Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Biophysics/Archive 2

Launch of WikiProject Wikidata for research
Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Computers in Chemistry edit-a-thon
There's an edit-a-thon going on this Sunday at American Chemical Society headquarters in Washington, D.C. on the topic of Computers in Chemistry. If you have any suggestions for articles to improve or create, please add them at Meetup/DC/ACS March 2016. You can also sign up to participate remotely yourself. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

BioRxiv support in citations
This project's feedback would be appreciated in this discussion, as this could greatly (and positively) affect biological citations! Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Page to merge?
I came across Potential_energy_of_protein, and it seems liekthe sort of mage that might have a logical location to be merged into, but I don't know the field well enough. Sadly it only has a singe reference. Any ideas? T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 02:44, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thermodynamics of proteins would work, but that article doesn't exist (yet...) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:46, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

edit-a-thon at Uni Fribourg about biomimicry
Hi, I'd like to inform you next Tuesday and Wedenesday in Switzerland are organizing an edit-a-thon about bioinspired materials in the framework of the Plamatsu project.

In this page we will list all the newbies and enlarged/created articles. If you want to take a look in the student's sandboxes you are welcome (please ping us or write in the talk page if you can)--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Sounds excellent! good luck with the editathon. I'll try to keep an eye on the pages and help out where I can. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 13:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I am revising the slides right now.--Alexmar983 (talk) 06:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Redirect Bio-inspiration
Hi, some newbies transferred the sandbox to the article Bio-inspiration instead of inserting the content in Bioinspiration. It's no big deal, the starting content is there. I think the best choice is to make a redirect. The correct title is probably what they choosed (see also the name of other bio-inspired articles in the "see also" section) but please double check it. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I do it in few hours.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * it was also proposed by another user, I do it.--Alexmar983 (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Agree, the hyphenated version is more commonly used by the general public so should probably be the location of the merged page. T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 03:53, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, a user disagree later also in the talk page. A discussion wuith the students in the late afternoon seemed to show the hyphenated version as more accurate, at least according to those more involved in the topic... a google search shows it as less less common (but only for the noun, "bio-inspered" is more common). I am just sorry that the user was quite critical talking in User talk:Flor WMCH but in the end it was just a simple misunderstanding. The original article was a minimal stub, they basically worked to a new whole article, the person who told them to move in ns0 that way simply had no idea because thier effort was to write the article from scratch.--Alexmar983 (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As part of an editathon, I think the students did pretty well, and the split edit history from a copy-paste is a minor error that is pretty easy to fix. I've put in an edit history merge request and an admin should fix that shortly. I support merging to Bio-inspiration as the final location, given that the usage levels are within an order of magnitude of one another. Can always be revisited later (see note at Talk:Bioinspiration). T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 10:38, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think they were above avarage, considering the complexity of some topics. I see good seminal work for the future improvement of the articles.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Navbox and categories Bioinspiration
What do you think about a navbox template for these pages
 * Bioinspiration (as a title)
 * Bio-inspired computing
 * Bio-inspired engineering
 * Bio-inspired photonics
 * Bio-inspired robotics

Or maybe we can create only/also a category, category:bioinspiration.

The category is simple, but I am not very good with the synthax of navigation template on enwiki so please let me know if someone can help. Thank you.--Alexmar983 (talk) 20:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I make the category.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. It's difficult to find a generic parent category. I put some of the same used in the French article, and a generic one about technology, but this such a multifaceted topic that putting inside just one set is not possible.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Werner R. Loewenstein
Is there a special reason why Loewenstein is not included in the list of American Biophysicists? If not, I will make a new article about him. Phacelias (talk) 14:12, 5 February 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)

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 &#38; 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 BIOP remains independent or is merged into a larger project, there will be an opportunity to participate in that change as well. Prometheus720 (talk) 03:46, 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 &#38; Evo)talk 13:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)


 * I am tagging all of you because you are listed as active participants in this WikiProject, or because you were at one point active on the talk page. This is a major change and we would like to hear what people have to say. Prometheus720 (talk) 15:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I usually support rationalisation. if you want as soon as I am back home I can check how is the situation is evolving in other languages, it's a good indicator of the best level of definition at which projects statistically remain active. But in principle, just based on what I saw here in the original discussion, I think it is a reasonable choice.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * If I can help, later I can ping some users I saw active on this topic but are not pinged here, just let me know.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't around to help, but I approve of the merge. Given current participation rates, pooling project editors makes sense. Thanks all, for the effort! -- 21:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry I wasn't around to help, but I approve of the merge. Given current participation rates, pooling project editors makes sense. Thanks all, for the effort! -- 21:11, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Merger
I like rationalisation but I’d add a note of caution. Biophysics is quite different to the others so I am not sure it should be included. Showjumpersam (talk) 06:08, 13 July 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)