Template talk:Infobox biodatabase

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

Infobox Stub[edit]

I'm currently working on this infobox. Please, see the discussion at ; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology/Proposals#Infobox_biodatabase --Plindenbaum (talk) 18:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Pierre, I think the current proposal is too limited. How do you model databases done by a consotrium of organizations? Also, I think primary publication is not clear. Should that be the first publication, the latest? Can you have the field name reflect that? EgonWillighagen (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Egon, we can link the "centers" to a page describing the consortium or we can write several centers delimited by <br/>. But you could also add a field 'consortium' in the infobox
About the PMID, I think we only need one publication describing the database. Choosing the first or the last article about the database isn't an issue to me because all the revelant references should be inserted in the body of the article. --Plindenbaum (talk) 09:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

PMID[edit]

Hi Pierre,

I think showing the PMIDs is not so nice. How about having two params: citation_name and citation, like:

| citation_name=Overington, 2009
| citation={{cite pmid|19194660}}

being rendered as: Overington, 2009 [1]? MichaK (talk) 11:24, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree, but don't you think that the same citation should/must appear first and foremost in the body of the article ? E.g: BISC (database).--Plindenbaum (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Sure, then it's probably a better idea to use something like:
| citation_name=Overington, 2009
| citation=<ref name="Overington"/>
where the reference has been defined in the main text. I think there should be something more meaningful than the PMID shown as the text, even if its not a reference but a link to PubMed. MichaK (talk) 13:41, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Broken beyond repair...[edit]

...or rather, my repair attempts on wikispam page WikiPathways fail, I don't get 300px implicitly, I don't get 33% explicitly, adding !important failed, removing nowrap failed, and removing the bodyclass also failed. Please fix this or nominate the infobox for deletion. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:48, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the long URL will not be shortened. I've therefore wrapped the URLs in brackets on WikiPathways, and the infobox became thin. MichaK (talk) 08:38, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll note this trick for other cases, if something extends the intended box width causing havoc (horozontal scrollbar or worse effects.) –Be..anyone (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)