User talk:Boghog/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Boghog. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 20

Tool

Greetings Boghog. I just went to the tool of yours hosted by tools.wmflabs.org at (this is the link I found at the bottom of this list), but it's currently down, and I didn't know if this was a routine maintenance issue or something else. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Biosthmors:. Thanks for letting me know the tool was down. I have restarted it and it now appears to be functioning again. I have no idea why it went down. The tool server has been rock solid and it is very rare when I have to restart the tool service. This was one of those rare times. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Did you also mean to roll back all my changes? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, working on restoring your edits. Boghog (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

citation format

Hi - I see you made a change to the citation I put in... I just want to understand what you did so that I can do this correctly in the future. Thanks -J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahrjeff (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mahrjeff:. Thank you for your contributions. I only tweaked the citation format in your edit so that is consist with the previously established citation style for the article. More specifically, the |url= parameter duplicated the |doi=0.1101/2020.01.22.915660 parameter, so I deleted the former. I also added the |name-list-format=vanc parameter so that the author format matched the previously established author style. I hope this makes sense. One reservation about the biorxiv citation is that is a preprint that has not passed peer review. Hence it may not qualify as a reliable source. Boghog (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Boghog,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Biological dark matter

Hi. I have seen you corrected some citation formats in the article Biological dark matter in 2019. I found 2 additional sources that discuss a research on uncategorized genetic material found in human guts which probably derives from some unidentified microbial dark matter: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830474-800-mystery-microbes-in-our-gut-could-be-a-whole-new-form-of-life/ (newscientist.com) and https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-015-0092-3 (Biology Direct). I think they should be added to the article. Could you help me prepare the proper citations, please? Thanks a lot! Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pinoczet: The New Scientist piece refers to the Biomedcentral article, so I merged the two as follows:

• Lopez P, Halary S, Bapteste E (October 2015). "Highly divergent ancient gene families in metagenomic samples are compatible with additional divisions of life". Biology Direct. 10: 64. doi:10.1186/s13062-015-0092-3. PMC 4624368. PMID 26502935. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Per WP:SCIRS, this source is not ideal since it is primary. I have searched for a review that covers the same material, but unfortunately I cannot find one. Therefore I think this primary source is OK to use as long as the text that you add reflects the caution that the authors used in their conclusions (hinting at the possibility). Boghog (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much. By the way, if you find some time, could you take a look at the section I added, please? I mean especially correcting grammar (e.g. verb tenses choice), spelling, and punctuation, awkward wording, citation format etc. Thanks! Have a nice day, --Pinoczet (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

HSP27 protein

Hi, The part I removed was discussing HSP72 not the molecule of interest HSP27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishakamir (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I have self-reverted. Just a friendly suggestion: when deleting, add a short explanation for your edits. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

about CYP305M2

Could you help create this entry? This is very important for the locust disaster.Wei, Jianing; Shao, Wenbo; Cao, Minmin; Ge, Jin; Yang, Pengcheng; Chen, Li; Wang, Xianhui; Kang, Le (23 January 2019). "Phenylacetonitrile in locusts facilitates an antipredator defense by acting as an olfactory aposematic signal and cyanide precursor". Science Advances. 5 (1): eaav5495. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav5495.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)--Htmlzycq (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Htmlzycq:. I just created CYP305M2. I could not find much in the way of identifiers beyond what is contained here. Boghog (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Could you get the file "Fig. 5 Model of the biosynthesis of PAN and HCN from phenylalanine" from this OA article, I don't know how to comply with the copyright policy.

BTW, why did Cytochrome P450 aromatic O-demethylase gcoA gene have no its own CYP Symbol?--Htmlzycq (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome. The figures of Wei, et al. (2019) are under a CC BY-NC license and hence cannot be used by Wikipedia. According to Mallinson et al. (2018), the gcoA enzyme belongs to the CYP255A family but for reasons unknown to me, they did not assign a CYP number to this protein. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, CC BY-NC, I see. That's why. Besides, is there any other CYPs in enwiki not included in this template{{Cytochrome P450}}?--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope this template can be similar to {{Clusters of differentiation}}, listed by serial number, easy to access. The other template {{Dioxygenases}} is classified by structure, or coenzyme, or mito clan CYPs, to facilitate the establishment of a complete understanding.--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

There may be a few cyp articles that are missing in the navbox, but based on a quick search (CYP search), it appears that a high percentage of them are included. Boghog (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rucaparib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BRCA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

About citations in Cystic Fibrosis

Dear Boghog,

Please, next time that you will change the citation style on a page, look at the edit history of that page. It is possible that somebody is already working on it to make the citation style better. As for your edit comment about it being inconsistent... Well yes, it was, as I was currently working on it and as it can be time consuming to check >150 individual citations, I tend to do it in parts. It was said in the edit comments that the actual state of citations is a work in progress. Therefore, thanks for more work. :]

As for why I am choosing this style of citation... The page has a long list of citations, which is good, but can also be less readable. Therefore I propose a cleaner citation style:

• Use "vancouver style author list" instead of individual "first/last name" fields. Shrinks the page file without any loss of data.
• Use "display authors/editors" = 3 for long lists of authors. It saves a lot of space. It is a common practice to do so in many journals and publications. One even I got scolded by a reviewer when my citations did not skim the author list by using "etal". Also, the addition of doi/pmid links completely secures the fact that no author is ommited even if they are not listed, as one can easily lookup the data via those links.
• There is no need for month or day in "source date" of journal citations. I personally never saw a citation style using them in any journal. The volume and issue are more important for journals. Day and month are signifficant only for fast paced publications, such as news articles, web pages, blogs, magazines, and newspapers.
• If it is signifficant to put a date with day and month, please use the Day Month Year notation, e.g. 3 Dec 2020. This way it is clear and short at th same time. Using only numbers is many times unclear, as some people use DD-MM-YYYY and others MM-DD-YYYY, which leeds to dates like 06-02-2020 to be ambigous.
• If there is a wiki page for a journal, please use its ISO4 abbreviation as a link to said page. This also removes the need for adding ISSN numbers.
  
  

If there are indications why my proposed style of citation is not sufficient, please do tell me. I would like to evade a situation where we are both correcting each other only because we have different oppinions on citation styles.

Waiting for your input,
Light Code (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Light Code: Thanks for your message. Concerning the Vancouver system, I completely agree with you. If you look at my edits, I converted |first1=, |last1=, ... to |vauthors= or added |name-list-format=vanc to the few citations that did not already follow Vancouver style authors. Concerning number of displayed authors, I replaced |display-authors=3 with |display-authors=6 as the later is the Vancouver standard. I don't have any strong opinions on including month in |date=. These can be removed if you prefer. I always use ISO 8601 compliant dates, and in fact {{cite journal}} insists on them and will generate an error message if not compliant. Finally, I have consistently replaced journal abbreviations with full journal names since that is what most editors/readers seem to prefer. Boghog (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Boghog: Thank you for your opinion and for the link. 6 authors it is then. I will think about the dates when I will have more time for more citation edits. To be honest, the most important thing was to rebuild lost citations. You know, it would be really nice if the citation styles were done differently, so the citation style would be declared once for the whole document, and the citations themselves would only use that declaration. This would ensure that a page would heve consistent formatting even if it was edited by many different people. But that is outside of our scope, sadly.

Once again, thanks for info and have a nice day.

Light Code (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks / question

Hi Boghog, thanks for your improvements to Androgen-binding protein. It looks so much better now. The reFill tool has been broken for a while, do you know if there is a good alternative available? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrVogel: Thanks for you note. The tool I have been using is the Diberri Template builder. I hope this helps. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2019 Cure Award

In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a thematic organization whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I just came here to say essentially the same thing, based on a shout-out for your work that I came across in this paper: Thus, special thanks for your contributions to protein-related articles! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Hear hear! Paul (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks guys for the link and acknowledgements. I had no idea that I was mentioned in the paper. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah... you've definitely contributed a lot to Wikipedia. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the citations

I didn’t realize that |vauthors was preferred over |name-list-format=vanc. Do you know of a tool that can create Vancouver style citations automatically? I’ve been using Citation Bot, but that just spits out the default citation style.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. Per WP:CITEVAR, if there is a predominate pre-existing style, that style should be preserved. If |vauthors= predominate style, Diberri Template builder can be used to create new cites in that format. If there are many authors, storing the author information in first1, last1, ... parameters produces enormous templates that start to overwhelm the wiki text. |vauthors= is much more efficient. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

section heads

It appears that your consistent citation formatting script is inconsistent with changes to spaces in section headers. Spaces were added to References and External links but not to the other section headers. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Prazosin&diff=next&oldid=945715418 Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

About CYP51

I think the Sterol 14-demethylase shuold not redirect to Lanosterol 14 alpha-demethylase, because the latter is a subset of the former. At least five steroids can be catalyzed by CYP51 family enzymes, these sterols here inculd lanosterol, 24,25-dihydrolanosterol, 29-norlanosterol, obtusifoliol and 24-methylenedihydrolanosterol.PMCID: PMC2324071 --Htmlzycq (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

although human CYP51A1 can catalyze five substrates, under physiological conditions, only lanosterol be the substrate.--Htmlzycq (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Htmlzycq: My general rule of thumb is is there is a one-to-one correspondence between EC number and human gene as defined by ExPASy, then the human gene and EC page should probably be merged. That seems to be the case here. That said, if you want to reverse this redirect, I would not object. The number of infoboxes in Lanosterol 14 alpha-demethylase is becoming a bit excessive. Boghog (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

OK, I think the page Sterol 14-demethylase should add more non-human message, as the note on Cytochrome P450 Homepage CYP51 nomenclature:

CYP51s were originally all called CYP51, because only one gene was found per species and they all seemed to be in this one conserved family. However, rice had many CYP51s in at least two sequence groups, so subfamilies have been designated for CYP51s. These are not the typical subfamilies, but only one subfamily is created for each major taxonomic group. CYP51A for animals, CYP51B for bacteria. CYP51C for Chromista, CYP51D for Dictyostelium, CYP51E for Euglenozoa, CYP51F for fungi. Those groups with only one CYP51 per species are all called by one name: CYP51A1 is for all animal CYP51s since they are orthologous. The same is true for CYP51B, C, D, E and F. CYP51G (green plants) and CYP51Hs (monocots only so far) have individual sequence numbers.

By the way, it seems that this website hasn't been updated for many years.--Htmlzycq (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Compare with CYP51A1 and CYP51, I think that STAR (gene) and Steroidogenic acute regulatory protein should be redirect.--Htmlzycq (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Lumateperone

Hello, Boghog. You have new messages at Talk:Lumateperone#Numbers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Gryllida (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you please possibly reply? I'm seeing you're currently available, and the source which I am asking about is not available for public download. Thanks Gryllida (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Replied at article talk page. Boghog (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antiviral protein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recombinant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Boghog, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)