Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Speaking of breeder bios. Any cat fanciers out there?
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Jean Mill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
Seems like there is plenty notable to me. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
Facto Post – Issue 22 – 28 March 2019
 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Half a century ago, it was the era of the mainframe computer, with its air-conditioned room, twitching tape-drives, and appearance in the title of a spy novel Billion-Dollar Brain then made into a Hollywood film. Now we have the cloud, with server farms and the client–server model as quotidian: this text is being typed on a Chromebook. The term Applications Programming Interface or API is 50 years old, and refers to a type of software library as well as the interface to its use. While a compiler is what you need to get high-level code executed by a mainframe, an API out in the cloud somewhere offers a chance to perform operations on a remote server. For example, the multifarious bots active on Wikipedia have owners who exploit the MediaWiki API. APIs (called RESTful) that allow for the GET HTTP request are fundamental for what could colloquially be called "moving data around the Web"; from which Wikidata benefits 24/7. So the fact that the Wikidata SPARQL endpoint at query.wikidata.org has a RESTful API means that, in lay terms, Wikidata content can be GOT from it. The programming involved, besides the SPARQL language, could be in Python, younger by a few months than the Web. Magic words, such as occur in fantasy stories, are wishful (rather than RESTful) solutions to gaining access. You may need to be a linguist to enter Ali Baba's cave or the western door of Moria (French in the case of "Open Sesame", in fact, and Sindarin being the respective languages). Talking to an API requires a bigger toolkit, which first means you have to recognise the tools in terms of what they can do. On the way to the wikt:impactful or polymathic modern handling of facts, one must perhaps take only tactful notice of tech's endemic problem with documentation, and absorb the insightful point that the code in APIs does articulate the customary procedures now in place on the cloud for getting information. As Owl explained to Winnie-the-Pooh, it tells you The Thing to Do.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:46, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Category:Genetic genealogists
I Have created this category. Is it ok ? (Jkrn111 (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2019 (UTC)).
A new newsletter directory is out!
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
- – Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
| Facto Post – Issue 23 – 30 April 2019
The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
 Talk of cloud computing draws a veil over hardware, but also, less obviously but more importantly, obscures such intellectual distinction as matters most in its use. Wikidata begins to allow tasks to be undertaken that were out of easy reach. The facility should not be taken as the real point. Coming in from another angle, the "executive decision" is more glamorous; but the "administrative decision" should be admired for its command of facts. Think of the attitudes ad fontes, so prevalent here on Wikipedia as "can you give me a source for that?", and being prepared to deal with complicated analyses into specified subcases. Impatience expressed as a disdain for such pedantry is quite understandable, but neither dirty data nor false dichotomies are at all good to have around. Issue 13 and Issue 21, respectively on WP:MEDRS and systematic reviews, talk about biomedical literature and computing tasks that would be of higher quality if they could be made more "administrative". For example, it is desirable that the decisions involved be consistent, explicable, and reproducible by non-experts from specified inputs. What gets clouded out is not impossibly hard to understand. You do need to put together the insights of functional programming, which is a doctrinaire and purist but clearcut approach, with the practicality of office software. Loopless computation can be conceived of as a seamless forward march of spreadsheet columns, each determined by the content of previous ones. Very well: to do a backward audit, when now we are talking about Wikidata, we rely on integrity of data and its scrupulous sourcing: and clearcut case analyses. The MEDRS example forces attention on purge attempts such as Beall's list.
If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
Gene names format and style question
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine#Gene names. --Nessie (talk) 13:58, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019
Facto Post – Issue 24 – 17 May 2019 The Editor is Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him, on his User talk page.
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see the footer.
Two dozen issues, and this may be the last, a valediction at least for a while. It's time for a two-year summation of ContentMine projects involving TDM (text and data mining). Wikidata and now Structured Data on Commons represent the overlap of Wikimedia with the Semantic Web. This common ground is helping to convert an engineering concept into a movement. TDM generally has little enough connection with the Semantic Web, being instead in the orbit of machine learning which is no respecter of the semantic. Don't break a taboo by asking bots "and what do you mean by that?" The ScienceSource project innovates in TDM, by storing its text mining results in a Wikibase site. It strives for compliance of its fact mining, on drug treatments of diseases, with an automated form of the relevant Wikipedia referencing guideline MEDRS. Where WikiFactMine set up an API for reuse of its results, ScienceSource has a SPARQL query service, with look-and-feel exactly that of Wikidata's at query.wikidata.org. It also now has a custom front end, and its content can be federated, in other words used in data mashups: it is one of over 50 sites that can federate with Wikidata. The human factor comes to bear through the front end, which combines a link to the HTML version of a paper, text mining results organised in drug and disease columns, and a SPARQL display of nearby drug and disease terms. Much software to develop and explain, so little time! Rather than telling the tale, Facto Post brings you ScienceSource links, starting from the how-to video, lower right.
The review tool requires a log in on sciencesource.wmflabs.org, and an OAuth permission (bottom of a review page) to operate. It can be used in simple and more advanced workflows. Examples of queries for the latter are at d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource project/Queries#SS_disease_list and d:Wikidata_talk:ScienceSource_project/Queries#NDF-RT issue. Please be aware that this is a research project in development, and may have outages for planned maintenance. That will apply for the next few days, at least. The ScienceSource wiki main page carries information on practical matters. Email is not enabled on the wiki: use site mail here to Charles Matthews in case of difficulty, or if you need support. Further explanatory videos will be put into commons:Category:ContentMine videos. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Topic Page on De novo gene birth
PLOS Genetics has just published its third Topic Page. As part of this, an article was drafted, peer reviewed and published in PLOS Genetics and has now been copied over to the De novo gene birth page. Comments and suggestions welcome! I've still not managed to get proper CS1 citation templates and citoid working over on the PLOSwiki website, so everything is done with {{cite pmid}}. If anyone knows a good way to easily convert all of the citations to proper {{cite_journal}}, please let me know! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 13:55, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
- Another excellent article from the project. It's written at a fairly high level, but is chock full of good information. There are a couple of tools to convert PMID to
{{cite journal}}that I know of: Biomedical citation maker and DTU Informatics PMID to Cite journal. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}20:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)- Thanks for the tool suggestions. If you come across any that do batch conversion let me know. Hopefully citoid can be implemented on topicpageswiki.plos.org eventually, so conversions aren't necessary. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
A possible Science/STEM User Group
There's a discussion about a possible User Group for STEM over at Meta:Talk:STEM_Wiki_User_Group. The idea would be to help coordinate, collaborate and network cross-subject, cross-wiki and cross-language to share experience and resources that may be valuable to the relevant wikiprojects. Current discussion includes preferred scope and structure. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:04, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
Possible project consolidation
There's a discussion going on over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology about whether it is worth consolidating some of the disparate biology wikiprojects. One possibility could be a merger or semi-merger of WP:GEN + WP:MCB + WP:COMBIO + WP:BIOP, since their scopes are well-aligned. Ideas and opinions welcome! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:14, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
- WP:Gene Wiki may also be included in this. We are still in the early stages of this discussion. Comments are welcome (read:needed)!!
- I should also add that we are considering bringing some aspects of WP:Wikiproject X to WP:Biology and turning it into a proper meta-project. Whether GEN remains independent or is merged into a larger project, there will be an opportunity to participate in that change as well. Prometheus720 (talk) 03:47, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Confirmation pre-merger
Hello, based on the consensus at the WP:Biol discussion, this is confirmation of my suggestion to merge:
WP:GEN + WP:MCB + WP:BIOP + WP:CELLSIG (possibly + WP:COMBIO) -> into Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology (name to be confirmed)
The new main page should be able combine all of the information of each project (much of which overlaps) and the talkpage should also also centralise discussion to make it more lively and easier for newcomers! Separate tracking tables of article qualities can still be kept by making them 'taskfores' if people think that'll be useful. If people don't object I'll go about redirecting the WP and WT pages to that centralised location next week per this process. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 13:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- @Jkrn111, Gonnym, Fangmz, Iamnotabunny, NessieVL, Poeticfeelings, and UnitedStatesian: Pinging you as you are all listed as active members under Wikiproject Directory tools. We really would like to have some conversation about this merge. Prometheus720 (talk) 16:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not a member of this project. Probably raised a template issue, which is why I showed up. Good luck with the merger. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for summoning me. Where shall we discuss this matter? Also, I think centralized discussion is a great idea. Poeticfeelings (talk) 17:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think the WP:Biol discussion speaks for itself. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'm pulling a Davos Seaworth and saying I'm not sure I get a vote, but aye. --Nessie (talk) 01:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- Not a member of this project. Probably raised a template issue, which is why I showed up. Good luck with the merger. Gonnym (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Merger complete! See the new unified talkpage. All talkpage archives should be clearly visible and searchable and the new unified WikiProject page is almost complete. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 12:24, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Discussion at Draft talk:Horizontal transfer of mitochondria#Opinions of subject matter experts sought
You are invited to join the discussion at Draft talk:Horizontal transfer of mitochondria#Opinions of subject matter experts sought. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
WikiProject Genealogy
If anyone here is interested, we are looking for volunteers at WikiProject Genealogy. Thanks! Tea and crumpets (talk) 01:07, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Christopher Kaelin up for deletion
- Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
- Christopher Kaelin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs|google) AfD discussion
IMO, well sourced article about a geneticist. But you can help improve it. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:53, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
Your input appreciated
Hi all,
I would appreciate your input in this strange case: Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Wikipedia_page_"later"_published_in_scientific_paper:_copyvio?.
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Discussion of interest at Reliable Sources Noticeboard
The following discussion is of interest to members at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Using of primary genetics sources at Uyghur (and many other Eurasian pages)--Ermenrich (talk) 13:42, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Mendelian inheritance
Hallo dear colleagues, I have studied biology at the University of Frankfurt Germany, I am a biology college teacher, I have been working in the German Wikipedia for many years correcting biology articles and writing some new ones. Some time ago I started completing and correcting some english articles too, for example Genetic carrier. I created many own graphics where they were missing. Recently I found the english article Mendelian inheritance needing improvement and reliable sources. I saw a number of technical inaccuacies too and took the time to make a completed and corrected version in a sandbox User:Sciencia58/sandbox Can you please read through this carefully, compare with the current version and tell Redrose64 and me on the talk page, if you agree to use the reworked version. If you have any further suggestions for improvement, please let me know. Sciencia58 (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
Hallo I haven't received any answer yet. Has anyone read this post? Sciencia58 (talk) 06:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Can someone familiar with genetics/molecular genetics take a look at this new article. There are some bold claims about what appears to be a fairly new explanation for molecular evolution, including "is a scientific theory" and "resolves all the paradoxes in molecular evolution" (the latter is a cited quotation, but I can't access the source). It also makes claims about other approaches being "erroneous". This needs a subject-matter expert. I've left a comment on the article's talk page. Mindmatrix 20:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- The article's neutrality is disputed. Editors are invited to join the discussion on the article's talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:59, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Dubious inclusion within the scope of this WikiProject?
Just putting this here as I've been doing some maintenance of some articles I've created. I noticed that Strømme syndrome had been designated as within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, however CDK13-related disorder hadn't. I then checked around and saw that examples such as Down syndrome, fragile X syndrome, Angelman syndrome (but not Prader–Willi syndrome, oddly) and Klinefelter syndrome had not been designated as within the scope of WikiProject Genetics, only WikiProject Medicine and their Medical genetics task force.
This led me to wonder, how I do specifically determine whether an article is within the scope of this WikiProject, and can I remove the WikiProject Genetics tag from Strømme syndrome? SUM1 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- Inclusion of a Wikiproject tag at an article talk page is entirely up to the project members themselves, so it's not like any standard has yet been applied to all those pages. Strømme syndrome is pretty clearly a genetic disorder, as are all the other ones you mentioned in terms of WP:PROJSCOPE, so I'd see no reason why that one should be removed. If no one adds the tags to the others though, then that's also not a big deal. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:49, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
- @SUM1: In general, I think it's better to include the wikiproject tags when in doubt. There's a general guideline here for genetics articles. I would imagine that most (all?) articles in the WP:MED's medical genetics taskforce would be relevant to WP:MOLBIO's genetics taskforce. It makes the Metrics more useful (e.g. for looking for high/mid-importance, stub/start-class articles to prioritise improving). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I saw a Science Reference Desk question about this article. I've edited some of the references but have concerns about the content in this article. I've started a discussion at Talk:Non-helical models of DNA structure#Work from X, Y. C. about my concerns. Any and all comments, edits, etc welcome. Thanks, EdChem (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Editors here might be interested in the above discussion. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Draft:Genetic Saturation
FYI: Draft:Genetic Saturation has been submitted to AfC some time ago - could do with someone with a interest in the subject reviewing it. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
- Overall it's ready for mainspace (start class). Still could so with improvements for clarity in some areas, but nothing that would exclude it from mainspace. I've tidied up the simple heading and figure formatting issues. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
- The bottom half on GSSM should be merged into Saturation_mutagenesis (both have useful info on the technique) and a
{{see also}}tag added to the top. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 01:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)- Thanks Evolution and evolvability - accepted. Cheers KylieTastic (talk) 11:50, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
Gene names policy
What is Wikipedia's policy on enforcing the official gene symbols as endorsed by HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee? --130.60.206.75 (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- An article should either use the current HGNC-approved gene symbol or the UniProt protein name. Old gene symbols might be ok to list as an alias if they’re notable, but nothing more than that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
Biological determinism's neutrality
An IP editor has placed an NPOV (neutrality) tag on this article. Editors are invited to comment in the discussion on the article's talk page. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:04, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Featured article review for Attachment theory
I have nominated Attachment theory for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. -- Beland (talk) 00:27, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Edits to Translation (biology)
There have been a lot of small edits from brand new users to this article. Just about every red name in the edit history has made exactly that one edit. I thought they were all one person, but it looks like I was wrong. A lot of them are unsourced with no edit summary and change around the meaning of the article. I don't have the subject knowledge to say if these are vandalism or plausible though, perhaps someone on this WikiProject can take a look through edits such as these? 1 2 3 4 5 For example, I can vaguely say that the first edit I linked is probably incorrect...? But I'm far from certain. (Those 5 are just an example, there are many more in the history, some reverted, some accepted) Leijurv (talk) 20:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
- Will respond at WT:MCB. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Request for advice on article
Hi everyone, I'm looking for some help with an article I've been working on and would like to submit for review. I want to make sure it is notable enough and well sourced, and would really appreciate any advice anyone can give. It's about a genetic research company, so I thought it would be of interest in this page. The page is Draft:Sano Genetics - thanks for any help!
Clarealev (talk) 14:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
- I've commented over at Draft talk:Sano Genetics. It's tricky because I actually rather like the company, but from the sources, it currently looks like one of a hundred personalised dna sequencing companies. It's main points of difference from the references are its future plans rather than past achievements. I'm no expert on company wp pages though, so may still be sufficient if buzz is large enough. Best to check with others. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Description regarding differences in skin among individuals
Thoughts are needed on the following: Talk:Human skin color#Description regarding differences in skin among individuals. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
ctRNA edits
I would like to add edit the article on ctRNA as a my project for a course I am taking. I am new ish to this and I would really appreciate some help and feedback. Garhingh (talk) 21:30, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
Should we redirect this page to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology
A similar redirect was recently done for MCB to further consolidation and reduce the need to cross-post between talkpages. Would there be any objections to doing something similar for this page (following on from the earlier post #Possible_project_consolidation)? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 22:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- I suspect it's just a few of us watching all the taskforce pages, so I'm happy to see them all redirected to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology. Ajpolino (talk) 23:47, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Genetic disorders
Worldwide, most nations screen newborn infants for a range of genetic disorders. However, there are not many efforts to consolidate this information across nations. The Global Newborn Society described in Draft:Akhil Maheshwari seeks to correct this deficiency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jhuma1971 (talk • contribs) 03:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Low-quality population genetics content across Wikipedia
I keep seeing population genetics sections in bunch of wiki pages. They usually only have primary sources, which are sometimes misrepresented. For example, I just removed a sentence that used an outdated racial term from a dated primary source [1]. I think we should use only or mostly secondary sources, and primary sources should be in line with those whenever they are used. Just letting people here know, as I do not have the patience to go through all such content. This seems to be a Wikipedia-wide problem. Bogazicili (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
RfC on the Uyghur people
There is an RfC about the genetic origin of the Uyghurs, Talk:Uyghurs#RfC on the genetic history of the Uyghur people, comments are welcome. Hzh (talk) 12:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
Guinea pig Featured article review
I have nominated Guinea pig for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Guide RNA article in need of thorough edits
I believe that Guide RNA needs to be worked over thoroughly. Considering how much has happened in regards to the topic of this article, it has had a very oversee-able number of edits since its creation in 2006. It also still had a lot of blatant grammar errors and unintuitive language, consistently throughout the article. I tried to fix some of it, both through the automated grammar checking of Google Docs and some general rephrasing, but there is still a lot to do. Another major issue is that the article is still focused on the natural occurrence of gRNA, where it has gained a lot of relevance in recent years in the context of CRISPR-Cas9. This, again, is because it hasn't changed too much since it was originally made.Sparkle666 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Most viewed stub in this Wikiproject
Auburn hair 9,762 325 Stub--Coin945 (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
Requested move at Talk:5α-Reductase deficiency#Requested move 7 August 2021
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:5α-Reductase deficiency#Requested move 7 August 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Shibbolethink (♔ ♕) 23:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Merge proposal Cognitive elite→The Bell Curve
A discussion that may interest members of this project is occurring at Talk:The Bell Curve § Merger proposal. ––FormalDude 
talk 10:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Request for help with Lynn Dalgarno bio
I've been working on the Lynn Dalgarno bio that was started by a currently inactive editor, and I'm not qualified to edit the list of Selected publications. All the publication listed when I started working on the bio were pre-1975, and I added two that I believe may be announcing the research leading to the Shine-Dalgarno sequence discovery? My best guess is that the pre-1975 list needs to be trimmed, and a post-1975 list needs to be added... With my literature degrees, I suppose I could pick a few from each decade at random, but I'm hoping for help and wiser choices from editors who have actual expertise in biochemistry and genetics? I left the Researchgate listing of 60 of his publications as an External link. Thanks. –– Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)