Talk:Interferon-γ receptor 1 and 2 mutations

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus for moves. The hyphenated forms seem to predominate slightly in RS, and there is no advantage of simplicity in omitting the hyphens. Miniapolis 17:47, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

---

• Interferon-γ Receptor-1 and 2 Mutations → Interferon-gamma receptor 1 and 2 mutations
• IL-2 receptor → IL2 receptor
• Anti-IL-6 → Anti-IL6

– Usage, accuracy and style. See also Talk:Interferon, alpha 1 and Talk:Interleukin-10 receptor. NyascaB (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The rationale given by the nom, "usage, accuracy and style", without more explanation is meaningless. Usage in the scientific literature more often includes the hyphen. Furthermore how is it more accurate to exclude (or include) a hyphen. Finally which style is being referred to? And yes, please read Talk:Interleukin-10 receptor.Boghog (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose – the current article names are based on the recommended UniProt protein names (see P01589 and P14784. Boghog (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The following definitive authoritative sources include a dash in:

• interleukin names: WHO-IUIS Nomenclature Subcommittee on Interleukin Designation (1991). "Nomenclature for secreted regulatory proteins of the immune system (interleukins)" (PDF). Bull. World Health Organ. 69 (4): 483–6. PMC 2393236. PMID 1934243.
• interferon names: Allen G, Diaz MO (1996). "Nomenclature of the human interferon proteins". J. Interferon Cytokine Res. 16 (2): 181–4. PMID 8742372. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

• Support. If both forms are used in the literature, we should favour the simplest and most logical one. Luzonaga (talk) 15:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC).

How is excluding a dash more logical than including one? Boghog (talk) 19:58, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support. There is no reason to include a dash. One should write "interleukin 6" or "IL6". Lientinge (talk) 06:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC).

The reason to include the dash is because it is the overwhelmingly predominate way it is written in the literature and this is backed up by the reliable sources provided above. Boghog (talk) 07:20, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Page move

After closing this discussion as no consensus about removing the hyphens, I realized that the first article did not observe the article-naming conventions about capitalization and excessive punctuation (no dash needed between "receptor" and "1") and moved it to its current title. All the best, Miniapolis 18:08, 4 June 2013 (UTC)