User talk:Kupirijo/Sciences

Structures

As far as I know, we don't have a handy GPL-licensed chemical structure renderer. The structures I've done have mostly been in ACD Labs' ChemSketch; it's a free download from their web site. (At least, it was the last time I checked....) It's been a while since I've drawn a structure; too busy at work, I guess.

Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that the files generated by ChemSketch are in a proprietary format. For uploading the structures to Wikipedia, I've had to export them as .gifs from the program. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:03, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surfactant

I noticed on Surfactant that you changed the category from [[Category:Surfactants]] to [[Category:Surfactants|*]]. Does that actually do something different, implement some quirky feature, or was it just accidental? ENeville 06:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it changes the position of the article at Category:Surfactants. Usally is done so that the article that has the same name as the category is at the head. See more Help:Category#Sort_key.

--Kupirijo 06:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :-) ENeville 18:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for Image:HMG-CoA synthase.png

Thanks for uploading Image:HMG-CoA synthase.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Chemical data, Blue Obelisk

Hi, I saw your post today about CML and Blue Obelisk at WP:Chem and at User_talk:Lumbar. I'm trying to get together a group of people who are interested in things like CML and harmonising standards between Wikipedia and Blue Obelisk. Would you be interested in helping out with that? I'm a chemist, not a programmer, by the way, so you have to talk to me in simple terms! Thanks, Walkerma 20:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I don't see as being very time-consuming, but we need to have a critical mass of people to debate issues when they arise. I'm just gathering names for now, as I'm really busy myself trying to get Version 0.5 finished off. Cheers, Walkerma 04:52, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Algae

Nice job on including the table in the Red Algae article!

You either have to use plant kingdom with lower case leads or capitalize the first letters and use Kingdom Plantae--kingdom Plantae is improperly mixed. I'll change it, when I get a moment or you can. The names after the kingdoms, phyla, classes and orders are actually the botanical authorities, although technically they are the names of authors of papers, also, they are not used, in this article, as such, but rather simply as the authorities. They don't have to be tied to specific papers, as most of the papers, particularly for older names are obscure and not helpful--I simply listed the authorities in the highest order article for the convenience of folks who want to look up the articles. For the citations within the papers themselves some are new categories and can, probably should be noted as such, instead of the sloppy long list of authorities. I will change this, or you can.

Thank you for taking the time to clean the article up and put it in table format and add the links, it is much more usable the way you've done it.

KP Botany 20:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While most scientists studying the Red Algae put it in the plant kingdom, on Wikipedia it is classified in the Kingdom Protista, so changing the taxobox color to green may raise some disagreement. As the most recent classifications and the main algae biodiversity databases classify it as a plant, Wikipedia should probably change. And as the classifications included in the article classify red algae as plants it adds internal consistency. However, just a heads up that you might meet some disagreement. KP Botany 18:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, authorities are not usually abbreviated like literature, as they are not usually tied to an article reference, but rather just given one time, so Merola et al will have to be changed back to Merola, Castaldo, De Luca, Gambarella, Musacchio et Taddei. I suppose for function and readability of the table itself it could be footnoted at the bottom of the table, in the table, or just below it. However, it must not be added to the reference list as it is an authority, not a reference. There may be precedence in the codes for abbreviating lists of authorities, rather than a single authority, but I don't know it. KP Botany 18:28, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protists Project

I think we should use the latest calssification scheme that treats them [red algae] as Plantae. --Kupirijo 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, but it's been a sticking point for some people. In discussions most people are worried about how to decide what standard to follow, so it's hard to get consensus for a change.

Also I think Excavata and Rhizaria should be added as categories. Recent papers acknowledge that they are monophyletic and probably would become Kingdoms in the future. We should still classify them as Protista but I do not think it is good to delete the category. To be honest I never liked the concept of the Kingdom Protista. Now with all the DNA sequence resources that we have it is good to promote that. Josh what is your oppinion? --Kupirijo 18:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're good groups - I wrote those articles - but I wasn't sure they make good categories. The most useful way to collect protists seems to be phyla, and there aren't many, so an extra level of organization doesn't help much. They're definitely confusing if they aren't filled in, which is why I removed them for the time being. But if it's important to set up a phylogenetic system, we can.

By the way, newer finings aside, the protists can't be broken nicely into monophyletic kingdoms. Since they're basal, little groups like choanoflagellates are sister to big groups like animals, and recognizing these as kingdoms simply isn't useful. So biologists who insist on monophyletic groups tend not to use kingdoms, and biologists who are concerned with them (e.g. Cavalier-Smith) tend to allow paraphyletic groups.

Incidentally one of these groups is the Choanozoa. Phylogenetically the classes are separate groups of opisthokonts, so I think it might be better to list the clades there and note the protistan ones are called Choanozoa. Since you're the one who split the articles, though, I thought I should check with you. By the way, I would like to add that I appreciate your concern over these groups; the protists often get neglected. Josh

Cycloartenol

Thanks for fixing that. I must admit I'm almost as perplexed as the poor 'bot is by the category structure of the organic chemicals; it's in the Category:esters category tree, via the Category:steroids and the Category:lipids (but not all steroids are lipids, and/or not all lipids are esters?). Alai 12:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Catechin

I have dramatically edited the article on catechins in an attempt to clean this up. Hopefully, you agree with all the changes I have made.

I have stripped out all the health related stuff since most of the effects noted have been observed for other polyphenols and so I am directly linking polyphenol and antioxidant at the top as a way of redirecting unencyclopedic lists of all the myriad studies done on various catechins.

If specific health claims can be demonstrated for catechins, I think their inclusion would be warranted. I also want to archive the talk section at some point, since the article is vastly different now than when the comments were made.

Please let me know if you have other ideas or want me to focus on specific things about this article that might be still unclear. MatthewEHarbowy 19:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color of taxoboxes for various protists

Hi, Kupirijo, this situation has been taken care of for now. We are debating the issue at ToL and also may tackle it at the new microbiology project. KP Botany 04:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is ToL? --Kupirijo 11:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wp:Tol --KP Botany 20:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]