Talk:Swiss-model

Suggested improvements for article

Model of protein generated by Swiss-model

This article is a good start but could be improved in a number of ways:

1. This article would benefit from being split into sections.
2. The article would benefit from including an image of a protein structure model and perhaps a screen grab of the software or its results.
3. The article could be improve with more wikilinks to related articles in Wikipedia.

I hope these comments are useful. Alexbateman (talk) 11:21, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

This picture from Wikimedia commons might be useful to illustrate this article.Alexbateman (talk) 11:51, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Title to SWISS-MODEL?

Seems like we should call it SWISS-MODEL, all caps, as that is how the server is usually referred to. -- stillnotelf is invisible 19:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 October 2021

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Editors don't agree how Wikipedia capitalization rules apply to this article. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:30, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

---

Swiss-model → SWISS-MODEL – Proper name (used in article text and all sources) and per talk request · • SUM1 • · (talk) 18:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not an acronym, therefore not eligible for all caps. Primergrey (talk) 18:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  While I'm also a fan of MOS:ALLCAPS, it is trumped by WP:COMMONNAME, and all sources I've seen use this capitalized spelling. 162 etc. (talk) 19:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

  COMMOMNAME doesn't cover issues of style. Primergrey (talk) 02:22, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  Correct.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:12, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

• @SUM1, Primergrey, and 162 etc.: Crouch, Swale (talk) 21:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support per nom. WP:COMMONNAME says the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred. If "SWISS-MODEL" capitalized is such – as it appears to be – that's the name we should use. Any assumption that capitalisation is merely stylstic ignores WP:SMALLDETAILS. 85.67.32.244 (talk) 14:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

  SMALLDETAILS is for distinguishing similarly-named topics. Primergrey (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose not an acronym just SHOUTING no thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 18:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Comment: I should point out that when I first saw this article result, I was uncertain as to whether I'd even be navigating to the right page, because SWISS-MODEL only ever appears in all caps, on the website itself and in all the medical sources that reference it. It's not like a case of The Times or Zara, where it only appears in caps in the logo, and publications or the website refer to it in sentence case. "Swiss-model" literally isn't a thing, anywhere. Wikipedia would be establishing precedent with it. · • SUM1 • · (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
• Support: I'm usually an advocate for lower case based on Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trademarks, MOS:ALLCAPS and a dislike of shouting, but in this case sources capitalize "SWISS-MODEL" overwhelmingly. When searching for "Swiss-model" homology modeling, the first three pages of Google Scholar results favor all caps 40:3 and the regular Google Search is 36:2, where one of the two is this article. SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:57, 6 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose – WP's style manual is clearly against this kind of style hackery. Dicklyon (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per MOS:ALLCAPS and MOS:TITLES. And fix the text in the article. It's okay to add "(often stylized SWISS-MODEL)" to the lead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:10, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.