Talk:Interferon alpha-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).

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:58, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

– Usage, accuracy and style. See also Talk:Interferon-γ Receptor-1 and 2 Mutations and Talk:Interleukin-10 receptor. Relisted. BDD (talk) 19:14, 3 June 2013 (UTC) NyascaB (talk) 07:56, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale given by the nom, "usage, accuracy and style", without more explanation is meaningless. Usage in the scientific literature more often includes the hyphen. Furthermore how is it more accurate to exclude (or include) a hyphen. Finally which style is being referred to? And yes, please read Talk:Interleukin-10 receptor. Boghog (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose – the current article names are based on the recommended UniProt protein names (see for example P01562 and P29460). Boghog (talk) 16:21, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is important to also note that the following definitive sources include a dash in:

interleukin names: WHO-IUIS Nomenclature Subcommittee on Interleukin Designation, International Union of Immunological Societies (IUIS) (1991). "Nomenclature for secreted regulatory proteins of the immune system (interleukins)" (PDF). Bull. World Health Organ. 69 (4): 483–6. PMC 2393236. PMID 1934243. The officially adopted designations are, in sequence, from interleukin-1 to interleukin-10, including interleukin-1α and interleukin-1β.
interferon names: Allen G, Diaz MO, Prepared for the Nomenclature Committee of the International Society of Cytokine Research (Feb 1996). "Nomenclature of the human interferon proteins". J. Interferon Cytokine Res. 16 (2): 181–4. PMID 8742372. Mature IFN-α proteins encoded by genes IFNA1, IFNA2, etc., are designated INF-α1, INF-α2, etc., respectively.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: year (link) which in turns cites:

"Announcement: Interferon Nomenclature". Virology. 132 (2): 462–463. 1984. doi:10.1016/0042-6822(84)90051-5. A meeting of the Interferon Nomenclature Committee was held in March 1982 at Squaw Valley during the UCLA Symposium on the Chemistry and Biology of Interferons. The group concluded that the original designations of IFN-α, IFN-β, and IFN-γ [Nature (London) 286, 110 (1980)] have met with general acceptance among the scientific community and should be retained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boghog (talk • contribs)

Support. Both forms are used in the literature. We should favour the simplest and most logical one. Luzonaga (talk) 15:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

How is excluding a dash more logical than including one? In the scientific literature, the names of interleukins normally have dashes in them (see for example PMC 3140102). We should adopt the most common usage and that usage includes a dash. The naming of interferons are less clear cut, but I see no compelling reason why these should be changed either. Boghog (talk) 17:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. For the above-mentioned reasons of quality and simplicity. Lientinge (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Again, how is excluding a dash higher quality than including one? Boghog (talk) 07:24, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Seems strange that they were moved without consensus. I agree with BogHog. - Rod57 (talk) 08:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this whole incident was very strange. See also this discussion. I strongly suspect there was only one supporter for this page move and the rest were sock puppets (see analysis). Boghog (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]