Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Announcements/Archive 2

New Wiki at ACS Chemical Biology

People here should probably be aware of this initiative. At present much of it looks more like a blog for comments rather than a wiki-style document, but the editors (I met them on Sunday at ACS in Atlanta) are keen on getting people working at the Chem-Bio interface to develop this wiki into a useful resource. I think they want to be able to include wikilinks from published papers to help explain technical terms, and things like that. It's still pretty basic at the moment, but some input from people who know the field (i.e., not me!) would be very helpful. Let's encourage ACS to move into the wiki-era! Walkerma 07:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cell Biology Portal

Hey Everybody. I created the Molecular and Cellular Biology Portal. Feel free to make changes or add information. Hopefully we can get it featured. In need of particular attention:

Decide on Selected Articles, Photos and Biographies.
Add tasks
Add News

Thanks everybody --GAThrawn22 06:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Project page redesign

Just look at this thing - isn't it beautiful?
This image could be the basis for a biology "barnstar". This was the best I could come up with previously.

The new biology "barnstar"?, from PDB: 1IAS.

I was very very bold today and redesigned the MCP project page; I hope that you all like it. I reworded much of what was previously written, and condensed a great deal of redundant information into what I think is a more streamlined layout. Please note that I know the bar on the right hand side bears a striking resemblance to crap, but I'll clean that up as soon as I get the chance. – Clockwork Soul 23:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clockwork I like it. Good job. Organization is key to helping members of the project and prospective members to find what the information and tools that they need. Keep it up. GAThrawn22 03:34, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXCELLENT! Dr Aaron 06:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, looks better now. I did a few changes myself. I found the old protein picture doesn't represent the standard very much what we want. Also I linked to the discussion about protein pics --Splette ^Talk 11:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, good, I'm glad you all like it so far. I would just like to say, by the way, that Tup1 was a good selection: it's a protein with a very striking pattern, and is very beautiful. Thanks! – Clockwork Soul 13:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I cleaned up that disgusting right panel. It looks much better now, I think, so I can sleep at night. – Clockwork Soul 16:02, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great! Just a minor thing - on my screen, the participants box extends about a centimeter further to the right than the boundary between the top two boxes. Can that bottom box be forced to take the entire available width? (A quick look makes me wonder why it's not doing that already, but I am formatting-impaired.) Opabinia regalis 00:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand what you're describing. Can you maybe take a screenshot of what you're getting? Also, which browser and screen resolution are you using? – Clockwork Soul 02:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded a screenshot here. I'm using Firefox at 1920x1200. (It looks to me like it tiles properly up to 1600x1200 - maybe not worth too much work if it's only an issue at even higher resolutions). Opabinia regalis 03:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Made some adjustments - how's that look? – Clockwork Soul 03:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, now it's the opposite problem - it doesn't reach far enough to the left. I tried fiddling with it a bit but I couldn't seem to make the bottom table element any wider than the effective width of the participants box (well, massive cell padding works, but I'm sure that looks horrible at lower resolution.) Opabinia regalis 03:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hrm... I don't know what to tell you... I might be able to fix it if I could replicate the problem, but my resolution doesn't reach those heights. :/ – Clockwork Soul 05:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you take a look at User:Opabinia regalis/Test mcb? It looks right to me now but I don't want to break it at lower resolutions :) Opabinia regalis 01:31, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good! I copied it almost unchanged to the project page, with some minor adjustments (backgrounds, borders, and the like). They're unlikely to affect your layout, but just in case, does it look okay? – Clockwork Soul 13:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - I had a feeling I might've messed up the borders somehow. Still looks good from here! Thanks for taking up the reorganization; the main page looks so much better now. Opabinia regalis 23:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Viruses

The Wikiproject Viruses has recently been tagged as inactive (it hasn't has any edits since June), and rather than see a project dedicated to such an important topic fade away, I'm putting a little effort into cleaning it up and recruiting some new blood to take it over. If anybody would like to help, even if it's just tagging articles for the project, take a look at their project page. Thanks! – Clockwork Soul 05:10, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What about the idea to seize it as one of our subproject? It would help to gather attention from those of us, who are closer to it's topic, even if they are not just specialists. It is not perfectly proper delimitation, but virology, I think, is still very strongly related to the molecular biology, so it could work.

It's just merely suggestion from me. I am personaly from the second side of the topic definition, so I would'nt be helpfull in that subproject itself, if accepted. Reo ^ON | +++ 10:38, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also think we should make it a subproject of ours. --Username132 (talk) 01:32, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SCOTM: Antioxidant

I know I'm really, really late in posting this (so that those who are interested have probably seen it already), but the current Science collaboration is antioxidant, which may be of interest to people here. There hasn't really been much work on it so far, perhaps because paring through all the uncited cruft is a daunting task, but it could use more active editing and less edit creep/cruft accumulation. Opabinia regalis 07:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cancer Research Article is Candidate for Improvement

FYI, the cancer research article is a candidate for improvement at Wikipedia:Article_Creation_and_Improvement_Drive#Cancer_research. Keesiewonder 20:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA candidacy of Bacteria

This article is now a Featured Article candidate, the nomination page is (here). Thank you. TimVickers 04:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I'm a bit late to the party but I thought an article had to not be receiving so many edits in order to qualify for FA (i.e. near "completion") but this article has been and still is getting quite a few edits every day (>100 a week?). --Username132 (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these were in response to reviewer suggestions, so I think that's OK. TimVickers 16:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene is the current Science collaboration

May be of interest here - gene was selected as the Science collaboration for December, so if you get a chance, help clean this thing up! It's underreferenced and overly simplistic, and it has really been under-maintained for a long time - de-featured in February; rejected for version 0.5 in May; someone contacted me about updating and referencing it in August, and here it is December... this should be so much better! Opabinia regalis 08:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed Rosetta@Home nomination for collaboration

I delisted the collaboration nomination of Rosetta@Home, originally nominated by User:Records, due to his extremely disruptive behavior at WT:SCOTM and the FAC nomination for Folding@Home, and in particular his admission to attempting to use Wikipedia editors' work for advertising purposes. The user has been indefblocked as a disruptive self-admitted sockpuppet, so he wouldn't be able to participate in the collaboration anyway.not that that's such a loss No particular prejudice against renomination; just cleaning up after him. Opabinia regalis 04:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine with me. Besides, it was far enough removed as a subject from actual MCB that it was unlikely to accrue enough votes to survive for long. – Clockwork Soul 04:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell nucleus was nominated for FAC

He who hesitates is lost; it looks like we were too slow in sending cell nucleus to FAC - a new user, User:Weaken, just nominated it here. I'm off to bed for the night, but FYI. Opabinia regalis 07:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left last night thinking I was being overly suspicious, after the Records incident, of weird but well-meaning behavior from a new user, hence this request to watch ongoing developments. Turns out my first instinct was right, it was just a troll. In fact, almost certainly the same troll. Strange set of articles to pick for this sort of thing, but there you have it. Opabinia regalis 14:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like it was really nominated: the nomination page is still red, and there's no mention on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It's a pretty good article: anybody care to push it over the edge? – Clockwork Soul 19:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking closer, its seems the nom page page was deleted by Centrx (talk · contribs), but without explaination. I haven't read the talk page, so there may be a rationale there. – Clockwork Soul 19:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One user can't have 2 nominations at once. TimVickers 19:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discouraged but not disallowed. Weaken created a fairly well-formed and sensibly written nomination immediately before making a series of posts like this one on various talk pages; he admitted to being this IP whose contribs list is all the same nonsense Records was doing. Centrx then mass-reverted Weaken's edits.

I agree we should nominate it for real this time; ideally the main contributor ShaiM would be around, but I guess he's been busy/missing for a while - hope he's coming back... Opabinia regalis 04:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pymol Supported By MCB

The poll to decide which molecular image rendering tool to support is over and Pymol will be the supported tool. If someone would be willing to write a brief tuorial on how they can use this tool to make images for articles, then that would be great. --Username132 (talk) 14:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Willing to do the basics here if we have a basic idea of how we want the images to look. IIRC there was general agreement that, while it's impossible to specify a single 'best representation' for all proteins, cartoon representation colored by secondary structure and/or protein chain was preferred as a starting point. Any further thoughts/recommendations? Opabinia regalis 03:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Started a very skeletal draft here, with lots of 'under construction' notices :) I think there's inevitably going to be a lot of introductory/basic interface material, as it's something that's totally foreign if you've never used one of these tools before and rapidly becomes 'completely obvious' once you have. Please feel free to edit/expand/comment/complain. Opabinia regalis 07:35, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cell nucleus nominated for FAC

For real this time :) I figured the rest of the time I have before the holidays would be well-spent finishing this up. Please leave comments and suggestions here. Thanks. Opabinia regalis 03:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! We did some good work with that one. I don't think that it'll need much work at all to get it to FA. – Clockwork Soul 03:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was just officlally promoted to FAS about an hour ago. Good job to everybody who put in the effort to make it what it is! – Clockwork Soul 18:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote on scientific citation style

vote page

A vote on whether this project should endorse the Scientific citations guidelines. Might help us be more forceful with people who add junk to "our" pages if we can point them at this page and say "It's a Biology article, so your sources should conform to this standard." TimVickers 21:06, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! I endorse the citation guidelines but don't intend to use them myself! That's wikignome work! I'd rather use Harvard referencing and leave it to the gnomes and fairies... --Username132 (talk) 01:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Using the Bookmarklet as detailed on this page makes adding references as easy as cut and paste. TimVickers 01:44, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone ought to make a bookmarklet for Opera and Firefox --Username132 (talk) 23:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It works perfectly in Firefox and Opera (edited for those struggling against Gnomeness ;) ), since it uses javascript. TimVickers 23:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use Opera(!) :) --Username132 (talk) 15:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote closed. Suggestion adopted. TimVickers 00:51, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proteasome peer review

FYI, proteasome, our November collaboration, is up for peer review here if you have any comments. Clearing out the 2006 backlog here... Opabinia regalis 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DNA nominated for FAC

Hi all, the article DNA has been nominated to become a featured article. Its candidacy page is here. Thanks. TimVickers 22:08, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immune system FAC

Immune system has also been nominated as a FAC, but it still has some minor flaws that need to me ironed out. If anybody gets a chance, can you please help to resolve any problems that may be raised? Many thank! – Clockwork Soul 18:20, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immune system has been polished a little, comments and suggestions are welcome. TimVickers 16:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proteasome FAC

Our November collaboration, proteasome is currently A-class and is now up for FAC here. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three in a row!

Well done everybody! DNA, Immune system and Proteasome are all now featured articles. TimVickers 20:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't do a damn thing. Good job Tim, for being the catalyst. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:NatOrganicBox

As this template is still in use here and there I have decided to follow the standarts set by our tireless infobox master so i changed it to look more "Arcadian-made"-like :) (Arginine). Some of the template variables don't have the same name as those in Template:drugbox, so if you think that's a big issue and you know how to work with templates, go ahead and make a change. Now if there is anything that I have missed or have added too much feel free to change it as well. But don't add (for now) the "toccolours"-class to the table, i have added most of its style properties but the one that adds 5px padding area around the inside of the table border - i think that's too much of empty space, let's see how it is going to look first then we'll decide whether to keep it or not. -- Boris 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually in about 20-30 articles out of 3700 that cover chemical compounds, and after i check it up it looks like they have all been added by me long ago, some of them can not even be called "natural". Arggggh!!! I feel dumb and embarrassed now. Never mind ignore the announcement. -- Boris 23:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]