Talk:GPI (gene)

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
	This redirect is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Gene vs protein[edit]

I'm getting really sick of these bot-created articles that say so-and-so "is a human gene", despite the fact that: A) The article is actually about a protein, B) The image clearly shows that it is a protein, and C) It's not strictly found in humans (there is even a link in protein info box showing as much). There are thousands of these articles, and they're basically worthless to 99% of readers/editors. I'm beginning to wonder if any of the pages created by the "ProteinBoxBot" ever (originally) mentioned that the item in question is in fact a protein. Fuzzform (talk) 03:54, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A) The article is actually about a protein – as you yourself have written this article is about both the protein and the gene that encodes it.

B) The image clearly shows that it is a protein – the protein box also contains links to information about the corresponding gene, so clearly the article is about both.

C) It's not strictly found [only] in humans – GPI (upper case) refers to the human protein, Gpi (lower case) refers to the protein in other species. It makes sense include information about both the human protein and orthologs found in other species on the same page and so this is why it was included in the protein bot box. Including all this information in the lead in every single Gene Wiki article would be excessive and overly pendantic.

D) they're basically worthless to 99% of readers/editors – I think the problem here is mainly perception and sematics. Just because there may be a problem in the first sentence of the lead of the article, doesn't make the entire article worthless. This is a wiki after all. Anyone is free to edit and improve the article.

E) I'm beginning to wonder if any of the pages created by the "ProteinBoxBot" ever (originally) mentioned that the item in question is in fact a protein – many of the Wiki Gene articles contain a PBB summary derived from Entrez. These summaries often start out with the statement "The protein encoded by this gene ..." (see for example MCM8, there are thousands of additional examples).

Finally I would like to note that we have responded in detail to your objections here. If you still have concerns, please continue the discussion there. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 08:47, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]