Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Molecular and Cell Biology/Collaboration of the Month

This MCB project subpage is no longer in use and is kept as a historical archive.
Please go to the Molecular Biology project homepage or talk page for currently active sections.

This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference.
Either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear. To revive discussion, seek broader input via a forum such as the village pump.

Wikipathways[edit]

What will be the relationship between the MCB pages, especially protein-protein interactions and the website http://wikipathways.org/index.php/Main_Page ? Ssharp33 01:28, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update of MCB template?[edit]

I've noticed that the MCB project boxes on tagged pages still list signal transduction as the monthly improvement drive, but it should have been RNA polymerase in April. What needs to be updated to change that? Also, the May collaboration still lists TBA. Based on the number of votes, I guess it would be RNA? - tameeria 15:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it...I've done the last few months. I'll get to it in about an hour or so. — Scientizzle 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. I've also created Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Collaboration of the Month/Update how-to to help anyone else do the job if I go and forget about it again... — Scientizzle 18:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extend vote period?[edit]

Currently, a nomination is good for 2 weeks until it's "overdue" and each subsequent vote extends the deadline another 2 weeks. Due to the relatively low activity of this page, would anyone object to extending that 14 days into 20 or 21? That would allow noms with votes a longer period before being whisked away... — Scientizzle 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The older noms are simply placed on a subpage, so they don't entirely disappear. If you look at the noms currently there, you'll see that most have only one or two noms anyway and are long overdue. While I would have no objection to the proposal, I don't see that it would make much difference. --EncycloPetey 15:28, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know--I'm the guy who's been doing the updates for the last few months (save this last one). I left a lot of overdue noms up on purpose because there was practically no activity for several weeks and at one point everything was a brand new nomination or overdue. [This page received a lot more traffic several months ago...] It wouldn't solve the inactivity problem at all, but it was an idea I thought I'd float to deal with the low interest... — Scientizzle 15:59, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know... I too thought that a longer "on time" for articles would be a good idea because of the low activity and even thought of proposing something similar as recently as a week ago, :) but then I thought, isn't it more likely that we can get an article of current user interest if we have a 2 week rather than 3 week limit? - TwoOars (Rev) 18:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may just abandon the idea and attack the problem: complacency. I'll try to put together a little "newsletter" of sorts for the wikiproject that asks for greater input & activity. A monthly newsletter may drum up more collaborative activity. — Scientizzle 19:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that could help. Tell me if you need any help. I'll try to. I make no promises though :P - TwoOars (Rev) 19:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may help, but it hasn't on the Novels collaboration. There, involvement was strong initially, but has dwindled over the past five months, even with personal updates sent to user pages of participants. I think it would help more to bring in new participants, who are eager to make their mark. Long-tim participants tend to either be hard-core or lose interest. --EncycloPetey 21:25, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biology collaboration[edit]

I notice we have three collaborations for subfields of biology but no Biology collaboration of the month. I've suggested we should look at starting one at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biology. Please drop by if you're interested. Richard001 03:01, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get the word out![edit]

Okay...the last CotM was underwhelming in its success. I didn't really help out, either, so I won't be lecturing anyone. To increase the visibility of the project so we gain new members, and keep current members updated on the CotM, consider adding {{Current MCB COTM}} to your user page or any appropriate project space page. Thanks! — Scientizzle 17:46, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've chosen not to update this month's CotM, as last month's (April 2008) was also barely touched...Flagellum didn't change much. Let's keep it going for another month? — Scientizzle 15:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. I've been meaning to get to it, but between real life and developing WP:IGOR, I've been swamped. – Clockwork Soul 15:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am a methods person and not a theory person, but I end up editing and fixing links the same, but I have not touched a single collaboration as they are way out of my league: e.g. Chlorophyll and photosynthesis: I grew plants in my back yard and I know chlorophyll is a Mg binding small molecule (so will behave kinda-like heme) and that is all I know. the topics chosen are way too restrictive as nobody will go out of their way to read up stuff just for wikipedia (we are supposed to be curing cancer or analyse data... opsss, I am procrastinating). --Squidonius (talk) 15:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular biology talked about "transfection of bacteria by microinjection", molecular developmental biology stuff are missing (I separated Hox genes from homeodomain protein and all I got was vandalism of the word homeotic), all the core articles are a bit off, yet the really narrow ones are good (like Oct3/4 and other genes). Is this common to all disciplines or is it only biology? --Squidonius (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know too much about whether core articles are "a bit off", but I sympathize with feeling unable to contribute to collaboration of the month. I have actually found collaboration more productive and rewarding when someone has asked me to help out - firstly, because that usually means I have the right know-how to help out, and secondly, because I know I'm not stepping on someone's all-too-sensitive toes (it's a real problem with some territorial editors!). Clearly, right now, the voting on CotM isn't working (people rarely look at that anymore!!) ~ I wonder if direct invitation from key editors to improve articles (say for FAR or GAR) might be better? Just a suggestion until I can pull my finger out and do some real grafting myself (alas - bosses need papers!). ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a couple of months we were sending out regular notices, and that seemed to remind people that it was there and draw editors in. If I had the time and patience I would do it by hand again, but I'm just too short time. I keep saying I'm going to add that capability to Igor, but I just haven't gotten around to it. &nash; Clockwork Soul 19:52, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still active?[edit]

I'm a brand-new editor who was dismayed to find that the 'Core topics COTF' was inactive. Is this COTM active? There's no history listing the past months' articles, so while it says the next switch is on 1 March, I can't tell. --Wetenschap (talk) 03:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I've not seen it change since before I joined in the spring. Maybe we need a new topic. --Brroga (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reactivate the collaboration of the month[edit]

I realized that the MCB Collaboration of the Month is no longer active (probably for a long time). Since I think that these kind of collaborations are very helpful for articles, I am wondering what it would need to reactivate this. I could give a hand in organizing this; but I don't know whether it is desired and how the process is running in detail. It may also be that this has already been discussed many times and the final conclusion was to stop this. What do you think? If desired, I would be glad to get some infos on the workflow. Thanks in advance, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 04:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The MCB COTM has just been reactivated on March 1, 2010. Thanks already to all who contribute, --Firefly's luciferase (talk) 08:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this inactive?[edit]

Would I be right in assuming that COTM is inactive? Seems like a good idea though -Zynwyx (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes unfortunately the COTM is inactive. The last significant activity was in December, 2010. I have therefore marked the COTM as inactive. If someone wants to restart it, that would be great, but it seems no longer possible to find a critical mass of MCB editors to edit on any one article. Boghog (talk) 02:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reactivate CotM[edit]

With it being 1st June tomorrow, I wonder if CotM could maybe be revived, as it seems like a good idea that just ran out of steam at some point. The nomination page isn't very well maintained, there are some very old nominations on the page which should really have been relegated to the removed nomination page by now, but what if we made the current nomination with the most votes showing (which is zygote) the collaboration of the month for June? Then move all old nominations to the removed nominations page and start afresh? I am just wondering if there would be sufficient interest for a collaboration. Zygote in particular is an article in need of serious work, considering it is the first google result for "Zygote" and (as mentioned in the nomination) an MCB topic at high school level. -Zynwyx (talk) 15:21, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]