Talk:Transporter Classification Database

message: The PubMed link has the wrong PMID. --Ayacop (talk) 15:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  original proposal 

message: Why is it "Transporter Classification database" and not "Transporter classification database" ? BenJWoodcroft (talk) 14:41, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Strange capitalisation in name? 

message: How about renaming this page to Transporter Classification and changing its scope to a page about classification of TM transporters in general? It will appear that TCDB is actually the only comprehensive classification of TM transporters, wheres classifications used in other good resources are not significantly different from that in TCDB. Hence, the classification currently provided on this page will remain practically the same. My very best wishes (talk) 15:12, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the Transporter Classification Database deserves its own page; there could be a Transporter classificiation page, but that should be a comparision or critique of different methods of classifying or characterizing transporter. For example, in the field of Pharmacology, the term 'transporter' doesn't include ion channels, but only those proteins that use active transport (directly or indirectly). Klbrain (talk) 20:56, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: And in neuroscience as well as in physiology, anyone calling an ion channel a "transporter" would be regarded as mistaken (or ignorant). A more general page might be something like Membrane protein classification, but I think the rename proposed here would end up being a WP:POV-fork. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:37, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, let's keep it as it is, no problem. My very best wishes (talk) 02:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename?

message: Of course it would be best to have a WP page about every protein family. However, if we do not have such page I think it would be helpful to link every family in the list (this is really a list) to the corresponding entities in the TCDB database itself and possibly to other resources that describe same family. What rules prevent us from doing this? I think there is only one criterion here: would such linking be helpful for a reader? I am sure it definitely would, at least on this page. If and when a corresponding WP page will be developed, it will be used to provide internal, instead of the external linking. Why not? My very best wishes (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: It is never done that way in Wikipedia articles, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#External links. That's a Wikipedia-wide consensus, that really should not be overruled here. But there is an easy solution (which is what I did in this edit: ). Just make the link a citation, in the reference list. That accomplishes the same result! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists. It tells about "lists of links, data or information that are either included in the text of an article or appended to the end of an article. Embedded lists may be in table format." OK. I do not really see why we can not make the list of families on this page as a list of links. But the list of references (as you suggested) would also work; I have no strong opinion about it.My very best wishes (talk) 22:44, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I looked at the Embedded lists page, and it does not seem to me to endorse external links except as citations in references or as links in an External links section. Thanks about the references. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

text: I added more families, and a lot of them can be linked to corresponding WP pages we have, but I do not have time for that right now. What I do not understand in TCDB is why certain families are classified as belonging to the top "categories" 8. and 9. (there are actually a lot of them) rather than to 1-5. This page also needs some text explaining how and why these (super)families were classified to functional categories (1-5).My very best wishes (talk) 13:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Linking

message: An FYI re the licensing of this database, which is likely relevant to editors editing other articles (not this one--but they're most likely to see this notice if it's here).  Though the database is labeled CC-BY, it often copies content from copyrighted journal articles (likely in good faith, because the people who wrote the database entries also wrote the copyrighted journal articles--but a problem nonetheless). Just wanted to get the word out so that we don't accidentally import copyright violations from this source. See Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Transporter Guy for more information. Calliopejen1 (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Licensing