Talk:Minimum information standard

	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 Computational Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Assessment[edit]

I believe Minimal Information standards are important (I am the father of two of them). However, I would not rate them "high" for computational biology. First they are pretty new, and their impact on science in general and computational science is unknown. Second, MI are not really a computational biology issue. Most of them relate to experimental biology (the fact that the required information is encoded in computer readable format is irrelevant. We do not put HTML is the WikiProject Computational Biology because bioinformatics database have webpages).

This page also looks like a list rather than an encyclopedia entry. I would move from "importance=high class=start" to "importance=mid class=list". What do you think? alexbateman? Nicolas Le Novere (talk) 11:47, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody bothered to fill in any information on most of these standards, and the suggestion wasn't even answered for over three years, I took the liberty of jacking down importance a wee bit. Not sure about the start vs list bit, so I left it. I suggest you just be wp:bold and do the edits you find reasonable. (I haven't really heard about any of these except MIAME before, so I have no idea if they are actual standards being used by anybody - and thus wp:notable or not) Ketil (talk) 14:11, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 January 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. Unfortunately there has not been much feedback on this proposal. EdJohnston (talk) 17:02, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Minimum Information Standards → List of Minimal Information standards – Based on the above assessment and the current state of the article, I agree this article would be better formatted as a list, although in some cases it may be feasible to extend the standard descriptions into prose. Proposing this in order to gain feedback. Relisted -- Calidum 05:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Amkilpatrick (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Lenov: - any further thoughts? Amkilpatrick (talk) 03:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment why are you capitalizing "Minimum Information" ? The intro section does not capitalize this. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I misread 'MI standards', uncapitalised might be fine too. Amkilpatrick (talk) 20:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Minimum Information Standards. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070520095017/http://wiki.ficcs.org/ficcs/MIFlowCyt to http://wiki.ficcs.org/ficcs/MIFlowCyt

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) 02:07, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]