User talk:Boghog/Archive 18

Fixing citations
Hi Boghog, recently I made some edits to Anorexia nervosa and noticed that you fixed some of the citations I put. I tend to not auto-generate citations (since I use source mode), which is maybe why these issues are coming up. Anyway I was just wondering if you run a script to find/fix these issues? If not, do you have any suggestions for how I can better generate citations so that this happens less often? -- Nsophiay (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Nsophiay. Thanks for your contributions to Anorexia nervosa.  If you are editing in source mode, automatted tools like RefToolbar should still work. However the automatted tools don't do a great job with cite web templates.  Also with cite books, it doesn't add chapter information.  In both cases, follow-up manual edits may be required.  Finally Vancouver style authors have been established in Anorexia nervosa which RefToolbar does not support.  If you want to create citations in this format, Wikipedia template filling tool can be used (see also User:Diberri/Template filler).  I have a script to correct errors and add additional data to citations.  The code is a mess right now.  I am currently rewriting it from scratch and I hope to eventually publish it. Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 09:49, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks for the info :) -- Nsophiay (talk) 00:04, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Tandospirone
Your edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tandospirone&oldid=1179207738) seems to have messed up the references in the caption of the image in the Synthesis section, but I can't figure out how to correct it. Can you fix it?

Thanks 76.14.122.5 (talk) 05:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your message. The problem was that were two missing ref tags.  I have fixed the error in this edit. Boghog (talk) 08:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 76.14.122.5 (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Some questions from less experienced editor
Hi, I decided to write a message for you since WP:MCB talk page seems quite inactive lately, you were the author of a protein article that interests me, and from your edits I see you are a biology-related topics veteran here on enwiki, I hope you don't mind...

We have this APOA1BP, which is essentially NAD(P)H-hydrate epimerase, yet first article focuses on general description, interactions, whereas the second is more of "chemical" description of what this protein does. I checked twice, NAXE is a new name for APOA1BP and EC checks out in both articles. So we have 2 pages on same thing, but different aspects. What should be done in such situation?

Also since this protein influences cholesterol dynamics should it be added to Template:Lipoprotein metabolism? InternetowyGołąb (talk) 13:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your message.  As a general rule, if there is only one human gene product that has a particular enzymatic activity, then it makes sense to merge the gene and enzyme pages. According to Expasy, there is a single human gene, NNRE_HUMAN (NAXE/APOA1BP) that has EC 5.1.99.6 activity.  I would therefore support merging the two pages. Furthermore, the enzyme/protein name NAD(P)H-hydrate epimerase is fairly short, so I recommend merging APOA1BP into NAD(P)H-hydrate epimerase.  While APOA1BP binds to lipoproteins, it doesn't seem to be directly involved in lipoprotein metabolism. Hence I question whether it should be added to Lipoprotein metabolism. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 08:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Yes, APOA1BP is considered by one of references to be a "former" name, so this page should redirect to epimerase, not the other way around. I think I will do it boldly soon, after some epimerase cleanup. Hm,as for the template, well, yes, cholesterol transfer is not quite metabolism. I just didn't want it to be separated from APO1-4,C,D,E group... how about a place in Category:Apolipoproteins? InternetowyGołąb (talk) 12:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, Category:Apolipoproteins makes sense. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Corrections to citations in 'Antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis'.
Hello, Boghog. Thank you for your corrections to citations in the article 'Antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis'. I have noticed that my citations frequently need to be corrected, yet I make them with the WP citations option. Do you know what I am doing wrong? Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 07:49, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi. You are not doing anything wrong.  There was a mix of citation styles and I am just trying to standardize on one.  cs1 config has been added, so this will enforce the rendering of a single style. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:56, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks again. Dr Dobeaucoup (talk) 08:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 4
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nanoprobe (device), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bioimaging.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Propylhexedrine metabolism
Hi Boghog,

I was looking at Propylhexedrine and the associated File:Propylhexedrine metabolism.svg you created for it. In the bottom row of the pathway, going from hydroxylamine to oxime is tagged "dehydration". But I don't see water being lost. Should it be "dehydrogenation"? DMacks (talk) 12:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi DMacks. Thanks for catching my error. You are right. Should be dehydrogenation, not dehydration. Corrected in this edit. Boghog (talk) 17:31, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I updated the article to sync. DMacks (talk) 21:01, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Parkinson's disease
Hello Boghog,

This is not meant to be judgemental; I'm just curious about why you replaced specific dates of citations in Parkinson's disease with their approximate month instead of the exact day. For consistency, wouldn't it be more useful to use the exact day when available, and just the month if specific date isn't available? –Tobias (talk) 18:26, 21 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Hallo Tobias. Thanks for your message. For the most part, I am following the publication dates that PubMed uses, which generally refer to the print publication dates rather than the online publication dates. The relevance of print versus online publication dates is debatable. Formally, the print publication date is more relevant, except in unusual circumstances where priority between two publications is important. For printed publications with 12 issues per year, "1 January" is equivalent to the "January" issue. For example,, the 2022-02-14 date is apparently the accepted date which was published in print on "1 April 2022" which is equivalent to the "April 2022" issue.  Does this make sense?  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, thank you for the answer. I'll try to mind this in my edits :D –Tobias (talk) 20:20, 21 May 2024 (UTC)