 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Untitled
editThis page will be a template for a bot we are planning on writing to populate all genes with information curated from public sources. Please feel free to make changes here or to comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals. Also, anyone know how to embed the second table in the first? AndrewGNF 17:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- never mind, figured out how to next tables, then decided to unnest them AndrewGNF 18:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looking at this more closely, I now realise that the orthologs section should probably be titled mouse ortholog. Also could the gene expression cell in other data be axed since it is repeated in the orthologs section? Then the gene ontology section can be expanded. I've made these changes as an experiment. Please feel free to revert back if you're not happy with them.
- Made all the changes except expanding the width of the GO section since there is an EC number in there too, although for ITK not used. David D. (Talk) 08:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, followed up on these changes on Template_talk:GNF_Protein_box. AndrewGNF 17:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I added some wikilinks; it would be desirable if the bot creating these articles could do this. It might also be worthwhile adding a sentence saying which chromosome each gene is on in the text portion as well as in the infobox, with a link, in this case to chromosome 5 (human)-gadfium 00:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
- Good idea, added it to the specs. Any intelligent ways to determine what should be wikilinked? We could parse through every word and check for the existence of a WP page (although that might be difficult given the limitations on bot reads). Or we could cross reference against some "preferred library" (say, the list of all gene names and symbols, and all MCB articles). Or, we could defer the wikilinking to one of the bots that is dedicated to this process. Anyway, we'll keep it under consideration. If anyone has any thoughts on the best way to do this, we'd love to hear them... AndrewGNF 18:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)