Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Dementia with Lewy bodies/archive1

TFA proposed blurb

Dementia with Lewy bodies is a common dementia characterized by changes in sleep, behavior, cognition, movement, and automatic bodily functions. The disease worsens over time until cognitive decline interferes with normal daily functioning. The core features are REM sleep behavior disorder (in which people act out their dreams), visual hallucinations, marked fluctuations in attention or alertness, and parkinsonism. The exact cause is unknown, but involves deposits of abnormal clumps of protein in the brain, known as Lewy bodies. Heart and gastrointestinal function, and behavior can be affected. Definitive diagnosis usually requires an autopsy, and a likely diagnosis—based on symptoms and tests—is often missed. Management of the many symptoms is challenging and involves multiple specialties. There is no cure or medication to stop the disease progression. After Robin Williams’s suicide in 2014, his autopsy found diffuse Lewy bodies explained his symptoms. (Full article...)

Discussion

@TFA coordinators It is my hope that this will run TFA on July 21, 2021, for the 70th birthday of Robin Williams. Should I be gone from Wikipedia by then, I trust that @Ceoil, Colin, and Outriggr: will shephard this through TFA. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:, I'm scheduling July, and there are currently no competing requests for that date at TFAR or TFARP, so there shouldn't be a problem Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jimfbleak: it is for 2021 (next year) ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SandyGeorgia:, oops, I'm spending too much time in the sun ): Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image issue

Also, Colin does speak images, and he might address the Protein APOE licensing question. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source says "Molecular images from RCSB PDB Structure Summary pages are available under the same conditions" which "are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use". So that does sound like a release into PD, which is what the template says. Although they do say "Users of the data should attribute the original authors of that structural data.", which might sound like an attribution requirement, this isn't a feature of a copyright licence the way CC BY-SA is, and so, is a non-copyright restriction that applies to users of the databank website only (and which the uploader complied with: we do attribute the original authors). -- Colin°^Talk 14:35, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced an attribution requirement would be considered a non-copyright restriction - seems more like a specialized license. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could all of you please translate for me? What do I need to do? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy: we don't agree ;-) . Bottom line is the image can be used either way, it's just a matter of whether the current tag is acceptable (Colin's position - Colin, please correct me if I've misinterpreted) or whether it ought to use something a bit more nuanced (my view). Nikkimaria (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If one says "are free of all copyright restrictions and made fully and freely available for both non-commercial and commercial use" then one loses any copyright control: one can't then say "Here is my copyright licence and its terms". You simply can't have a copyright licence without retaining copyright. In comparison, something like CC BY-SA says that the thing you are releasing remains fully under copyright law and is only usable under the following strict terms -- if you break those terms, then it falls back on copyright law. While lots of websites do impose terms and conditions on their users, those don't apply to Commons or Wikipedia. At the very most, such non-copyright terms may apply to the person who downloaded the image from the databank website, but that is not our concern.

If this remains a point of disagreement, then the easiest solution is to nominate for deletion on Commons and let the admins fix the template terms. And, to repeat what Nikkimaria said, there is no doubt this is a free image that we can host and use on Wikipedia. -- Colin°^Talk 08:51, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the attribution requirement sounds like a non-copyright restriction. If it is a copyright restriction, commons:Template:Attribution is the tag to use; no need for deletion.~I don't think it's a problem to use that tag even if it's a non-copyright restriction. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:32, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not proposing deletion, just that that is the place to get Commons admins to review. No, you can't use that tag on public-domain files. It explicitly says "The copyright holder of this file, User:Example, allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed." -- but there is no copyright holder any more.

I think this is getting a bit beyond FA's remit IMO, which requires "acceptable copyright status", which is clearly has. I'm happy to nominate it for "deletion" (i.e. review) on Commons if this is a sticking point, I don't want us to get bogged down arguing about a protein when there is an 8000 word article to review. -- Colin°^Talk 10:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC) -- Colin°^Talk 10:57, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might we move a lot of this discussion to the talk page of this FAC and sort it there? If I am understanding correctly that there is no problem, it would be grand to have reviewers focus on text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:39, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked at Commons:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Copyright template query. Quite happy for this to be moved to talk. -- Colin°^Talk 12:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could we just switch to the image at Alpha-synuclein? I hate being bogged down in images (particularly since I have no idea what any of you are saying, but it has already taken over the FAC :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is even worse. No source no author. -- Colin°^Talk 13:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be the source, although it was flipped around. A better option would be to state the attribution request in the filepage for APOE; a deletion request is not the correct approach. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well ... I am really nowhere when it comes to dealing with images :( SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no image licensing expert, but I do have a PyMOL license, so I can generate images of any structure whose coordinates are on PDB (like the two you've mentioned above). The image is a rendering of coordinate data, so a PNG can be exported at any resolution, and we can do the orientation and colors however you'd like. Just let me know (Commons currently hosts many hundreds of PyMOL-generated images, which people are releasing as "own work" and citing the PDB data source; examples of well known proteins at File:Protein RB1 PDB 1ad6.png and File:P53.png). Ajpolino (talk) 04:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At Commons, my query has been marked "resolved". The "author" field of the file description page has been fixed, so our attribution is better, and folk at Commons do feel the attribution requested by the data bank is at the level of academic professional courtesy rather than a copyright licence. Perhaps Nikkimaria and Jo-Jo Eumerus can indicate if they still disagree.

Ajpolino, the disputed image isn't particularly high resolution or smooth and I'm sure could be improved. I know nothing about proteins. If there is a choice, we should pick the one most relevant to this disease and it would be great if you could create and upload a better image. Unless you are particularly concerned with receiving attribution, a {{cc0}} template offers the greatest opportunity for reuse,and I think this is an option with the Upload Wizard. -- Colin°^Talk 10:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really disagree. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Nikkimaria (talk) 12:14, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nikkimaria, Jo-Jo Eumerus, and Ajpolino: thanks! Ajpolino, I will leave this to Colin and you, but the image there is good enough for me; we need your talents elsewhere! Jo-Jo, would you mind marking this resolved on the main page of the FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just uploaded File:ApoE 22k fragment 2001.png and File:Alpha-synuclein 2005.png as CC0. I picked an arbitrary high resolution, so if you'd prefer a smaller (or larger) version just let me know. Colors and orientation can also be changed easily. If you ever encounter another old protein image you'd like changed, just let me know. It just takes a few minutes, so it's no big deal. Colin, I'm sorry to hear that; you're missing out on a whole exciting (if small) world. Never too late to learn about proteins. Cheers everyone. Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ajpolino. I have to ask, in File:Alpha-synuclein 2005.png, there are two bits that look like the wire on an office telephone handset and a red bit that looks like a child has taken a stiff wire and bent it in any old random way while distracted. Is that based on "data" or do you just wiggle the mouse around a bit for a while? -- Colin°^Talk 22:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent question, the office wire sections are alpha helices, perhaps the most common ways nature makes stiff-ish bits. The squiggly bit is... well it's a squiggly bit. The authors' data provides the coordinates for every atom, so unfortunately I don't get to do any artful mouse wiggling myself. We are meant to believe from their data that the squiggly bit was truly in that conformation when they looked at it. That said, the data comes from NMR which I'm a bit foggy on the details of. The fact that protein structures often look a bit silly is, sadly, the fault of the proteins themselves, and is challenging to remedy, no matter how you display them. Ajpolino (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, you must have some fancy Latin name for the squiggly bit? Has anyone been tempted to fiddle the data so that when you rotate it to a certain angle, it spells out "Will you marry me, Claire?" I've replaced the article image with the improved File:ApoE 22k fragment 2001.png as (I hope) that seems to be a direct replacement where I don't have to change the caption. If anyone prefers the File:Alpha-synuclein 2005.png (or as well) then I'd need help with a caption for that wrt DLB. Thanks for your uploads. -- Colin°^Talk 08:43, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you so much, Ajpolino and everyone! (I'd barnstar the heck out of you, but I already did that this week!) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What did Robin Williams have? Barnstars will be given for careful reading :)

It's a fraught question :) Barnstars will be awarded for careful reading. Jo-Jo was the first to question, but we don't have Jo-Jo's analysis, so no barnstar yet!

I will give a new clue for each person who take a stab at it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clue 1; Could, or should, Robin Williams have been diagnosed with Dementia with Lewy bodies while he was alive? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conversion to page ranges

Version before converting to page ranges. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]