Talk:Computational Chemistry List

This article was adapted from Frédéric Wieber; Alejandro Pisanty; Alexandre Hocquet (18 December 2018). ""We were here before the Web and hype…": a brief history of and tribute to the Computational Chemistry List". Journal of Cheminformatics. 10 (1): 67. doi:10.1186/S13321-018-0322-7. ISSN 1758-2946. PMC 6755560. PMID 30564941. Wikidata Q60045917.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) after peer review under a CC BY 4.0 license (2019).

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Computational Chemistry List. 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: 18 January 2022).

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) 20:20, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion of article based on recently published CC-BY research article[edit]

Unless someone opposes it, I suggest to expand the current version of the article based on a copy-paste of paragraphs of this academic paper, whose purpose is to describe the CCL from a historian's point of view, and whose license is compatible. Disclaimer : I am one of the authors of the paper. Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 22:22, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so I'm starting this. Work in progressAlexandre Hocquet (talk) 20:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did a first draft. It can be improved.Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the changes are good. --Bduke (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Other lists[edit]

Many computational chemistry programs have their own email lists, which are used along side the CCL. I wonder whether it is appropriate to mention some of them in this article? Some are supported by the program authors, for example the CFOUR list (http://slater.chemie.uni-mainz.de/cfour/index.php?n=Main.MailingList) and some are not such as GAMESS (US). One difficulty will be getting reliable sources. I found the one above for CFOUR but can not find one for GAMESS (US). --Bduke (talk) 06:09, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Bduke, and thank you for the positive comments. I was actually considering notifying you of the changes as you are probably archetypal of the intersection of the groups of experienced wikipedians and experienced CCLers :) . I believe your proposal is spot on, especially knowing that along the history of the CCL, there has always been a tension with the idea that "the CCL is not a (insert your most hated package here) support list". Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 17:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will give it more thought but not in this coming week, when I am tied up. We need a few more examples with sources. --Bduke (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peer reviewed template and license attribution[edit]

Dianaa, I am continuing here the discussion initiated on my talk page because I believe it is of interest to all the contributors watchlisting it. I believe you are right to state that the licensing policy of the original text should be mentionned and I thank you for adding that in the first reference. But there is no reason to remove the "peer reviewed template" as it is designed exactly for this purpose. If you think the template is misleading because it seems to imply that the original article is from Wikipedia and then copied in a peer reviewed paper, and if you think the template should mention the exact licence, then please advocate for template improvement, but do not remove it here. You seem to refuse to admit that the Circular permutation in proteins article is exactly in the same situation. Please double check : the original Plos paper is from 29, March 2012 and the Wikipedia article is from 30 March 2012 (check article history, Special:Diff/475902965 and Special:Diff/484610239). It is NOT a Wikipedia article pasted into an academic paper, it is the other way around, so it is exactly like here. If you argue that SOME content has been changed, you are right, because the text has been adapted to reflect Wikipedia policies like NPOV and wikilinking, and a CC-BY licence (without ND) allows precisely that. Alexandre Hocquet (talk) 05:29, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]