Talk:CaBIG

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Molecular Biology: COMPBIO

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Maryland Low‑importance

	Maryland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Maryland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Maryland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MarylandWikipedia:WikiProject MarylandTemplate:WikiProject MarylandMaryland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

National Institutes of Health

This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Institutes of Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the National Institutes of Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Institutes of HealthWikipedia:WikiProject National Institutes of HealthTemplate:WikiProject National Institutes of HealthNational Institutes of Health articles

Computing: Networking / Software Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Networking task force (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: National Institutes of Health Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject National Institutes of Health.

Neutrality

It was tagged over a year ago for neutrality, although I could not find a discssion here. It looks like several paragraphs of uncited propaganda promoting the program, followed by one paragraph criticising it. Generall needs sourcing to citations anyway, and remove dated empty language etc. Also think it should be merged with the caGrid article if that is just some software that runs it, unless they are independely notable. W Nowicki (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph about criticism was added and has been expanded to include recognition of the NCI report and the replacement program, and mention of this is in the opening paragraph. I disagree with the the idea of merging with the grid article as cabig grid is a subset of cabig and many applications operate independent of it. furthermore cagrid itself is subject to far more of the problems than cabig itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wallet55 (talk • contribs) 23:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article reads like advertising. caBIG was a good idea in principle but executed by self-interested parties. The NIH shut down the program because it consumed $350M in funding and produced very little results. There's not much else to the program other than the historical note of how not to run a big-science program. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.255.177 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This article makes claims that are unsubstantiated regarding the number of sites that participated and the utility of the program. At no point were 50+ centers exchanging cancer data on any shared study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.93.61 (talk) 15:18, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:03, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well the discussion was right in the section above? Anyway, I worked on removing some, and will try to remove some more. It was clearly a promotional piece to justify the government contracts, but then had the critical section added at the end. Still needs to be merged with the otherwise not notable caGrid. W Nowicki (talk) 23:06, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

A merge has been proposed (not by me) between caGrid and CaBIG, this article. I support this merge, as:

This allows the information to be displayed in one place
Portraying the articles together is likely to enhance readership and thereby improve quality
Both issues relate to the same topic.

Thoughts? Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 07:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fair enough, and given that this this is 3 years old ...

Done Klbrain (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on CaBIG. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:17, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]