Talk:Swiss-model
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | |
 | This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance). | |
Suggested improvements for article
This article is a good start but could be improved in a number of ways:
- This article would benefit from being split into sections.
- The article would benefit from including an image of a protein structure model and perhaps a screen grab of the software or its results.
- The article could be improve with more wikilinks to related articles in Wikipedia.
I hope these comments are useful. Alexbateman (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
This picture from
Wikimedia commons might be useful to illustrate this article.Alexbateman (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
]
Title to SWISS-MODEL?
Seems like we should call it SWISS-MODEL, all caps, as that is how the server is usually referred to. -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Requested move 4 October 2021
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Editors don't agree how Wikipedia capitalization rules apply to this article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Swiss-model → SWISS-MODEL – Proper name (used in article text and all sources) and per talk request · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- This is a contested technical request (permalink). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose - Not an acronym, therefore not eligible for all caps. Primergrey (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- While I'm also a fan of WP:COMMONNAME, and all sources I've seen use this capitalized spelling. 162 etc. (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)]
- COMMOMNAME doesn't cover issues of style. Primergrey (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Correct. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)
- COMMOMNAME doesn't cover issues of style. Primergrey (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- While I'm also a fan of
- @SUM1, Primergrey, and 162 etc.: Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support per nom. WP:SMALLDETAILS. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)]
- SMALLDETAILS is for distinguishing similarly-named topics. Primergrey (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose not an acronym just SHOUTING no thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Comment: I should point out that when I first saw this article result, I was uncertain as to whether I'd even be navigating to the right page, because SWISS-MODEL only ever appears in all caps, on the website itself and in all the medical sources that reference it. It's not like a case of The Times or Zara, where it only appears in caps in the logo, and publications or the website refer to it in sentence case. "Swiss-model" literally isn't a thing, anywhere. Wikipedia would be establishing precedent with it. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
- Support: I'm usually an advocate for lower case based on MOS:ALLCAPS and a dislike of shouting, but in this case sources capitalize "SWISS-MODEL" overwhelmingly. When searching for]
"Swiss-model" homology modeling, the first three pages of Google Scholar results favor all caps 40:3 and the regular Google Search is 36:2, where one of the two is this article. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 01:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC) - Oppose – WP's style manual is clearly against this kind of style hackery. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
- Oppose per MOS:TITLES. And fix the text in the article. It's okay to add "(often stylized SWISS-MODEL)" to the lead. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.