Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

< Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology

[edit] Project directory

Hello. The WikiProject Council has recently updated the Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory. This new directory includes a variety of categories and subcategories which will, with luck, potentially draw new members to the projects who are interested in those specific subjects. Please review the directory and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope that all the changes to the directory can be finished by the first of next month. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 23:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Project Location for proteins

What is the relationship between this project and the Protein wikiProject? The Molecular and Cellular Biology project and the Protein project deal with proteins and it is confusing to me where I should go to post info on proteins.

The Molecular and Cellular Biology project currently has two daughter projects: Cell Signaling and Metabolic pathways. Perhaps the protein project could become a daughter project of the more well established Molecular and Cellular Biology project. I can see potential drawbacks to this: the idea of protein is more general and extends further than Molecular and Cellular Biology. In any case, proteins should not be at a parallel and equivalent level as Molecular and Cellular Biology, as they are currently with the Protein project. There is a wiki category called protein, and a category is something which many different wiki projects can be "interested in," so the category method removes the problem of one particular project having ownership of the idea "protein". At the same time, however, a wiki category is fairly vague and, from what I can tell, is not nearly as directed as a wikiProject. It seems that proteins need a home in some project, and despite the existence of this separate Protein project, most of the community is behind the Molecular and Cellular Biology project. In any case a decision must be made as to what project handles proteins, otherwise the community will be divided and confused.

[edit] Phototaxis

This article needs a lot of attention. XYZ CrVo 23:02, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it does... I've added it to the roster of articles of interest to the MCB wikiproject, but I can't promise that anybody will be able to get to it anytime soon. You might want to consider nominating it for the MCB Collaboration of the Month. – Clockwork Soul 01:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stablepedia

Beginning cross-post.

See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team#Stablepedia. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★MESSED ROCKER★ 03:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.

[edit] Scientific citations

Would your WikiProject like to endorse Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines? If so, please let those editors at that guideline know. --ScienceApologist 19:07, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals#Scientific citations. --Lambiam ^Talk 09:33, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFD notification

As a part of WikiProject Stub sorting, I noticed that you are using the following stub template/category: {{Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub}} / Cat:Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs. Did you know that we already have a stub that covers this: {{cell-biology-stub}} / Cat:Cell biology stubs? A couple more things: 1) You need to propose any stubs at the stub proposal page before creating them. 2) Your stub violates our stub naming guidelines. I have put both of your stubs up for deletion at WP:SFD. Please join the discussion. Thanks. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I'm getting really sick of new Admins who get a bee up their bonnet about people not conforming to their <insert obscure wikipedia policy here>. Yeah, I had a look at the naming guidelines that someone spent way too much time codifying, and Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub doesn't fit.

Actually, I agree that the current stub is way too long to write, and I'd prefer it to be called MCB-stub. Would it be possible to do a changeover and rename it rather than deleting it and all the already stubbed pages?

As a wikiproject, I believe there was some discussion about stubs not so long ago (archived I think) --> personally I liked the idea of main stub groupings as protein (sub-category enzymes) and MCB (sub-categories cell-biology, genetics, biochemistry). Dr Aaron 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Sorry about the tone, I must be grumpy. Dr Aaron 08:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page, Dr Aaron. Also, MCB-stub would not be acceptable because MCB is a disambiguation page. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 14:44, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I also just noticed something else in your above comment: rather than deleting it and all the already stubbed pages? We do NOT delete the actual articles. This has nothing to do with the validity of the articles themselves, just the stub template and category. Just so that we're clear. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 15:05, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I realise the actual articles don't get deleted, but a fair bit of work has gone into stubbing articles for the Wikiproject - that work would be wasted by a blanket clear. I'm not sure why mcb-stub is unacceptable because MCB is a disabiguation page - there is nothing about that in the guidelines. In fact protein and cell biology (which are also stubs) all have their own normal pages. And as pointed out previously bio-stub (biography, not biology) is pretty ambiguous. But I guess molcellbio-stub would be OK though.

Again, I reinterate it would be nice to find a way to shift all the stubs over to a naming system that matches the current Wiki-guidelines rather than just doing a blanket stub deletion. Dr Aaron 22:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

No big deal, though. We'll just transfer all of the "unofficially" tagged stubs over to the "officially recognized" stubs. It's only about 150 articles all together, so between several of us it shouldn't take very long. – Clockwork Soul 23:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to use WP:AWB when doing renames/deletes and it makes the process go pretty fast. Also, for really simple renames/deletes we have User:Alaibot who can do a lot of that work very quickly. So, it's not a whole lot of extra work if a stub gets renamed or deleted. As far as MCB goes, we try to make our stub templates "guessable." Someone might not know off the top of their head that MCB stands for Molecular and Cellular Biology, so when they go to look it up, they find a disambig page, and that's not completely helpful. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 23:35, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

So are we shifting things over to Cat:Cell biology stubs? Biochemistry isn't cell biology, so we might have problems with that. TimVickers 23:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What about Cat:molecular and cellular biology stubs (which already seems to exist, though it's empty), populated by a {{molecular-biology-stub}} -- and/or by {{molecular-cell-biology-stub}}, if you prefer? Do you want to keep the separate Cat:cell biology stubs, too, as a sub-cat, or do the two overlap too much? Or indeed, a separate Cat:molecular biology stubs? As Amalas notes, we're not talking about "clearing" these stub tags from articles, just renaming and/or rehousing them, so there should be no work caused to this Project. Note there's been an Cat:enzyme stubs for some time, and Cat:protein stubs was created a few months ago. Alai 03:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The opinions expressed at the too-short stub sorting thread seemed to favor a top level stub of "molecular and cellular biology", with "biochemistry" and "cell biology" being subcategories. From there, "proteins" should be a subcategory of biochemistry, and "enzymes" a subcategory of proteins. I think that this scheme would be a good start. – Clockwork Soul 05:11, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, that sounds plausible. So that would imply moving to, and retagging the articles with, some-template-name-with-no-spaces (such as the suggestions above), which is easily done; recatting the template; and some re-supercatting. All easily done, if that's generally acceptable. Alai 05:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

That seems perfectly acceptable to me. – Clockwork Soul 05:29, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll do that tomorrow, if there are no objections. Shall I use {{molecular-cell-biology-stub}} as the template name, just to cover all the bases? Alai 05:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

A bit lengthy, but I guess that it's better than {{molecular-and-cellular-biology-stub}}. I think that it's adequate, unless anybody disagrees? – Clockwork Soul 14:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. TimVickers 16:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

OK, it's a done deal. I suggest that if possible, and where appropriate, people just use {{cell-biology-stub}} or {{molecular-biology-stub}}. For one thing, those are more obvious, and less typing, and secondly, it'll facilitate splitting out a separate "molecular" stub type if that's later desired/found necessary. But to play safe, I'm retagging with the catch-all template. Alai 22:28, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent resolution. Dr Aaron 06:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat:Molecular and Cellular Biology

This is in need of clearing up as to whether it's an article-space category, in which case it should be Cat:molecular and cellular biology, and not contain non-article pages, or a project-space category, in which case it should be something like Cat:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology, and not contain articles. The current mixture is not so good. Please comment at the renaming nomination, either way (or otherwise). Thanks. Alai 04:37, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Biochemistry stubs

Am I correct in thinking that this is now "parent project" for the Cat:biochemistry stubs? These have been rather large for some time, and don't seem to be especially well-categorised. I do notice a number of them are categorised under Cat:molecular biology: I've made a list: User:Alai/biochem-molecular. (I don't want to just 'bot these over, as it probably requires more of a case-by-case determination by someone with a notion what they're doing.) There's also about 400 articles with no category at all other than that stub type. (I could upload a list of these, or else populate a maintenance category if people would find that convenient...) Alai 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmm - thanks for the heads up. If it wouldn't be too much trouble, a maintenance category would be pretty much ideal. Thanks! – Clockwork Soul 14:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I notice a lot of them have now been re-sorted to more specific types (like enzymes, etc; though many of those are still uncategorised, too...). For the sake of "attaching" said cleanup cat to a wikiproject, and not making the scope unnecessarily narrow, I've created this as Cat:uncategorised molecular and cellular biology articles, and I'm populating it now. I'm sure I can find more when those came from... Alai 04:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Radioactivity

Hello, I made a page Radioactivity in biology as all the radioactivity pages are about nuclear physics and so on, but I am not sure if I should merge it into a chemistry page. As a title it sounds strange. is it ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Squidonius (talk • contribs)

The page is useful, although im not sure it is the best place for that information. It could go in occurrence and applications section of radioactivity... - Zephyris _Talk 20:51, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] stub list update

I've updating the front page of the project (as well as the style guidelines) with the new stubs, with an updated hierarchy. I followed the permcats when organizing the stub cats, so hopefully the articles will line up nicely. I have deleted the deprecated and now unused {{Molecular and Cellular Biology-stub}} / Cat:Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs. Let me know if you have any questions. ~ Amalas rawr ^{=^_^=} 17:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for all of your help in getting the categories cleaned up, Amalas. It's much appreciated. – Clockwork Soul 19:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't paying much attention to all this category discussion, so I may have lost the plot here. I noticed Cydebot moving article pages from Category:Molecular and Cellular Biology to Category:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology articles. Is the wikiproject category in mainspace not a self-reference? Opabinia regalis 03:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Charles Darwin FAC

Feel welcome to comment: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Charles Darwin. Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cladistics FAR

Cladistics 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. Sandy (Talk) 23:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angiotensin

If any editors have time, would someone please have a look at angiotensin? The images/templates are messing up the page, and by adding an image and trying to fix thing I seem to have made them worse. I realize this is mostly a copy editing issue and probably not top priority here, but thanks anyway. Fvasconcellos 01:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I just put the image in the protein infobox - is that better? Opabinia regalis 03:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, thank you. I'm still not entirely happy with the overall page formatting, but maybe it's my PC... Thanks again. Fvasconcellos 18:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Naphthenase

As a chmists it looks really fishy to me. Might be a joke or it is real enzyme. If anybody knows something about it give it the right category!--Stone 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to it that doesn't point back to Wikipedia. I'm going to delete it as a hoax, because even if it turns out to be genuine, the article is so poorly written that it'll have to rewritten from scratch anyway. – Clockwork Soul 23:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to also delete the associated talk page? TimVickers 23:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that you've seen it, I can delete it too. – Clockwork Soul 20:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is a good article?

FYI, you may be interested in reviewing the subtle debates about "inline citations" over at Wikipedia talk:What is a good article?. And, if you have not already done so, you may want to review Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines. You may want to indicate consensus agreement (or not) on the talk pages there. linas 05:12, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of that, any more votes in the vote on if our project endorses these guidelines? TimVickers 16:24, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Wikiproject proposal

I'm looking for people interested in starting Wikiproject Microbiology. I have just put a proposal up at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Microbiology and I invite anyone that thinks they would like to join to express their interest there. Thanks. ◄§ĉҺɑʀκs► 04:10, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Christmas!

Happy Christmas from Tim.

Hi everybody. Hope you all have a happy Christmas.

TimVickers 19:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PAC-1

Cross-posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cell Signaling.

An editor has raised awareness to PAC-1 on WP:DRUGS. I thought some MCB contributors may have heard of it/be interested in contributing to the article. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 16:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 17:07, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ergadenylic acid

Hello, I'm looking for clarification regarding ergadenylic acid. I nominated the article for deletion, but am now leaning towards redirecting it to adenosine monophosphate. However, there are some confounding issues, since the article states that it is purportedly "vitamin B8", whose identity is unclear at the moment. If you have time, please share your views at the AfD page. --Uthbrian (talk) 21:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

It turns out that "ergadenylic acid" is just another name for adenosine monophosphate, so I went and speedy redirected it there. – ClockworkSoul 22:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for bringing the issue to a close, ClockworkSoul. --Uthbrian (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2007 (UTC)