Talk:Vesicular transport adaptor protein

	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 Mid-importance).

This should not be a redirect

@Arcadian: "adaptor proteins, vesicular transport" is MESH D12.776.543.990.150 It has not a damn thing to do with "Signal transducing adaptor protein", which you ultimately redirected it to. I'll be fixing this. Don't revert. JeanOhm (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@PRehse: Please read above and stop screwing with the minds of our readers. JeanOhm (talk) 17:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Velella: read above

@PRehse:I noticed your ratings additions. Rest assured that this won't remain a stub for long!JeanOhm (talk) 17:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please review this article

@Jim1138, Tom.Reding, Klbrain, Neodop, Boghog, Rjwilmsi, Stamptrader, Solarra, GoodDay, Oshwah, Postcard Cathy, Nihiltres, Tom.Reding, Kupirijo, Me, Myself, and I are Here, Brainist, Evolution and evolvability, Dcirovic, Chiswick Chap, Joannamasel, Peteruetz, LilHelpa, Alexbateman, Caftaric, Zefr, Jim1138, Materialscientist, Rhode Island Red, Donner60, Bender235, Iztwoz, Rod57, Neodop, Kashmiri, Doc James, Magioladitis, Arcadian, PRehse, and Velella: Hello everyone. Most of you have no clue why I pinged you. You have made fairly recent contributions to articles that I linked to in this article. I'm a newbie, so I suspect that the page needs review by experienced editors. Please have a look at it if you have time. Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The links to external sites need to be fixed. I have fixed a couple. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James:Why do the external sites need to be fixed? as best I can see, you created one red link and eliminated a link completely. JeanOhm (talk) 19:50, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James:I just fixed the red link.JeanOhm (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not do "GGA proteins"

Instead we do GGA proteins and if that source is the ref we use it as a reference.

All the rest of these instances should be fixed. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:57, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: I see what you are doing. I think it is really anal, but I changed the one about the autoimmune disease into a reference. I'll try to fix the rest tonight. JeanOhm (talk) 20:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. We have a WP:MOS and people are generally expected to follow it. You submit something to the academic press and they will have manuals of style as well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:17, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Yes, I remember those days of formatting references for journal articles. Personally, I think that approach should go away with the dinosaurs. These days, you click on a link and go to the appropriate page, regardless of how colons, semicolons, periods, initials, etc, are placed. My way worked, but I'll fix them. JeanOhm (talk) 20:24, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Follow up question. So, when I link to an animation on youtube, should I then immediately insert a "cite web" reference? Thanks. JeanOhm (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We do not tend to link to videos in the manner in which you have. Would need to look up the recommended method. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just reviewed the article with "refreshed" eyes, and made several "minorish" changes and one brain cramp correction. @Doc James: I don't understand why links to videos should be "constructed" differently than links to static images, which several editors have now seen and not corrected. Thanks to all for the comments so far (except for "and so on") 8-) JeanOhm (talk) 03:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

why move?

@Brainist: Why did you move the page from the official MESH heading? Wouldn't it have been better to make a redirect from the title you used to the previous article? Also, by changing the title, does that mean that any links I made on other pages nedd to be changed? JeanOhm (talk) 19:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

any links you have made on other pages will be redirected automatically to the new title. I know your title is that of MeSH, but we don't have to use exactly the same MeSH title here. Brainist (talk) 19:51, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This content

Is not well worded

"Adaptor diseases have been reviewed recently,[5] and any attempt to compose a complete, current, list of adaptor diseases is destined to be outdated quickly. However, this article would be lacking without a brief description of some of them."

We describe the results of reviews we do not simple point to them in the text. We also do not use the word "recently". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:59, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: OK, I just removed "recently". Much of the rest of the section does come from the reference I cited, so I don't know how to reword this. I ain't no english major! JeanOhm (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is out of place. I have trimmed it. We have the ability to create up to date lists here on WP. That is one of the powers of a wiki over paper / static publications. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: OK. BTW, the reason I bolded "adaptor diseases" is because medline can't map the term to a subject! The term was used by Bonifacino, and it seems obvious, but doesn't exist as far as medline is concerned! JeanOhm (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pakinson vs Parkinson's, alz vs alz's

For some reason, I can't figure out who made the changes from A and P to A's and P's. The MeSH subjects are NOT 's's!!!!! Is there some consensus for what to call these, other than that the corresponding wp articles use the wrong names? JeanOhm (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the ICD 10 uses "Parkinson disease" We should probably switch. Starting a move request.[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:47, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I "mimiced" your proposal on the alz talk page. JeanOhm (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...and so forth

@Iztwoz: OOOOhhh, you have brought back such bad memories! I once had a boss who was otherwise an inspirational, terrific, guy, but kept saying "and so on, and so forth" as often as he possibly could. etc is the best term. The reason I made it a link is because I appreciate that many people using english as a second language might not understand etc. Do you mind if I change "and so on" back to etc? Also, I noticed "WL" after one of your explanations. What does WL mean? Thanks. JeanOhm (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JeanOhm - WL Wikilink; the use of etc. imo is not good in prose it doesn't flow as the other phrases do - it is a matter of choice but it's hardly ever used in the articles I've edited. If it is used MOS says that it should not be linked or italicised or spelt out in full which probably explains why its use is avoided. Best--Iztwoz (talk) 06:04, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What did {{clear}} do?

@Boghog: What did adding "clear" do? I can't figure it out. Actually, now after looking at the preview and having to add nowiki's, it looks lke it is some sort of super page break, better than "br". Is that right? Thanks. JeanOhm (talk) 02:29, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, {{clear}} acts like a page break. There are a large number of graphics in this article that extend partially down to the references section restricting the displayed width of the citations. The clear template adds white space after the text so that the citations are displayed after and not along side the graphics. In this way, the citations can be displayed in the full width of the page. Boghog (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

removing wl to Intracellular transport

@Iztwoz: et al. That I.T. article is really crappy, IMHO, and I intend to remove the link to it from this article, unless there is a lot of support for it. Maybe, someday, if I live long enough to upgrade/improve the other more important articles on my list, I'll try to deal with I.T., but not now. It can just rest in peace as yet another crappy article by a student editor forced to edit it for a course, IMHO. JeanOhm (talk) 02:28, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

even if Intracellular transport is bad, it might be more helpful to markup that page ( eg "needs attention to ...") or its talk page rather than removing the w-link to it from here. - Rod57 (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rod57: Since you are a member of the MCB project, I suspect that you know this already, but here comes my 2 cents (or more)... At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology/References we find "In order that Wikipedia content may be taken seriously and be of use its readers, all information entered into Wikipedia needs to be verifiable by written sources." At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology/Style_guide_(gene_and_protein_articles) we find "MCB articles should be relatively dense with inline citations, using either <ref> tags (footnotes) or parenthetical citations. It is not acceptable to write substantial amounts of prose and then add your textbook to the References section as a non-specific or general reference." Intracellular transport currently has a reference to Lodish's Molecular Cell Biology from 2000 to support almost all of the 9,851 bytes, and one other reference from 2006 to support one other sentence.

At https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cell_Biology 'How you can help the project Add images - "Diagrams and figures are particularly important to science articles so you can look at our diagram guide for standardising protein and cell figures, or ask for help in creating and updating pictures on the Talk page" There is currently ONE middle school level image on that page. Have you been following the enormous number of live cell videos showing IT that are being published? That article is an embarrassment for MCB, but I have added a tag to it to put it under the MCB umbrella, listing it as start and high importance, and we'll see if anybody tries to improve it.

However, since it gets approximately ZERO page views (you, Iztwoh and I may accont for most of them), I've got other much more important things to work on. This has been therapeutic for me...JeanOhm (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JeanOhm: Hi, The main criticism you seem to make is the insufficient cites. I've added {{Refimprove|date=June 2017}} to Intracellular transport. I'm no expert on it - what other changes would you like to see to the article ? Ideally note them on that talk page. If we remove the wl to poor articles fewer people might see them and try to improve them. - Rod57 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A membrane protein recycles between the Golgi and cell membrane in tubules or vesicular-tubular structures. Images acquired by spinning-disk confocal microscopy.

@Rod57: First sentence of the article: "Intracellular transport is the movement of vesicles and substances within the cell." Substances? hmmm.... does that include chromosomes, endoplasmic reticulum, golgi, lysosomes, tubules, ribonuclear protein particles, etc, etc, etc.? Does substances include ATP, or does that move by diffusion?

Second sentence "Eukaryotic cells transport packets of components (membrane‐bounded vesicles and organelles, protein rafts, mRNA, chromosomes) to particular intracellular locations by attaching them to molecular motors that haul them along microtubules and actin filaments." Membrane doesn't have a WL. WTF is a protein raft?

Image. Compare it to one that I've used in a replacment article for the Golgi apparatus article.

I could go on, but as I wrote previously, the viewership is not worth the effort.JeanOhm (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]