize that would help you to work more effectively? What are ways we can connect you with other human resources -- experts, for example (though, again, this is not intended to be an outreach program)? How could we motivate people to contribute, whether it be adding content, improving content, conducting reviews, adding images, improving sourcing, or any other part of the process? How can we get more biology-related articles to FA/GA? How could we help you to spend more of your time working on things you find fun and interesting and less time on process, organization, and functionary duties?
These questions are really just intended to get the ball rolling as this really is a nascent idea. So all ideas are welcome: big, small, obvious, obscure, ambitious, simple, technical, organizational.... I want to be clear that this is not just some survey -- the feedback I get will help to give shape to the "Year of Science" campaign.
I should also mention that this community engagement program we're starting isn't limited to the Year of Science campaign. Researching and planning it is high on my priority list right now, but we can also talk about shorter- or longer-term projects you may have in mind, too.
Apologies for the long message and thanks for your time. Looking forward to hearing what you think. -- Ryan (Wiki Ed) ( talk) 04:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC) (volunteer account: User:Rhododendrites)
Category renaming proposed at here. About 25 categories included in this category, renaming from, for example, Category:Genes on chromosome 1 → Category:Genes on human chromosome 1 is proposed (adding "human" to category name). Although I think there are no need to explain the reason of renaming to the members of this project, chromosome number which contains certain gene varies in species-to-species. So we need to specify species. -- Was a bee ( talk) 17:27, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Members of this project are invited to comment. -- Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 02:00, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
As the Gene article is about to be GA reviewed, it might be useful to check that there is consensus on the definitions ( Talk:Gene#Definitions). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
What do people think of a bit of a refresh of the WP:MCB page? We have a lot of subpages that have been inactive for a long time and it might be worthwhile consolidating into fewer pages (so that the project isn't as labyrinthine). For example, both the project and talk pages prominently display a link to the defunct Collaboration of the month page. We could put together a page more focussed on the active project areas (like this talk page). What do people think? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 11:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
So currently I plan to:
Long term possibilities:
Anyone is welcome to help out. I'm relatively new to extensive use of templates and I've no idea about bots. I'll also try to keep an eye on the tools and design ideas that Wikiproject X is developing. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 02:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for starting the cleanup. The participants list was recently edited to remove inactive editors and few new editors have been added in 2015. Hence I think this list should still be considered active. I agree that it is appropriate to retire the rest of the pages in the WP:MCB/Historical list. Boghog ( talk) 06:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
<noinclude>
to encompass the warning header.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)
talk
02:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)I've finished updating the Alerts and Statistics section ( WP:MCB/S) to contain the relevant automatically-updated information. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 08:52, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm hoping to nominate Catalytic triad to be reviewed for GA status soon. It's currently quite protease-heavy. If anyone has knowledge of examples from non-protease catalytic triads, it could help make sure the article is more thorough. Thanks in advance for any help! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo) talk 12:24, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
For those interested, there was an interview in the Signpost
about this wikiproject recently.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)
talk
11:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)