Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biophysics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
  Main page   Article assessment   Talk page  
WikiProject Biophysics (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Biophysics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 NA  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Do genes belong in this project?[edit]

Do specific genes belong in this project? For example, the biophysics content in CLCN5 seems limited to the fact that it encodes an ion channel. Is that enough to merit inclusion in this project? RockMagnetist (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Good question. On some WP articles there seems to be some confusion between genes and proteins. Genes, as sets of sequences of DNA or RNA, are firmly in biology territory. There are people who look at the physics of DNA and RNA, but typically the focus is not on the physics of a particular sequence. Proteins are the end result of multiple steps of transcription and post processing. There is a rough identification of genes and proteins, but it is not 1-1 in all cases. Things like channel proteins can be of interest to biophysicists, but it is not clear that all such proteins have been of biophysical interest. If the protein has been of biophysical interest and the only article we have on it is on the genetic sequence it is based on, it makes sense to me to include it in a biophysics category. But I wouldn't slap a biophysics category on every gene article in general. --Mark viking (talk) 15:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Alas, we already have slapped them with a bot. They make up a large fraction of the unassessed articles. I think a lot of them come from Category:Ion channels. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:18, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
It's probably hard to exclude the ion-channel genes from "ion channels", which is certainly one of our important categories. Does anyone know either how to do that, or how to mark the gene-only ones as unimportant for us? Dcrjsr (talk) 12:36, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
All we need to do is remove the {{WikiProject Biophysics}} templates from the talk pages. RockMagnetist (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
OK - that makes sense. We can do that as a background project. Dcrjsr (talk) 00:34, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Cleanup listing[edit]

Hi. I'm currently working on an bot that creates on-wiki copies of Svick's cleanup lists. I've been using your project's list for testing, so I'm curious what you think of it. The list can be found at User:HhhipBot/Cleanup listing/Biophysics. The main motivation for having this list on-wiki is that it can be watchlisted and that article links are internal (that is, protocol-neutral). Additional features are that each section can be individually transcluded, and several ways to find new or recently resolved issues. Comments or suggestions are welcome! — HHHIPPO 12:18, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I like the idea of an in-wiki cleanup listing, and your version has an attractive layout. I'd like to see the importance rating for each article - when I use a cleanup listing I prefer to work on the highest priority articles first. RockMagnetist (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
You mean, like this? I added a short marker giving the importance for each listed article (and there will be a legend somewhere). One could also think of sorting by importance, for the projects that have these ratings, but then there's so many sort options, we should probably stick to one for the wiki version and use the original tool for the rest. — HHHIPPO 18:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Yes, there is something to be said for two tools with different advantages. I think the markers are a little cryptic; without some explanation at the top, most people would probably not guess why there is an [M] or [?] after a listing. You could add an explanation at the top, use something like the {{Classicon}} template, or expand the markers to read something like [Top]. RockMagnetist (talk) 02:00, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Yea, I considered those options, too. There seems to be no established set of icons for importance ratings, and I think [Top], [Unknown] etc. might still be cryptic on first sight, so I went for the option with compact labels plus legend. I added the legend to the top of the page now, together with some more description and links. I couldn't find a good general description of importance ratings, the ones at WP:1.0 are somewhat focused on preparing offline releases, which is not why we want the ratings here.
Feel free to further tweak the introduction text, I plan on teaching the bot to leave the lead section alone before I run it again, so that can be customized by each project. — HHHIPPO 18:44, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Archived a few threads[edit]

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 22:00, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia session at Biophysical Society meeting[edit]

The notes from the session are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biophysics/Biophysics wiki-edit contest/BPS 2014 session. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:29, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Royal Society journals - subscription offer for one year[edit]

I'm delighted to say that the Royal Society, the UK’s National Academy for science, is offering 24 Wikipedians free access for one year to its prestigious range of scientific journals. Please note that much of the content of these journals is already freely available online, the details varying slightly between the journals – see the Royal Society Publishing webpages. For the purposes of this offer the Royal Society's journals are divided into 3 groups: Biological sciences, Physical sciences and history of science. For full details and signing-up, please see the applications page. Initial applications will close on 25 May 2014, but later applications will go on the waiting list. Wiki at Royal Society John (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Outline of biophysics[edit]

FYI, "Outline of biophysics" has been requested to be renamed to Biophysical techniques; for the discussion, see talk:Outline of biophysics -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 08:49, 27 July 2014 (UTC)