Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Discussion
This is an appropriate place for general discussion about the project and its direction.
Announcements
This is an appropriate place to make announcements to other project members.
Help Requests
This is an appropriate place to ask help of other project members.
Proposals
This is an appropriate place to make and discuss proposals with other project members.
This is an appropriate place to ask help of other Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject members.
Please click here to make a new enquiry.
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology: edit · history · watch · refresh

Other Notes
Archive

Archives
1 2

Contents

[edit] Please Organise Discussions

Please try to use the appropriate discussion page for your topics of discussion and avoid using this page for help requests, proposals etc. which are catered for by the relevant pages. If you think your post is not covered by an existing discussion subpage, put it here and I might get some time to sort it out. --Username132 (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

See my post above. But what do you view is the role of this page. Should it be redirected? David D. (Talk) 21:59, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
I'd say that post belonged on the announcements page. I don't think this page should be redirected, 'cause if we chose, say, the /Proposals page as the target, the Proposals page would be peppered with things that aren't proposals. I think this should just be a page with a menu on it, kind of like the reference desk has, giving links to the different individual pages. I havn't seen any other Wikiprojects that organise their discussions like this which is surprising, 'cause I'm finding it useful. I just wish there were more active members. --Username132 (talk) 17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I think people are active in the sense they are editing. Patience, now you have reorganised these pages and with the bulletins going out I think activity will rise. David D. (Talk) 18:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggesting good references

Hello fellow biologists!

I used to contribute to a number of biology articles, but as my own studies have intensified, I haven't found the time to continue writing. However, I do often come across good articles that could serve either as references for Wikipedia, or as "further reading" that covers topics in more detail than an encyclopedia article would.

For example, PLOS Comp Bio has an Education series, of which the most recent article provides a good overview of Modularity and Dynamics of Cellular Networks.

Do you think that there's any use in collecting a list of these types of articles for future incorporation into Wikipedia? Is there any established method for doing so? If not, perhaps we could choose a "del.icio.us" tag for these articles? If I were to tag such articles with something like "WikiProjMCB" do you think you would use them?

Have a good one, AdamRetchless 16:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cell membrane update

Hi guys, just dropping by to give you the heads up on what's been happening on this high-importance article. I was going to nominate the article for the COTM before noticing that it failed to pass it previously. D'oh. To make it a little more attractive to potential editors I made a few changes:

  1. The discussion page now features a large to-do list: see it here
  2. The introduction has been re-written to provide focus
  3. Structure has been fleshed out substantially, but still needs input
  4. In-line referencing added and no backlog of references remain

So what needs to be done? The "Functions" part of the article is very weak, diagrams are needed, and "Structure" needs a bit more work. Pop over and see if you can do anything, it's a crime to have this fundamental article languishing in start-class! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 02:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template talk:Protein

I received a request on my talk page from a user at the Hungarian wikipedia to add a field to Template:Protein. Rather than answer it on my talk page, I've directed the thread to Template talk:Protein, to facilitate your comments and feedback. --Arcadian 14:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STING

Article has been prod'ed for deletion (reason - not notable). It starts "STING (Sequence To and withIN Graphics) is a free Web-based suite of programs for a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between protein sequence, structure, function, and stability." Can anyone help me to determine whether this is notable. The original author has not been here for nearly a year. Should we let it go, or should we remove the prod and let it go to AfD? I have also asked the Chemistry Project which is more my line than here, but this article could come under both projects--Bduke 04:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers removed the tag, & I was about to myself. There are lots of unjustified N prods these days. DGG 05:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Let us now see whether it goes to AfD! --Bduke 05:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
It's notable if someone out there might be looking for information on it. --Seans Potato Business 17:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Succinate-coenzyme Q reductase

I dropped a note at the talk page [1]. -- Boris 20:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Titin

There is a problem with this article. Some people, most of them random "stop-by"s and none of them working on this project, insist on keeping the FULL (?!?) name of the protein, which is about 28 K amino acids long, written in "arginyltyrosyl.....etc.yl"-kinda way, which make the article to jump from . The reason - someone came up with the idea that when written like that the name of titin is to be the longest word in English. So people that work on this project keep removing this linguistic junk, while unregistered users and editors that have no idea, including some guy who thinks he is the supreme judge in this case and who isn't convinced that there is consensus to remove it from there, keep putting it back. -- Boris 12:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Makes the article jump from... what? If this isn't covered by some rule somewhere, start a vote on the talk page and call it to the attention of MCB members. To me it seems common sense that such a string of chracters has little or no practical use and should be removed. --Seans Potato Business 17:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
This is ridiculous. That guy has had plenty of opportunity to respond coherently and hasn't. Worst case, post an article content RfC and announce it here. Even independent of whether the word should be in the article, the template is so poorly designed that it really shouldn't stay in the article as is. Opabinia regalis 06:31, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this to this page's attention, Boris. I agree with you and Opabinia. It's on my radar now. :-) Keesiewonder talk 10:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
"which make the article to jump from...", sorry i must have deleted the rest of it by accident, but here you go - "which make the article to jump from 24k (without the FULL name) in size to >240K (with it)". -- Boris 12:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, as of this post the titin template has a larger file size than this discussion split off WP:AN/I for size reasons. If that much text is unacceptable in a high-post-volume noticeboard that everyone expects to be lengthy, then it's totally unacceptable in an article. Opabinia regalis 06:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Agreed; I cannot understand the perspective of the single proponent who wants to include the complete titin name in the article instead of in a link ... Keesiewonder talk 09:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Eicosanoid Peer Review

I've asked for Peer review for Eicosanoid. I was spurred to work on it when I saw the MCB template on its talk page. I'd like input from the MCB crowd..David.Throop 00:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ATP synthase

ATP synthase, V-ATPase, F-ATPase and Transmembrane ATPase seem to be in a confused mess! These articles do not refer to each other at all and seem to spend a lot of time reiterating the same basic concepts in a very human-centric way. Does anyone have a good fundamental understanding of these terms, their definitions and their relationships to help tidy up these very important articles? - Zephyris Talk 12:24, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Scientific peer review

It is nearly 11 months since we established this review process as a minimal process after we failed to reach consensus about a number of matters. During that time it has been largely left alone with nobody really keeping a close watch on it. A couple days ago I cleaned everything up. I archived old reviews, corrected the tags on talk pages and made minimal changes to the process based on what I had learnt. I also reviewed how it had operated. There were some reasonable reviews and some that attracted no interest what so ever, but I guess that is the case even with Wikipedia:Peer review. Some entries may have missed some attention since they were not properly formatted, or had no tag on the article's talk page and hence did not appear in the category. See Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review for my review and report on the clean up.

Of course, in hindsight, I wonder whether we, and particularly I, could have done better a year ago. In hindsight, does anyone have ideas how we progress this review process. To be worthwhile, it must attract reviews that perhaps would not go elsewhere such as Wikipedia:Peer review and it must attract expert reviewers to add to what might be achieved by the general Wikipedia:Peer review. If it can not do either, perhaps we should close it down and just encourage articles to go to Wikipedia:Peer review. Articles for review are listed on the science WikiProjects such as this one, but they are transcluded in so changes do not appear on watchlists. I have also added recent reviews to Wikipedia:Peer review in the same way that WikiProject reviews such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry/Peer review are added. In this way both review pages refer to the same page for the review discussion and hopefully more editors will be attracted. The key point is attracting expert reviewers who might look at Wikipedia:Scientific peer review but not look at Wikipedia:Peer review.

If you have any ideas on this, please add your views at Wikipedia talk:Scientific peer review. --Bduke 06:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cristae

In reading pretty much every taxonomical article I can get my hands on, I've come across terms such as tubular cristae, discoid cristae, and lamellar cristae. These terms are rampant across the internet (including Wikipedia) and yet I have not been able to find a single article discussing what these terms mean. Can anyone help me out here? And then maybe put that information on the crista page? Werothegreat 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

The terms simply refer to the shape of the cristae: tubular = tube-like, discoid = disc-like, lamellar = thin layers. There's another type: vesicular = small bubbles. Apparently changes in cristae shape are important in cell death and cancer, so I agree that this information should be in an article about them. - tameeria 23:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did I do it right?

I update the collaboration of the month. Did I do everything alright? -- Scientizzle 05:43, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automagic image request

I have been working on some infobox templates in the chemical area lately (mainly {{chembox new}} and {{drugbox}}, and (a.o.) programmed some templates with an automatic image request function. This puts pages with an infobox which do not have the image-field set into categories (subcategories of Category:Chemistry pages needing pictures). I have been so bold that I added the same functionality to the protein box. Pages having such a box now categorise in the subcategory Category:Protein pages needing a picture; this specific subcategory links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Requested pictures. I have also added a section to this image request page. I hope I have not been too bold in this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chemical synapse FAR

Chemical synapse has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. LuciferMorgan 17:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Protein domains

A few days ago the page Protein domains was created. This should likely be merged with Structural domain. However the editor who created the page put in a lot of info. It appears that the editor,User:Dicky2206 is Dr. Richard George, a post doc at Victor Chang Cardiac Research Institute, Sydney, Australia. The information is mostly from his dissertation and I think we should go through it and add a lot of it into the structural domain article. I'll try to do this over the next few days so please don't go deleting it all just yet. Thanks. Jvbishop 12:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The very term "structural domain" is very unhelpful - since it doesn't clearly refer to proteins. The "protein domains" article, however, is quite a good start; what is missing is a comprehensive list of protein-protein interaction domains... (that's a huge job, and may be too much for a particular article). I'd keep the new article, and add in what is useful and not out-dated from the structural domains piece, and then refer those searching for "structural domains" to the new article...

Having said that, it does seem that there should be individual articles for particularly important protein domains (this can be a whole new category). For example, there whould be articles on: PH (plekstrin homology domains); SH2 ; SH3; UBD (ubiquitin binding domains); Coil-coil; RING; Fbox; Zing-finger; Transmembrane; signal-sequence; IgG domains; etc etc...

Gacggt 21:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

First things first we clean up the protein domains article. Then we make nifty little articles for all the main domains. It would be good to have them though. Jvbishop 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Need help proofreading taxonomic refs

Hi, a few of us are working on a system for generating the taxonomic references for arbitrary taxa, but we need help checking that the references produced are OK, i.e., proofreading them. It's described on my Talk page, if you have time to help out — thank you very much! :) Willow 13:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New article in bad need for assistance

Oleosin needs attention from this project. It's apparently a protein used in plant oil organelles, but I have no idea what to do with it, especially where under category:proteins it should go. Circeus 19:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DNA

Hi there, are there any members of the project who would like to volunteer to be additional contacts for verification and sources of the DNA article? In practice, you get a couple of e-mails a month and a bit more traffic on your talk page. TimVickers 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology_646d.html"