Talk:GRASP55

moving to GRASP55

Hello. Based on the discussion below, I am about to move this page to the protein name, rather that the gene name, as the name of the article about the protein.

Wikipedia:Help desk#redirects vs aliases vs moves vs inaction

Hello again. There are many examples of wp articles about proteins that have several aliases listed. Many of these were created by ProteinBoxBot about a decade ago and not edited much since. While not being of the mind to do historical research on why the bot selected one name over the other aliases, many of the article names are not what has become the standard name for the protein, and I think the bot just hasn't stayed current. The standard name is listed as an alias, but it is not always obvious that the 2 names are related in any way to the non-specialist reader. So, the question is, what to do about this? Move the article to the standard name? Make redirects from all the aliases to either the current wp article name or the article moved to the standard name? Do nothing, and let non-specialist readers figure out that, for example, p59, GOLPH6 and GRASP55 (which is the standard name) are all aliases for GORASP2? Thanks for guidance. JeanOhm (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

If there is now one standard name for a protein, the article should be moved to that name. The article should mention the alternative names. The alternative names should redirect to the article. Where an alternative name is also a name for something else, and has never been much used, it can be ignored; but if it has ever been widely used, hatnotes (for one other meaning) or a disambiguation page (multiple other meanings) can be used. Maproom (talk) 07:48, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

JeanOhm (talk) 02:41, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog: I don't really understand what you did to GRASP65 after I moved it, but you might want to do the same for this article. Should I ping you after every move? There will be a lot of them. I think it is pretty strange to have articles about proteins named as the gene name, rather than the protein name. Do you agree with my approach? Thank you. JeanOhm (talk) 03:45, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@JeanOhm: What to call Gene Wiki pages in not always straight forward because these pages are about both the protein and the gene that encodes that protein. Guidelines for naming gene/protein articles are found here. Occasionally HUGO has changed the official gene symbol, hence these need to be updated. However this does not seem to be the case with GRASP55/GORASP2 (and also GRASP65/GORASP1) The current officlal name is as follows:

• HUGO gene name: GORASP2
• UniProt protein name: Golgi reassembly-stacking protein 2
  • Alias: Golgi reassembly-stacking protein of 55 kDa (GRASP55)

Not everyone uses the official names of course and that is why the literature sometimes conflicts. At a minimum, I think we need to re-add GORASP2 as an alias to the because this is the official name. Also I think the Wiki Data pages need to be restored back to the way they were. If nothing is done, the Bot will eventually do this.

Also concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

• <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene.

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human.

Concerning my edits, I was just removing some obsolete templates that the bot no longer uses as well as standardizing the reference formatting. I have Gene Wiki pages on my watch list so there is no need to ping me unless you have a specific question as you did above. Boghog (talk) 05:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog: I read the guidelines you directed me to. From that page "If relatively short, the recommended UniProt protein name should be used as the article name. If the protein name is verbose, either a widely used protein acronym..." So, I believe that naming these pages GRASP55/GRASP65 fits the "widely used acronym" guidance. That is what authors use in their publications. It isn't clear to me whether you agree with that. I guess that since you haven't undone my move, you do.

I have no objection to adding aliases. I also think that redirect pages from all the aliases should be made to the GRASP55/65 pages. Maproom seemed to agree, IMHO. Do you agree?

You wrote "Also I think the Wiki Data pages need to be restored back to the way they were." When they "linked" (I don't know if that is the exact term) to the GORASP pages and I moved the GORASP pages to the GRASP pages, the infoboxes didn't show up on the moved (GRASP) pages, as discussed here Wikipedia:Help desk#Folllow up to previous question "redirects vs aliases vs moves vs inaction" So, I don't think that restoring the wd pages is going to work, if we keep the pages named GRASPs.

You wrote about the first sentence "The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise". I don't think it is awkward at all. I think that my goal here is focused on this; for both GRASP pages, the entire focus of the text (outside of the infobox) is about the protein, not the gene, so the article title should be the name of the protein, not the gene. Mentioning the gene in the first sentence, and then having the infobox focused on the gene, is fine with me.

I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm in the process of trying to bring wp coverage of the Golgi, which gets like 1,600 views/day if I remember correctly, up to the level of college rather than middle school, and keep getting sidetracked with sooooo many related problems. For example, the Golgi matrix needs to have its own page, IMHO, instead of just this pathetic section Matrix (biology)#Golgi matrix, which led me to GRASPs and golgins, etc. You might want to check out GOLGA1. The info box on that page starts with a ribbon diagram of the Golgin-97 protein! I bet that you can guess that I think the article should be moved to "Golgin-97" and a redirect should be from "GOLGA1" to "Golgin-97". Do you agree? Thanks for your help. JeanOhm (talk) 06:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

If most of the recent literature uses GRASP55 instead of GORASP2 and it appears that it does, then I think it is appropriate that the article be named GRASP55. There is a separate field in Wiki Data that lists the corresponding Wikipedia page (see for example the bottom of Q18037865). Hence there is absolutely no problem with restoring the Wiki Data pages to their former state, except, of course for the single field that contains the link to the corresponding Wikipedia page. The recommended UniProt name for GOLGA1 is Golgin subfamily A member 1 with Golgin-97 listed as an alternative name. If the later is the predominant term used in the recent literature, then I would have no objections renaming GOLGA1 to Golgin-97. Boghog (talk) 06:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog: Thanks again for the reply. The current literature, when writing about proteins, uses Grasps and Golgins. I'll be citing lots of articles as I go along my merry editing journeys. The "separate field" (I'm learning new names all the time...) that you wrote about above is the one that needed to be changed manually to the moved name in order for the infobox to appear on the moved article. So, I'm going to go along my editing path doing what I think fits best, and if I step over a line or on somebody's toes, feel free to revert and let me know. Thanks again. JeanOhm (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

@Boghog: Hello again. I think and hope that I didn't cause you more work with my revisions/additions! JeanOhm (talk) 04:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)