User talk:ProteinBoxBot/Volunteer

Question about naming articles

It looks like the program automatically made an article for SOD2, so I decided to make a redirect from Superoxide dismutase 2 to it. But now that I think about it, should it be the other way around? Forluvoft 07:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind. Found my answer. Forluvoft 07:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, if a protein already has a page named after the full protein name I haven't been moving it to a new page named after the protein's abbreviation. I didn't know if chained redirects from other articles could be a problem. Let me know if I should make an effort. Sorry I've been making this more confusing than it should be. Forluvoft 17:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think best strategy at this moment is to keep short gene names, such as SOD2. If someone wants to rename the article, he can do it later, based on his knowledge of the subject. As long as you do not rename any previously existing articles, which have been created by live wikipedians rather than by bot, everything is going to be fine.Biophys 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, if there is an existing gene page, let's use it and add redirects from symbol/name. One note on the link you found above. I'm not sure that the naming guide is actually referring to the name of the page. On a second reading, I think it means that within the text of articles, we should be using symbols/abbreviations instead of full names. Personally, if I'm creating a gene page and there is a nice, concise gene name, I'll put the article there and add the redirect from the gene symbol. I think it's a judgment call, and personally I wouldn't worry too much about getting it wrong... AndrewGNF 04:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

any instruction revisions?

PBB is running full steam ahead! However, even with the hard work of Forluvoft, Banus, and Tim Vickers, the gap is going to get bigger and not smaller. I was going to put an update at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Help in the hopes of attracting some additional editors, but I wanted to make sure the instructions here are as clear as they can be. Since you're now experienced PBB curators, can you add any clarifications you see fit? And while I'm at it, bravo to you all for all the hard work. I have to admit that the competitive side of me is being stoked, not wanting to fall behind the curve in terms of the number of PBB edits that I make myself! AndrewGNF 19:33, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought the instructions were very good. I can't think of any improvements. Forluvoft 21:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Same as Forluvoft, the istructions cover almost all the cases you encounter. Sometimes I find useful to digg the disambiguation page (if extant) or use the special Prefixindex page (Example). A last question: if an article refers to a whole family, but has only one protein box (for example, Hsp70), should a new article always be created? In that case, the last sentence in the instructions can make it clear.--Banus 10:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Prefixindex link -- I've added it to the instructions page. On the Hsp70 question, I don't know that there's a "right" answer. Personally, I'd bias toward creating a gene-specific page under the assumption that there is sufficient information to warrant a page on the protein family and the individual members (even if not now, eventually). But, of course, this is where I think the curator can and should make a judgment call based on their own expertise... AndrewGNF 18:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Modified parameters

FYI, we've slightly modified the criteria for searching for namespace conflicts, which means that more genes will be auto-created and fewer will be flagged for manual inspection. Based on the pilot runs we ran this weekend, there will only be a slight increase in the number of duplicate pages created (maybe one per batch of 25), but please be sure to click on the "WP Symbol Search" link just to check... Thanks... AndrewGNF (talk) 02:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)