User talk:Boghog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Variability in PSA Measurement[edit]

I have edited it just because it is a very common problem occuring in practice. The review artcile may not be upto date but it is addressed considering routine problem of clinicains and lab professionals.

science the endless frontier[edit]

did you ever read this? Jytdog (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I was aware of the Vannevar Bush report, but never read it in detail. It was enormously influential and lead to a major expansion of Federal support for research after World War II. I am not exactly sure why you brought this up, but the following quote from the report may be relevant to this recent MEDMOS discussion:

Further [medical] progress requires that the entire front of medicine and the underlying sciences of chemistry, physics, anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, bacteriology, pathology, parasitology, etc., be broadly developed. Boghog (talk) 02:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Changed citation style in Aequorin[edit]

I note you have changed the citation style to Vancouver in this article. Generally under the MOS citation style is not to be changed. What is the special reason here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

This article already followed the author Vancouver style (multiple authors stored in a single |author= parameter). The only difference in changing from {{cite journal}} to {{vcite2 journal}} (and |author= to |vauthors=) is generation of clean meta data. Otherwise the displayed citations look identical. Boghog (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Oh good. Very glad it's not about to break out in an AWB-inspired rash all over! Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Wondering why you are switching to vcite2[edit]

In this edit [1]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

As explained in the section directly above, if the article already uses Vancouver formatted authors as Testosterone does, then the displayed citations using {{cite journal}} or {{vcite2 journal}} will look identical. The only difference is that the citations will now produce clean author metadata and in addition keep the malfunctioning Citation bot away (see this this discussion). For more background, also see this discussion.
What I would ultimately like to do is convince the maintainers of {{cite journal}} to add an optional |vauthors= parameter to {{cite journal}}. That way compact author lists will be fully supported. If we do nothing, storing multiple authors in a single |author= parameter may be deprecated in the future. Boghog (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Okay thanks. The difficulty I face; however, is that the cite template is supported across the 100 languages I am working in while the vcite2 is not. This is a pain for translation. We really need to get the WMF to provide a few standard ref formatting options across all languages. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I forgot about the translation project. I have restored the standard {{cite journal}} templates to the Testosterone article for now. The conversion back and forth is rather trivial (search and replace "{{vcite2 journal | vauthors" with "{{cite journal | author"). This is one additional reason to add |vauthors= parameter to the standard {{cite journal}} template. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Am not planning on translating this article anytime soon. Was just commenting just in case this was going to be a more wide spread thing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Can w make sure this template is installed in all other languages before we change all refs to vcite2? When it is I will than support changing all articles to it.
Also if we are going to go with vcite too can we get the ref tool in the top of the edit box to use it? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
In the short term, if one want to translate into another language, all one needs to do is to do a search and replace of "vcite2 | vauthors" with "cite | author". The {{cite journal}} and {{vcite2 journal}} templates are identical except that the later supports an optional |vauthors= parameter. The only consequence of replacing |vauthors= with |author= is that the former generates clean author metadata whereas the later does not. In all other respects, the displayed citations look identical. As requested here, what I really would like to see is the |vauthors= parameter be supported directly by the {{cite journal}} template. If that is done, then I think we can convince the maintainers of WP:REFTOOLS to add |vauthors= as an option. I have been expanding the use of {{vcite2 journal}} template, especially within Gene Wiki project to make sure that there are no issues with the new template. I have not notice any issues, so the next step would be to make a request here. I foresee some resistance to the proposal, so I would really need some support from WP:MED to make this fly. So my question to you is (a) do you think this is a good idea and (b), if so, would you support it? Boghog (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I am of the opinion that we need greater consistency around citation style not less. This includes greater consistency between languages. There are dozens of steps to translate an article into another language. I am not inclined to add more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Even if |vauthors= were to be added to other languages citation templates? Then there would be zero extra steps. Boghog (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
This is really quite silly. Even if |vauthors= were not added to other languages cite templates, there would be still no extra steps. For example, to translate into Spanish, one must replace "cite journal | author" with "cita publicación | autor". If the article used vcite2, then would instead replace "vcite2 journal | vauthor2" with the same "cita publicación | autor". No extra steps. Boghog (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If |vauthors= were added to the other language citation templates I would support as there would be zero extra steps. It has taken a massive amount of work to install the citation templates in 100+ languages already. User:CFCF did most of it.
First of all we should get consensus here on En that this should be done widely. I have no strong feels about it and would support as long as it does not make the work I do more difficult. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. That is what I was suggesting above. Boghog (talk) 21:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Great, glad we are on the same page :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:35, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

CCT6A
added a link pointing to Chaperone
EPS8
added a link pointing to EGFR
RPL10
added a link pointing to U70

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost[edit]

This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 20:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase vs ALOX15[edit]

Hey Boghog - I started working on an eoxin article (from my userspace for now... User:Seppi333/Eoxin) and noticed an issue with the naming convention of the associated enzyme articles for these compounds. Arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase (15-LOX) has 2 subtypes: 15-LOX-1 (located at ALOX15 - this is the eoxin producing enzyme) and 15-LOX-2 (located at ALOX15B).

Our other lipoxygenase articles use the longer name (e.g., the most notable lipoxygenase is 5-LOX; this contraction and ALOX5 both redirect to Arachidonate 5-lipoxygenase), so I'm assuming the ALOX articles should be moved for consistency:

Do these moves seem appropriate? Also, should the general 15-LOX article be converted to a set index of these two, or just remain as is?

Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 00:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Some refs for context:

Hi Seppi333. The usual convention is to gene/protein articles using the approved HUGO gene symbol or recommend UniProt name. According to this convention, the two articles should be renamed as follows:
The complication is Arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase already exists as an enzyme article and IMHO should remain as is. Furthermore since ALOX15 and ALOX15B share the same EC number, it would not be appropriate to merge ALOX15 with Arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase. We could label the two isozymes "A" and "B" respectively, but ALOX15 is not normally referred to as the "A" isozyme. So I guess your proposal is the most reasonable, since these names correspond to the UniProt "expanded short names", 15-LOX-1 and 15-LOX-2, respectively. Boghog (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. So, should we use 1 and 2 or A and B following "Arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase" in the page names?
I also have a chemistry question that I need some clarification on. Most papers I've read indicate 5-LOX and 15-LOX metabolize along distinct but analogous pathways following synthesis by the associated 5-LOX or 15-LOX enzyme (see page 122 of the "15-LOX-1 review" pdf located here). However, reactome is indicating that EXA4 is produced from LTA4 via 15-LOX-1 in humans (the mostly complete series of reactions along arachidonic acid pathways is also located at special:Permalink/641335373#Biochemistry). I'm confused - wouldn't 15-lipoxygenase-1 action on LTA-4 create a completely different compound than EXA4 (aka 14,15-LTA4), or is that posible/correct? Seppi333 (Insert  | Maintained) 01:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 January[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Replacing Cite PMID with Cite Journal[edit]

Can we have a bot do this on all medical articles and than do so again on regular basis?

Consensus is here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)