User talk:Chido Mpamhanga

Info.
Hi! More info, as promised.

You have been adding links to a good many pages. Even while the information is certainly fine, accounts that are only adding links set of our spam radar, and generally, even for good links, they fall outside of the aim of an encyclopedia (or, this encyclopedia). The aim is more to incorporate data. That is not to say that the link should nowhere be an external link, but in many cases it is better used to expand the article. Also, since there is a direct relationship, there are better places for these links then in the external links section.

Some information on links and data:
 * the external links guideline tells about what should be linked. The intro says there already, that it is better to try and use them as a reference.
 * 'What wikipedia is not' - Not a repository of links, we are not a linkfarm, we try to keep them to a minimum.
 * the conflict of interest guideline - seems to be of interest for you, I presume you are working with the organisation?
 * the business FAQ, also mentions something about organisations.

All in all, please do not add external links for the moment, but go into discussion or collaboration with other users. User Boghog2 and User:Tryptofish seem to good candidates, as they seem to know about the organisation and what the links deliver. You might also want to have a look if you can find a Wikiproject (see WikiProject for a list of those, in WikiProjects people with similar interests come together; I am sure that you are a welcome additition to that).

Regarding the templates, also there the two above users can help you. If you have further questions, please also don't hesitate to ask me. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I should add to this (and maybe you should read Hu12's talkpage regarding this) a (good faith, though maybe harsh sounding) suggestion:

You have now created a handful of accounts, and used a handful of IPs, which, except for this one, have generally be in violation of several of our policies and guidelines. May I strongly suggest you, from now on, to strictly ONLY use this account, and to read the policies and guidelines Hu12 has suggested (as well as maybe others listed in the welcome template I left you, above). If you by mistake forget to log in, that is fine, leave those edits as is, just log in, and add a signature if you feel it is needed to signify it is you. It is better not to remove or rewrite them after logging in, just append. I am also asking you to try not make edits which may be in violation of these policies and guidelines, and discuss as soon as possible when an edit is challenged. Just as your organisation is trying to keep information neutral, controlled and correct, we also do. And though a conflict of interest does not have to be a problem there, it may, and it is just better to avoid the negative impact of that (as I explained elsewhere, I have seen both sides of the medal, good faith additions by an editor who after discussion turned into a good editor, and good faith edits which are followed by blatant promotion, blocks, angry people, etc. etc., both cases involved an editor from a respectable, big organisation).

Nothing is lost, Wikipedia has a strict and strong archiving system, and the edits that you make will always be there, and can just as easy be re-done as they can be undone. I think we all, including Hu12, see that these links and this information is of interest for us, and is certainly not spam, but I think it should now be discussed before continuing. I would like to see the suggestion followed to include this link in the infobox, but that is best accomplished by a wikiproject.

I hope we did not scare you away, and that you will help us to improve the articles. Some of them (which was it? Div1.9? (this is not my subject of chemistry)) really need it, I believe.

Regards, --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As promised
Hi! The real discussion is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology. They all seem impressed and I think that incorporation into the boxes is going to happen. May I invite you to that discussion, maybe you can help the members to a quick way of adding the numbers to the appropriate Wikipages. Happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:22, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, response so far has been great! I think we need to let the discussion run a few more days so everyone has a chance to comment.  However based on the initial response, I strongly suspect that the consensus will be to go ahead.  As Dirk suggested, if you could provide us with a one-to-one list of IUPHAR accession numbers and HUGO gene names, that would make things much easier to implement.  We could implement this as a team effort.  Alternatively I would be happy to offer the services of BogBot.  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * One minor complication is the format of the IUPHAR links. In noticed that the IUPHAR http link for accessing the receptor and ion channels differ somewhat.  In addition, the link to the ion channel requires two parameters (family and member) while the receptor links are based on a single accession number. For example:


 * a receptor link has the following format: http://www.iuphar-db.org/GPCR/ReceptorDisplayForward?receptorID=2252
 * while a channel link has the following format: http://www.iuphar-db.org/IC/ObjectDisplayForward?objectId=12&familyId=10


 * I have modified the protein template to handle both (for an example, see Nav1.9). In order to accommodate two different way of linking to IUPHAR database entries, I needed to add the following three parameters:


 * IUPHAR_receptor_number
 * IUPHAR_channel_id
 * IUPHAR_channel_family
 * We could probably do something similar with the GNF_protein_box template, but this is getting somewhat messy. Would it be possible to augment the IUPHAR web site so that it would accept a globally unique identifier that could retrieve either a receptor or ion channel page? Boghog (talk) 19:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

links to IUPHAR progress
A contribution to the IUPHAR discussion from :blackbutterfly (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I’m glad that this discussion is progressing well.
 * In response to Boghog2, yes there is a list of all IUPHAR identifiers along with the their gene names this is available for you at: [file-of-ids in csv format:]
 * IUPHAR-DB ids may in the near future (NOV/DEC 2009) be unified to deal with the issue raised about single vs. multi-component (for the ion channels) accessions raised.
 * Is it possible to display in the link the IUPHAR recommended name for each receptor or channel for instance in the info-box we would have D1 instead of, 2252, the database accession number displayed? This would fulfil the IUPHAR aim of encouraging ‘agreed’ nomenclature for receptors. If this is not feasible I’m sure we can proceed as suggested!


 * Other ideas for the future:
 * We will try to encourage contributions from the community of researchers linked with IUPHAR to the stubbier receptor and ion channel wikipedia pages. Please note that the next major IUPHAR database release will also cover nuclear receptors!


 * Thanx for your time blackbutterfly (talk) 11:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "IUPHAR-DB ids may in the near future (NOV/DEC 2009) be unified to deal with the issue raised about single vs. multi-component"
 * That would certainly simplify things. Using the search function of the IUPHAR database, I can get close to what I want. For example:
 * http://www.iuphar-db.org/SHARED/NewSearchForward?searchString=%22D1%22&searchCategories=receptorName&species=none&type=all&comments=includeComments&order=rank&submit=Search+the+database
 * http://www.iuphar-db.org/SHARED/NewSearchForward?searchString=%22Nav1.9%22&searchCategories=receptorName&species=none&type=all&comments=includeComments&order=rank&submit=Search+the+database
 * If these search links could somehow be modified to jump directly to the page of interest, I could then replace the three parameters IUPHAR_receptor_id, IUPHAR_channel_id, and IUPHAR_channel_family in the protein infobox template with a single parameter IUPHAR_id. Cheers.  Boghog(talk) 15:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think I have solved the problem with the complexity of the IUPHAR links. I just created a new template IUPHAR that takes as a single argument the HUGO gene name and returns the appropriate IUPHAR link, for example " " returns the link . I have also added to the protein template an additional parameter called "IUPHAR_id".  When the parameter is set to a HUGO gene name, the protein template in turn calls the IUPHAR template which returns the appropriate link.  Now all we have to do is add this to the GNF_protein_box.  Cheers.  Boghog (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

IUPHAR external links completed
Thanks again for providing the mapping between Entrez IDs and IUPHAR symbols and database. Links to the IUPHAR database entries have now been added to the corresponding Wikipedia gene/protein pages as listed here. Most of these have been added to GNF protein boxes while a few appear in the older protein boxes in protein family pages. Please note in the above "what links here" list, a single IUPHAR link would be listed twice, once as in the Temple:PBB/xxxx (n = 508) and and a second time in the article that transcludes the PBB template (n = 155). Not all the articles show up in the "what links here" list yet because of server lag, but the list should be updated and complete in the next few days. Please also note that there are a few entries in the IUPHAR database that do not have corresponding Wiki Gene pages. These are for the most part human pseudogenes. Thanks again for your help! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Updated IUPHAR links
Hi. I noticed that you have changed the format of the links to IUPHAR. I think the new format is a big improvement since it provides a consistent way to link to various IUPHAR ion channels and receptor web pages. I have taken the liberty of updating the links in the IUPHAR template so that when linking from Gene Wiki pages, the link is directly to the appropriate IUPHAR database entry and not to the redirect page. Please note that because of sever lag, it may take a few days before all the links are updated on the Wikipedia Gene Wiki pages. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Updated IUPHAR links responding
~Thanks for the work on these links, we have been rather busy and out of touch of late. But I'm still interested in continuing to encourage pharmacologists to fill in the receptor stubs..... Not easy to recruit volunteers! Another suggestion, we have been slowly curating drugs and other experimental chemical modulators of the IUPHAR-receptor set, each compound now boasts a ligand page (e.g.http://www.iuphar-db.org/DATABASE/LigandDisplayForward?ligandId=34) with some interesting information. It would be nice to link out to your growing list of drugs from each page... Please could we have a list of the wikipedia compound_ids and their SMILES? What is the best way to link to your chemicals?

ever SMILING

--Chidochangu (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)