Talk:Drosophila connectome

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Neuroscience Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience 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.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Diptera Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Diptera, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of flies 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.DipteraWikipedia:WikiProject DipteraTemplate:WikiProject DipteraDiptera articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

Neural Network Without Weights

IMO the article should point out that without knowing the weighting that each synapse has, the connectome could not be used to build a simulation of a working brain. New Thought (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a neuroscientist who works in this exact area. I added information about what may be needed to simulate, along with a reference. This is a reference to my own work, which is allowed, but should be checked by other editors. LouScheffer (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - that's a helpful contribution! New Thought (talk) 12:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR

Hello @Boghog: You have been told many times over many years that other editors do not agree to your violations of WP:CITEVAR. Invasive Spices (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we return to "author1 AND author2 AND author3 AND author4" style? Boghog (talk) 20:50, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Direct references for adult brain and male adult nerve cord.

While I appreciate that bioRxiv is not peer reviewed, and not in general a reliable source, these two projects (full female adult brain, and male nerve cord) are reliably sourced, just not by the bioRxiv pre-print alone. So I changed the references to the data web sites, where the reader can verify for themselves that the data is really available (seeing the data yourself is even more reliable than a peer-reviewed article stating it's available, in my opinion). I left in the links to the bioRxiv articles, with explicit notation that this is a pre-print. Comments welcome, LouScheffer (talk) 14:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]