Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Archive 5

This is an current talk page .

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 But I think that the article ratings from this group are pretty out-of-date.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,

B.t.w.: As English is not my native language this text will surely not be spotless. Feel free to correct it.

talk

) 06:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI: I left the same message at Talk:WikiProject Human Genetic History

I think you are referring to the

PMID 22075991 contains some statistics about how these stubs have been expanded by human editors. Boghog (talk

) 13:20, 28 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

And

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Niche (protein structural motif). FoCuSandLeArN (talk

) 19:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Imaging Cycler Microscopy
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toponome

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Toponomics. FoCuSandLeArN (talk
  ) 23:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

• http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-something-is-killing-the-starfish-scientists-race-to-find-out-what-20140204,0,6767257.story#axzz2tcNaRjVu

XOttawahitech (talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to

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

• Notes and Records: the Royal Society journal of the history of science
• Biographical Memoirs of the Fellows of the Royal Society

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)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Solution Structure of Bacillus subtilis MinC N-terminal domain. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Someone from this project should copyedit CYP1A2. See Talk. Thanks, Hordaland (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Responded there. Boghog (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I see you have already merged it into

PMID 20677021) which I just added. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 12:46, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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)

Thanks for your note! Prokaryotic Diversity is outside my expertise, but if there are specific questions concerning the molecular biology aspects of the course subject and how to integrate the content added by the students with the rest of Wikipedia (e.g., MCB navboxes, infoboxes, wiki links, etc.), I will try to help out. Boghog (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

There is a recent article about a U.S. Navy aircraft squadron called VP-16, which at this moment is named

Thanks for your note. I was

VP-16 (U.S. Navy) and to Herpes simplex virus protein vmw65. Is this OK? Boghog (talk

) 12:34, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

@Boghog:Well, it's a move in the right direction, but there are still some loose ends. I'm not a disambiguation expert, so I'm operating at a handicap here, while trying to do the right thing. There's a VP-16 page that goes to a page about the drug Etoposide. There is a kind of disambiguation page that handles both forms: VP 16 and VP-16, but I'm not sure what it is or how it works. Also, it seems to me that best for all concerned would be to rename the Navy squadron as simply "VP-16", like every other Navy VP squadron, and include hatnotes disambiguating and linked to the virus and the drug. The rationale for that is that "VP-16" is the squadron's actual name, while VP 16 and VP-16 are just alternative names for the other articles. If a user looking for the virus or the drug entered the alternative names VP 16 or VP-16, they would just have to go to one intermediate page (the renamed Navy squadron page), exactly like they do with a regular disambiguation page. So these folks would be where they are now, while the Navy folks would go directly to their page. Lou Sander (talk) 13:26, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. This is slightly more complicated than I thought. Since "VP-16" is the primary name of the squadron and "VP-16" is a secondary name (synonym) of the Etoposide, I think what you are proposing is reasonable (i.e., rename

VP-16 (U.S. Navy) to VP-16 and add an "other uses" hatnote pointing to the VP16 disambiguation page). We will need to ask an administrator to delete the VP-16 redirect before we can complete the page move. I will make the request. Cheers. Boghog (talk

) 14:22, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Request filed to deleted the redirect to make way for the page move. Boghog (talk) 14:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look at

It is a good question. For any material to be added to an article there has to be verifiability. Is there a reliable source that says these labs are the important ones? If not, then the list can't stand by itself. In other math and science articles I've seen, lists of important people or institutions in a field are displayed as a list of wiki links to their respective articles. This kind of a list is presumed verifiable, as the underlying articles that are linked to should be based on verifiable sources. --Mark viking (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mark that a reliable source should be included with these lists that documents that these labs are important. This is rarely done. In addition, articles should focus on the results of the research, not the researchers:

Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors.
— 

Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Citing_sources

An exception is in the history section where notable discoveries and who made them should be listed. Finally the list of labs that are doing important work in this field is implicit in the citations that should already be included in the article. IMHO, these lists unless documented by a reliable source should not be included. Boghog (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Kevincdick/sandbox. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 15:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter (

I have ran across a diversity in article title names and I thought I would inquire.

• There are articles such as
  ADPRHL2 that includes "is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the ADPRHL2 gene", AFF3 that includes "is a protein that in humans is encoded by the AFF3 gene, AHCTF1 that includes "is a protein that in humans is encoded by the AHCTF1 gene", AIM1 that includes, "is a protein that in humans is encoded by the AIM1 gene" and AADAC
  that includes "is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the AADAC gene".
• Then there are articles such as
  ADC (gene)
  that includes "is an enzyme that in humans is encoded by the ADC gene.

• Then there is ABI gene family member 3 that includes "is a protein that in humans is encoded by the ABI3 gene"

All these articles have in common that they are orphans and I am trying to de-orphan such articles. A protein or an enzyme may or may not include "(gene)" in the article name. It would seem to me that an article concerning a gene would be better listed with "(gene)" in the title. I would appreciate it if someone would take a look at this and let me know. Otr500 (talk) 05:19, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Concerning the lead sentence in

orthologs

that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

• <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human.

Many gene symbols are sufficiently unique that the "(gene)" disambiguation is not required. On the other hand, to having redirects from "<approved HUGO gene symbol> (gene)" makes these articles easier to find. A bot therefore systematically added these redirects (see bot approval).

Concerning article names that contain the disambiguation gene, my suggestion is to rename them to remove the unnecessary disambiguation and leave behind the disambiguated name as redirect. Finally if the corresponding UniProt name is concise, it would probably be better to name the article after the protein name. I know this must sound messy, but unfortunately gene and protein nomenclature is inherently messy and it is impossible to come up with a simple universal rule for naming these articles. Boghog (talk) 11:49, 22 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)

On the article's talk page, you can change class=stub in the template at top of that page into the appropriate class (C-class perhaps? -> class=C). --WS (talk) 17:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Adding to that: there is no formal process for ratings, you can just go ahead and rate them according to your best judgement, except for good and featured articles for which there are formal processes. --WS (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the information! I changed the article from stub to C-class article. Greatly appreciate the help. Rraju2 (talk) 20:52, 9 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)

U

}}) while signing a reply, thx 22:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

That does help, I responded further on the article talk page.Thanks! Rraju2 (talk) 20:59, 9 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

Yes. Apoaeqorin is the

apoenzyme variant of aequorin that lacks its prosthetic group. I will make an attempt to merged the former with the later. Thanks for the heads up. Boghog (talk

) 17:35, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/TANGO6: Transmembrane and Golgi Organization 6. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Draft:TANGO6: Transmembrane and Golgi Organization 6. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• See
  this discussion for plenty more examples. They seem to be part of some university project. Please help with the heavy influx of these submissions. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk
  ) 15:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, none of these gene are notable. Furthermore the drafts contain mostly original research. Therefore all should be rejected. Boghog (talk) 20:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps someone would look at the "High-importance" article Circadian clock. On the Talk page it says:

• This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
• This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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)

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)

I am not sure this is complete, but this link may help: Category:Biology_external_link_templates. Boghog (talk) 19:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks @Boghog:! BTW, did I do that right?

@Dan Bolser: Your welcome. If you want to alert someone to a reply, {{ping|user name}} is a good way to do it. Boghog (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is my first attempt at an

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)

The {{NCBI taxonomy}} template was already taken, so I moved it to {{NCBI taxid}} (note that 'taxid' is the term used by the NCBI in their URLs). The template redirect is working fine. --Dan Bolser (talk) 11:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks good (both the name and the link). I agree that the {{NCBI taxonomy}} template is probably misnamed. In analogy to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, {{NCBI taxonomy}} should probably be renamed to {{NCBI taxonomy disclaimer}} or something similar. The disclaimer itself looks a bit over the top, but I am not a taxonomist. Boghog (talk) 19:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

If you need a template, create it. That is the only justification required. Boghog (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Family with Sequence Similarity 163 Member B. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Non-notable (no sources that are specifically about this gene). Draft contains largely original research. On that basis, the submission should be rejected. Boghog (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this page? --Dan Bolser (talk) 11:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The

draft page is about a human gene with unknown function. The link I provided above is to PubMed citations about this gene. Boghog (talk

) 22:12, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not a biochemist. I looked up cellulase and found a previous version of the article that began this way:

Cellulase (

catalyze cellulolysis (i.e. the hydrolysis of cellulose

). However, there are also ...
Reaction: ...

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)

Point #1: Agreed that in-line link to EC number should not appear in the text.

Point #2: "which surely will not and should not be the division of Wikipedia articles" – You must be kidding. Per

WP:V, Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources. Enzyme Commission number

database is the definitive way of classifying enzymes. There is no question that Wikipedia enzyme articles should mirror this classification system. What alternative classification system would you propose?

Point #3: "indiscriminate list may be appropriate for the EC database, but is not for Wikipedia" – not an indiscriminate list per point #2.

Point #4: "The multi-line list of names within parenthesis breaks the sentence and makes the text completely unreadable" – agreed. This sentence should be split out as a separate nomenclature section and converted into a bulleted list minus the bolding.

Boghog (talk) 21:21, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

First, many nodes in the EC system are clearly classes of enzymes, not individal enzymes. But it would make sense for Wikipedia to have separate articles for certain individual enzymes, since the articles contain more information than the EC pages, and it will often be confusing to write about different enzymes in the same article. The cellulase is an example -- the EC class is a mixed bag of several enzymes and enzyme suites, that should be sorted out in WIkipedia. Conversely, some mid-level nodes in the EC system may not be worth separate articles in Wikipedia. Second, in such a rapidly evolving field any classification scheme will be perpetually inadequate, since changing its classes to reflect scientific progress would be extremely disruptive to users (think of all papers out there that refer to EC numbers). Wikipedia does not have this problem, its articles can be updated, split, merged, and renamed according to the most current knowledge and understanding. Organizing its articles on enzymes by the EC criteria would be as inappropriate as organizing other areas by the Dewey classification used in libraries. Third, the EC system may be an important 'reliable source', and it may be used to generate a starting set of articles; but it is not the ONLY reliable source. There must be thousands of quality articles and books that can be used to legitimize Wikipedia articles that do not correspond to a unique EC class. (The same happens in chemistry, for example: not every substance that readers may look up in Wikipedia and is supported by reliable publications has a number in the Chemical Abstracts database; but this is no excuse for excluding a Wikipedia article on it.) Fourth, the EC classification was defined to be useful for specialists; but Wikipedia is primarily directed to a very different public, for which that classification may hinder more than help.
As for the name list in the EC pages being "indiscriminate", I stand by that claim: that list is obviously a keyword list, placed there so that people who search for any of those "names" will find that page. It is a search trick used in many other scientific databases, e.g. of chemical substances, living species, etc.. The keyword list is obviously not meant to be an authoritative or systematic list of synonyms or class members; lists of different classes may overlap, and the list may include obsolete or deprecated names (e.g. a database for living species may list "bear" as a keyword on the Koala page.) Finally, it has been clearly stated since day one that "Wikipedia is not a database", so its articles should not be mechanically derived from a database, not forced to mirror it. All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

As discussed

here

, there is consensus within the MCB project to create enzyme articles based on EC numbers. I strongly support that consensus.

The EC system is more than a database, it is a system of enzyme nomenclature. Strictly speaking, a terminal EC node refers not to a class of enzymes but rather to a specific type of chemical reaction that is catalyzed by enzymes. While there are a few other classification systems (e.g.,

glucan 1,4-beta-glucosidase

that would likely be of interest only to specialists. The only requirement for creation of a Wikipedia article is if there are sufficient reliable sources to establish the notability of the subject, not how wide of interest a subject may be. There are sufficient reliable sources to establish the notability of most if not all EC nodes.

not every substance that readers may look up in Wikipedia and is supported by reliable publications has a number in the Chemical Abstracts database – False. CAS and Beilstein work diligently in registering and indexing chemicals that are described in the chemical, patent, and related literature. If a chemical does not have a CAS or Beilstein number, it probably is not notable.

Wikipedia aims to provide "the sum of all human knowledge". The types of reactions that are catalyzed by enzymes as reflected in the EC nomenclature system is part of that knowledge hence having a series of Wikipedia articles that capture that knowledge is appropriate. Boghog (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

One additional point. As illustrated in {{

PRIAM, PDB, and PubMed are all based on the EC number. The EC number is not only used by the Enzyme Commission database, but these other seven databases as well. One cannot have a comprehensive article about an enzyme without mentioning its EC number. Boghog (talk

) 18:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

) 16:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

image feedback - addiction cascade

The addiction diagram; collapsed by Seppi333

Signaling cascade in the nucleus accumbens that results in psychostimulant addiction v t e Note: colored text contains article links. Nuclear pore Nuclear membrane Plasma membrane Cav1.2 NMDAR AMPAR DRD1 DRD5 DRD2 DRD3 DRD4 Gs Gi/o AC cAMP cAMP PKA CaM CaMKII DARPP-32 PP1 PP2B CREB ΔFosB JunD c-Fos SIRT1 HDAC1 [Color legend 1] This diagram depicts the signaling events in the nuclear factor kappa B), it induces an addictive state.[5][6] References ^ PMID 19877494. [Psychostimulants] increase cAMP levels in striatum, which activates protein kinase A (PKA) and leads to phosphorylation of its targets. This includes the cAMP response element binding protein (CREB), the phosphorylation of which induces its association with the histone acetyltransferase, CREB binding protein (CBP) to acetylate histones and facilitate gene activation. This is known to occur on many genes including fosB and c-fos in response to psychostimulant exposure. ΔFosB is also upregulated by chronic psychostimulant treatments, and is known to activate certain genes (eg, cdk5) and repress others (eg, c-fos) where it recruits HDAC1 as a corepressor. ... Chronic exposure to psychostimulants increases glutamatergic [signaling] from the prefrontal cortex to the NAc. Glutamatergic signaling elevates Ca2+ levels in NAc postsynaptic elements where it activates CaMK (calcium/calmodulin protein kinases) signaling, which, in addition to phosphorylating CREB, also phosphorylates HDAC5. Figure 2: Psychostimulant-induced signaling events PMID 22200950 . Coincident and convergent input often induces plasticity on a postsynaptic neuron. The NAc integrates processed information about the environment from basolateral amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (PFC), as well as projections from midbrain dopamine neurons. Previous studies have demonstrated how dopamine modulates this integrative process. For example, high frequency stimulation potentiates hippocampal inputs to the NAc while simultaneously depressing PFC synapses (Goto and Grace, 2005). The converse was also shown to be true; stimulation at PFC potentiates PFC–NAc synapses but depresses hippocampal–NAc synapses. In light of the new functional evidence of midbrain dopamine/glutamate co-transmission (references above), new experiments of NAc function will have to test whether midbrain glutamatergic inputs bias or filter either limbic or cortical inputs to guide goal-directed behavior. ^ Kanehisa Laboratories (10 October 2014). "Amphetamine – Homo sapiens (human)". KEGG Pathway. Retrieved 31 October 2014. Most addictive drugs increase extracellular concentrations of dopamine (DA) in nucleus accumbens (NAc) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), projection areas of mesocorticolimbic DA neurons and key components of the "brain reward circuit". Amphetamine achieves this elevation in extracellular levels of DA by promoting efflux from synaptic terminals. ... Chronic exposure to amphetamine induces a unique transcription factor delta FosB, which plays an essential role in long-term adaptive changes in the brain. PMID 24939695 . ^ PMID 21989194. ΔFosB serves as one of the master control proteins governing this structural plasticity. ... ΔFosB also represses G9a expression, leading to reduced repressive histone methylation at the cdk5 gene. The net result is gene activation and increased CDK5 expression. ... In contrast, ΔFosB binds to the c-fos gene and recruits several co-repressors, including HDAC1 (histone deacetylase 1) and SIRT 1 (sirtuin 1). ... The net result is c-fos gene repression. Figure 4: Epigenetic basis of drug regulation of gene expression ^ PMID 23430970 . The 35-37 kD ΔFosB isoforms accumulate with chronic drug exposure due to their extraordinarily long half-lives. ... As a result of its stability, the ΔFosB protein persists in neurons for at least several weeks after cessation of drug exposure. ... ΔFosB overexpression in nucleus accumbens induces NFκB ... In contrast, the ability of ΔFosB to repress the c-Fos gene occurs in concert with the recruitment of a histone deacetylase and presumably several other repressive proteins such as a repressive histone methyltransferase PMID 18640924 . Recent evidence has shown that ΔFosB also represses the c-fos gene that helps create the molecular switch—from the induction of several short-lived Fos family proteins after acute drug exposure to the predominant accumulation of ΔFosB after chronic drug exposure G proteins & linked receptors   (Text color) Transcription factors

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

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

There is already an article Lymphokine-activated killer cell that looks very similar to the draft. Best to probably delete the draft and have a merge discussion at the article's talk page. --Mark viking (talk) 20:23, 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

Input requested at

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)

Hi Panyd. Welcome to the MCB project! We don't have a style guide specifically for enzymes, but the

sections section of the gene/protein style guide can give you some ideas. Also some of the more well developed enzyme articles (e.g., alcohol dehydrogenase) might serve as templates. As far as fun things to say, enzyme articles tend to be pretty dry, but you occasionally run into odd things like this

.

Also it is important to realize that specific enzyme as defined by an Enzyme Commission (EC) number are strictly speaking the chemical reaction catalyzed by an enzymatic protein and not the protein itself. Structurally unrelated proteins may catalyze the same reaction and hence are assigned the same EC number (many to one relationship) If there is a single human protein that corresponds to an EC number (one to one relationship), then we usually have a single article that covers both the protein and the reaction catalyzed by that protein. I hope this helps. If you have any additional questions, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Alpha/beta hydrolase fold), but linking related enzymes with different activities would be useful to give readers a sense of the evolution of these superfamilies. Have fun editing! T. Shafee (Evo&Evo) (talk

) 23:03, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

You guys rock. Thank you! Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 23:34, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

The 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)

There relevant guideline is

here. The vast majority of Gene Wiki

articles are about both the protein and the gene that encodes that protein. Because the gene and protein are so interrelated, it makes sense to discuss both in the same article. Unfortunately this causes an unavoidable ambiguity as to what to call the article. The guideline suggests to use use the UniProt protein name if relatively short or the HUGO gene symbol if the protein name is unwieldy.

Also concering the lead sentence in

here

, we have tried to make clear that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

• <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@Boghog: - Thanks for the explanation Boghog. I have to say though, using the gene name or protein name interchangeably based on something potentially arbitrary like how "verbose" the protein name is, strikes me as a little confusing. Giving an article the name of gene, then having the first line of an article read "X is a protein" seems like is might confuse folks not familiar with the subtleties involved.

Hard to know the best strategy here. Perhaps this is a discussion to have on the policy page. NickCT (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@NickCT: Likewise, I am not sure what the best policy here is either. I agree with you that there is a conflict between the suggested lead sentence and using the gene name as the title of the article and this has caused some confusion and controversy on occasions (e.g., editors modifying the lead sentence so that it starts with the gene name). Further complicating maters is that some gene/protein paris like BRCA1 are much better known by their gene symbols than protein names while others like insulin the reverse is true. So even if we established a more specific guideline, there would always be exceptions. Boghog (talk) 15:35, 13 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

It is often difficult if not impossible to tell exactly what the structure is from a

recommended representations). Boghog (talk

) 17:35, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Rrossmith (talk) 18:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC) Rrossmith

The advantage of the

β-strands as arrows, and lines or thin tubes for non-repetitive coils or loops). Boghog (talk

) 18:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion to allow rotation of structures with Jmol, however as far as I know, this was never implemented. Jmol allows 3D rotation of structures as well as toggling between different display modes including space filling. However even with 3D rotation, I still think a ribbon diagram is more informative. Boghog (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

The space-filling model could be the most 'realistic' for showing the electron structure and the steric hindrances, if any. But for most practical purposes getting a clear view of the backbone is more useful. Though Rrossmith didn't mention any specific article, the use of diagrams in Luciferin seems about right. One space-filling model and several conventional 2D diagrams. As I skipped through some visual pigment articles quickly, I noticed a lack of *any* diagrams, something that could surely be rectified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 09:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Merge – The disambiguation "biology" is not appropriate to begin with ("products" of biology are offspring ;-) If not merged, the disambiguation "biochemistry" would be more appropriate. Since all four articles deal with chemicals, merging
  Product (biology) into Product (chemistry) IMHO is appropriate. Boghog (talk
  ) 14:01, 24 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

I've recently nominated the reviewed enzyme article to be featured on the front page since it's gone though so many changes since 2006. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:17, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, apparently we don't re-run articles after they've gone though FAR. I suppose it is reasonable to prioritise newly promoted FAs. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

To me, a 'lay' reader, the subject (a broad solution to the

I am

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 17:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If we place copyivio and conflict of interest aside, I think it could be salvaged if the title and the first sentence of the article specify that it is a [rejected?] hypothesis.

talk

) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea is mentioned briefly in Genetic code#Origin, which could probably be expanded a bit. I don't think this guy's theories in particular have been taken very seriously, though. Most of the author's papers give the appearance of being fairly well-cited, but he self-cites a lot and the rest are mostly "So, this theory exists [1]. Aaaaanyway,..." The author now seems to spend his time writing articles about the Jewish conspiracy to claim more than their share of Nobel Prizes. Opabinia regalis (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

In that case,

talk

) 16:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

BatteryIncluded: I'm not sure a merge is a good ides. Opabinia regalis: in what way is Biro's theory—which he, alone apparently, does not think is a rejected hypothesis—related to theories of the origins of the genetic code? Biro describes what he thinks is happening in modern cells, where DNA or RNA (I didn't get it straight) preforms a "chaperone" function. (Perhaps I should desist, so as not to lend credence to the belief in said conspiracy. As it happens, I was not given this assignment at the most recent conference of the Elders.) הסרפד (call me Hasirpad

) 17:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@

talk

) 17:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@

BatteryIncluded: @הסרפד: Sorry, didn't mean to cause confusion; I agree there's nothing meaningful to merge from the existing article. The connection I meant is: the idea underlying Biro's 'hypothesis' is a relationship between the physical properties of amino acids and their corresponding codons, which is also an idea floated in the 50s as an explanation for the origin of the genetic code. That idea was certainly never referred to as the "proteomic code", which is a term that never seems to come up outside of Biro's work or references to it. Sure, that's what they all say... Opabinia regalis (talk

) 19:28, 29 March 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)

Hi, welcome to the MCB page. You'll need to go to the Template:Infobox_protein page which explains how to insert the protein infobox. Basically copy-paste the template below and fill in as many of the parameters as possible:

{{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 = 
}}

Have you made the protein image yet and need help uploading, or do you need help converting the .pdb file into an image? Feel free to ask more questions if you need more help. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 23:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Likewise, welcome to the MCB project.

orthologs in many other species. Hence it is not clear if a {{infobox protein}} or {{infobox nonhuman protein}} template is appropriate. Also family members contain at least two pram domains, hence a {{infobox protein family}} is not really appropriate either. Hence it may be better just to insert the the graphic with a caption: [[File:Name|Thumb|Caption]] Boghog (talk

) 04:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Good point Boghog, a [[File:Name|Thumb|Caption]] with a descriptive caption is probably the best option. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:36, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Great! Thank you so much. The best full length crystal structure I could find on rcsb is of Rat Epsin1 so I will use the non human protein box. If I run into any trouble putting it together I'll post again. Lnbond92 (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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)

@Anne Delong: Thanks for the heads-up. Topic is keep-worthy for sure. I haven't checked the whole article but nothing stands out as obviously wrong. There are references available in abundance for the topic. (The history seems a little unfortunate - I don't see any evidence that the author, who evidently has some knowledge of the topic, ever got anything but a template on their talk page, and if they'd created it in mainspace it certainly wouldn't have been deleted.) Running out of time now but I'll deal with it tomorrow hopefully. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:07, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Opabinia regalis; I have postponed its deletion to give you time to do something with it. It's not surprising that the article wasn't accepted, because it has no references at all. It wasn't deleted at AfC, either; the author was just asked to add references. Most people who have studied biology, even in high school, understand the importance of citing sources, so I am presuming that this person either never came back to check on the draft, or was just too busy to comply. That's why the drafts are being checked over when they've been "abandoned" for six months. It would likely be a good idea to check them sooner, but there is a shortage of willing editors working in this area. If you are able to add some verification in the form of sources, we can move it into mainspace.—Anne Delong (talk) 11:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Opabinia regalis that the draft is worth keeping and just lacks sources.

PMID 20503434 is a recent review that should be sufficient to source most things currently in the draft. I have started working on this. Boghog (talk

) 12:46, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

The article has three sources now plus two editors here who have agreed that the content is suitable, so I have moved it to mainspace. Thanks to Opabinia regalis, Boghog and Ppgardne for taking time to check this out.—Anne Delong (talk) 03:05, 20 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)

I'd like to quickly thank Boghog for contributing infoboxes to the article for each allergen. However, where each allergen has its own subsection under both "Structure" and "Biological Function" (with the former currently placed before the latter), would these infoboxes be better placed in the "Structure" subsections (which come first) or the "Biological Function" subsections (where Boghog has added them)? Unfortunately, considering that the infoboxes are currently larger than the subsections themselves, having four in a row causes a bit of "pile-up"... this could be addressed by a {{clear}} template or something similar, but then we end up with garish gaps in the article.

Also, just as a quick question that I forgot to ask earlier: how sophisticated should the scientific language be in this article? Some of my peers expressed concern that my sanbdox's terminology was a little too complicated for an online encyclopedia intended for public use by anybody, even with links to other articles for clarification. Do you agree? And, if so, do you have any suggestions for how I could make the wording easier for a general audience to understand? --PeabodySam (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for expanding the peptidase 1 (mite) page. I have moved the infoboxes closer to where the respective proteins are first mentioned and removed the EC link which is redundant (links already supplied in the enzyme infobox). Removing this link slightly reduces the size of the infoboxes. Concerning the level of language, it is important that at least the lead is accessible to a wide audience. The rest of the article I would worry less about. We have a hierarchy of articles. The most general, like enzyme are written in a way so that it can be understood by a wide audience. It is understood that more specialized articles like peptidase 1 (mite) are inherently technical and less likely to be read beginning to end by non-specialists. Boghog (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

If it's alright with you guys, I'm going ahead and adding the content from my sandbox to the mainspace article. Feel free to undo or edit anything you don't like. --PeabodySam (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I've copied the following post that might be of interest over from

WT:BIOL. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk

10:27, 12 May 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)

Also

Draft:PRP36. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk

) 00:35, 14 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)

@

PMID 24076105). Opabinia regalis (talk

) 01:37, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Opabinia regalis. It's been edited now, so it will hang around for six months of so in case someone here wants to work on it or merge sections as you suggest. I can't do it myself, not having studied biology.—Anne Delong (talk) 06:56, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll put it on the to-do list. Thanks! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:10, 28 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

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)

@Ryan (Wiki Ed): This is kind of a brain dump, in no particular order. For what it's worth, I'm in biophysics/computational biology and I think the field has done pretty well by academic standards - the Biophysical Society, ISCB, and PLoS Comp Bio have all engaged here at one point or another.

1. Technical solution to citation bloat: One of the most annoying things about editing science articles right now is the giant sticky boogers of cite template wikimarkup snot everywhere. They're impenetrable to new users, are a totally non-transferable skill, generate no end of pointless formatting arguments, take up a ton of space in the edit window, and are impossible to deal with on mobile. The problem is especially acute for science articles because they tend to be densely cited to a large number of different sources (and because the subfield equivalents of "the sky is blue" tend to attract drive-by citation-taggers). I actually really like Citoid, but the Visual Editor introduces frustrations of its own. I keep seeing comments that Wikidata will solve this problem, but haven't seen much progress. This is an issue where some technical leadership would go a long way.
2. Open access/free knowledge/etc: I'd really like to see the project to mark OA sources in reference lists take off. (Granted I've done nothing to push this forward myself.) Links to PMC are nice, but I'd like to see a more prominent highlight of sources under OA licenses. On the topic of finding OA sources to include in wiki articles, I've poked a little at the idea of getting Google Scholar to offer an "open access only" search parameter, but that hasn't really gone anywhere. Maybe a case where institutional initiative could help.
3. Getting academic "credit" for Wikipedia writing: This is sort of a perennial proposal. Over at
   WT:MED
   there was an idea floated a few weeks ago about starting a peer-reviewed journal that would republish modified versions of wiki articles, among other things; it's an interesting idea but, I think, not a natural fit for my field, and where there is a fit the niche is already occupied by PLoS Comp Bio. I'd be interested in seeing some thinking on how to let people - especially early-career researchers - present Wikipedia editorship as science writing and public outreach experience in a consistent and recognizable way. Assign DOIs to specific revisions? Have a structured fellowship program? Some kind of GLAM-like arrangement with a scientific society, or one of the OA publishers that already engages this population? (e.g. the PLoS student blog or the F1000 specialists program) Academia being what it is, a way to turn existing editing practices into a recognizable line or two on a CV may well get more people involved.
4. System for reviewing Wikipedia articles: Another perennial proposal, and one I'm less excited about than some; this is usually formulated as "get a recognized Big Name expert to put their name on a reviewed version of an article", but I want to see the scientific world invest less in trading on the personal reputation of a few prominent individuals (which has all kinds of problems with systemic bias). One idea might be to engage with the Publons people to make relatively lightweight article reviews (done independently, or maybe as part of peer review or FAC/FAR?) count as review credits. This could also result in early-career scientists being able to accumulate a reputation as good or prolific reviewers under the publons system. This would rely on some kind of identity authentication, though.
5. Mechanism for recognizing women and minority editors in STEM: I haven't thought of a good way to do this yet without tripping over gender-gap drama or attracting trolls, but science on Wikipedia is two intersecting white-male-enriched environments and it would be nice to have some way of recognizing people who push back on that trend. This is another matter of presentation, I think; you can imagine someone listing on the "outreach" section of their CV something like "Wiki[pedia/media/edu?] Community Diversity Advocate, 2014-15" or "Some Notable Sponsor Award for Excellence in Science Writing, awarded to the top contributors of Wikipedia content on women and minority scientists" or some such, but most of the existing internal Wikipedia mechanisms for recognizing contributors and content are too inside-baseball. (I've actually seen a CV listing Featured Article authorship, but that's a tough bet. What if the person reading the CV goes to check out the article and it's been vandalized or filled up with cruft while you weren't looking? You need a way to point to explicit recognition by a real-world entity.)

Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Yes, I agree that the project subpages should be consolidated. Given the relatively low traffic on the discussion subpages, they should probably all be merged into the main talk page. The "Tasks that need attention" subpages should be retained for historical reference, but the links to these pages from the main page could be removed. The

Worklist could be converted into a "resource". Boghog (talk

) 05:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Also agree, thanks for looking into this. There is definitely a lot of old cruft around here. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:06, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Initial plans

So currently I plan to:

1. Collect defunct subpages into a list that we can keep a link to on the main page for history -
   WP:MCB/Historical
2. Refocus link attention to this page as the main hub of activity
3. Update the visual style to be a bit more modern

Long term possibilities:

• A public watchlist of articles?
• Clean-up (& consolidation) of the editing advice pages?
• Any ideas about the members list?
• Is our
  worklist
  still automatically updated?

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

The

Categories section of the work list since 2009. Hence I think the Categories section should be retired/archived. Boghog (talk

) 03:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. I suspect most of the editing advice pages are even more out of date than the rest, and ignored anyway. Members list I guess could be filtered so anyone who hasn't edited in a year or so gets moved to an 'inactive members' list, though I doubt too many people read those lists either. Personally I think all the grading/assessment criteria other than FA are useless and chronically outdated, but it still might be worth switching the project talk page banner to the full quality scale, which includes drafts. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I've put together the pages that I think are inactive as well as the other non-main discussion pages (

WP:MCB/Historical

). There are also a few pages that'll need to be updated:

• Directory
• Advice
• References
• Style guidelines
• Style guide (gene and protein articles)
• Diagram guide
• PyMol tutorial
• Related projects and resources
• Worklist
• MCB articles by quality log

I think that's all the subpages accounted for. some of these can probably be combined or retired as well. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 04:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for starting the cleanup. The

Seconding the thanks to Evo & Evo. Just a heads-up that the way things are currently transcluded, I see "This MCB project subpage is no longer in use..." within the to-do list at the top of this page, making it appear (at a glance) as though this page is inactive. I guess we just need the whole to-do list to no longer be transcluded, but I'll leave it to Evo & Evo or whoever to find the best solution. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 06:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've updated the

WP:MCB

page so that it can render properly on mobile devices. I've left it in the same uninspiring beige for now, but might attempt to make it look a little less dated once the content is sorted. I'm planning to make an updated navigation bar. It's currently the following 4 sections which I think seem to me the most active areas:

• Main
• Discussion (to encompass help queries, article requests, review requests, notifications)
• Advice & resources (a collection of style guidelines and help pages)
• Alerts & statistics (automatically updated
  article alerts
  )

Also, thanks Adrian J. Hunter, well spotted. We had the same problem with members list on the main page. I've moved the <noinclude> to encompass the warning header. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 02:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Huge improvement! This cleanup was long over due and you have done an excellent job. Thanks for taking the initiative. Boghog (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Agreed, nice job!

BTW, I tweaked the article tag {{WikiProject MCB}} to use the full quality scale (so new drafts of interest can be tagged by the AfC people and will show up in our project categories) but excluded files and project pages. Feel free to change if you think there's any use in tagging all the (active?) projectspace talk pages with the project class, but I thought that seemed unnecessary. Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:06, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Let me know if I'm being too trigger happy with {{MCB historical}}. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 13:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Alerts and stats section

I've finished updating the Alerts and Statistics section (

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)

Images are excellent as always! Posting here to remind myself to take a look this weekend :) Been doing too much meta nonsense lately. Opabinia regalis (talk) 08:01, 26 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)