Talk:Golgi reassembly-stacking protein 1

	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 Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

moving

I am about to move this page based on this thread

Wikipedia:Help desk#redirects vs aliases vs moves vs inaction

Hello again. There are many examples of wp articles about proteins that have several aliases listed. Many of these were created by ProteinBoxBot about a decade ago and not edited much since. While not being of the mind to do historical research on why the bot selected one name over the other aliases, many of the article names are not what has become the standard name for the protein, and I think the bot just hasn't stayed current. The standard name is listed as an alias, but it is not always obvious that the 2 names are related in any way to the non-specialist reader. So, the question is, what to do about this? Move the article to the standard name? Make redirects from all the aliases to either the current wp article name or the article moved to the standard name? Do nothing, and let non-specialist readers figure out that, for example, p59, GOLPH6 and GRASP55 (which is the standard name) are all aliases for GORASP2? Thanks for guidance. JeanOhm (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is now one standard name for a protein, the article should be moved to that name. The article should mention the alternative names. The alternative names should redirect to the article. Where an alternative name is also a name for something else, and has never been much used, it can be ignored; but if it has ever been widely used, hatnotes (for one other meaning) or a disambiguation page (multiple other meanings) can be used. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

JeanOhm (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

miscellaneous concerns

@Boghog: I think the left position of the image sucks. That image describes the essence of what defines GRASPs. It should be the lead. The infobox with its factoids can fall in place below it. I am going to put it back at the top. Can you please let it stay there and see if anybody else objects?

You and many other editors reviewed Vesicular transport adaptor protein and left external links in the text! Why the change of heart now? If the structure image I linked to was licensed with cc4.0, it would be at the top of the infobox, IMHO! It's important. Considering that you and many others let the external links in Vesicular transport adaptor protein remain, I am going to reinsert it when I write more about the function/interactions. To me, external links section is for publications related to, but not intimately, with the article.

Finally, I don't understand why you are so adamant about consistent citation formatting. I could understand that it was not great for me to dump all authors into the last name blank and citation info into first name, but why object to the way that the wp DOI tool does it? Thanks, JeanOhm (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:EL Wikipedia articles may include links to web pages outside Wikipedia (external links), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article. The fact that I have not replaced them before does not mean that I approved of them, rather I simply did not have sufficient time to complete my edits. These external links normally should be moved to the reference section. In this particular case, the external link was to a graphic of the protein. This external link becomes unnecessary because a graphic of the protein structure is now included in the infobox (see File:PDB 4REY.png). Ideally we should add a caption to the figure, but unfortunately {{Infobox_gene}} doesn't support that at the moment. I will try to fix that.
Per MOS:INFOBOX, An infobox is a panel, usually in the top right of an article, next to the lead section (in the desktop view). Consistent with this guideline, in the vast majority of Gene Wiki articles, the {{Infobox_gene}} is placed at the top. File:GRASP65antic.jpg has more to do with the function of GRASP65, and hence I think it is more appropriate to place it in the function section and leave the infobox at the top of the article where it belongs.
Per WP:CITEVAR, Editors should not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference. A Vancouver system citation style had been established when this article was created. I am trying to preserve that format. For article where Vancouver system citation style has already been established, Wikipedia template filling tool is preferable to visual editor or doi web. An advantage of the Wikipedia template filling tool over doi web is the former returns |pmid=, |pmc=, and |doi= where as the later only returns |doi=. Boghog (talk) 19:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Boghog: Thanks for the replies. My comments one at a time

external links - "they should not normally be placed in the body" I can accept that. However, it does not read "must not be". You wrote "In this particular case, the external link was to a graphic of the protein. This external link becomes unnecessary because a graphic of the protein structure is now included in the infobox". The external link has more detail about interactions with other proteins, as you'll see when I get to including it in the structure section.

infobox "usually in the top right of an article". I accept that. However, I believed that the image I found was so explanatory of the function of GRASP65 that it deserved to be the lead. I noticed that you left it there, while moving the template for the infobox just below it. I appreciate that. Thank you.

citation styleWOW! I had no clue. I used the other citation tool because the DOI numbers were at hand! I'll take the time to find the pubmed or pmc numbers in the future. Thanks again. JeanOhm (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JeanOhm: To state it in a more direct way, per WP:LINKDD: Don't put external links in article prose. They simply do not belong there. If the external link has more detail about interactions with other proteins, it would be far better to include a paraphrased (and of course sourced) version of that information directly in this article instead of forcing readers to jump back and forth between external sources and this article. If you would like an annotated version of the structure graphic, I can create one for you from scratch that does not violate any copyrights. Boghog (talk) 14:40, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

test of efn to direct to EL

@Boghog, Izno, and EEng: note "a" is near the end of the Function section, after p115 and ref5. [1] JeanOhm (talk) 00:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awful. Reader has to (1) know clairvoyantly that the superscript leads to more than the usual boring citations; (b) click it; (c) read and remember a complicated title; (d) look it up among the ELs (where there will presumably be a bunch of entries with similar technical names). It's also a maintenance nightmare. E Eng 00:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @EEng: I completely agree, but I can't get some editors to understand that the best way to convey the info is with an EL in the prose. Did you see what @Boghog: wrote on the MOS talk page? "If a graphic is critical to understanding a subject, then a graphic with a compatible license should be displayed directly in the article." That would be great if an image with a compatible license existed. I happen to subscribe to the YouTube microsoft research channel. A recent video post was about SMILES, which I found very cool. So, I looked to see if wp has any info about it. What do I find? Several "see depiction" EL's that were put in the article about a decade ago, and many editors have since edited that article and left the EL's in it, including Boghog. I am close to giving up this enterprise that is more concerned with style than information. Lots of editors realize that people are comfortable with clicking on external links. Some are dinosaurs, IMHO.
- I hope I'm wrong, but I bet that Boghog will soon go to SMILES and eliminate the EL's rather than think, hmm..., maybe my views of style/EL's really are out of the mainstream. JeanOhm (talk) 03:00, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia MOS advises against external links in prose, hence this practice is not mainstream. In the case of SMILES, it is trivial to produce graphics with a compatible license that can replace these external links:

Boghog (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed such graphics are already available:

. Bahog's right: embedded links that take the reader outside the Wikimedia projects are very much frowned upon; if these graphics are as essential as you say, they should dwell within the freely licensed embrace of the project. E Eng 12:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]