Talk:Rosetta@home

message: Great work, really. -Tribaal 08:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User comment 

message: Someone did a lot of work expanding this page with tons of new information. However, currently the page is written like an ad for how great Rosetta@home is. This part sounds like a solicitation for donations:
"Decoding the human genome may be the greatest scientific achievement of this century. But before that knowledge can be used, scientists need to take the research a step further — they need to understand the proteins that are built from our DNA. Proteins are the parts that make up the machinery of living cells." 
Or this:
"By participating in the Rosetta@home Project, volunteers help verify and develop these revolutionary new algorithms."
Ww.ellis 12:11, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page reads like an ad 

message: I actually used the "How to join" section to install Rosetta@home on this computer. However, articles aren't supposed to read like instruction guides. Could any user suggest a way to rewrite that section to conform to style guidelines? --Grace 07:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good work writing the page, but the section does need to be rewritten according to Wikipedia policy. Rather than the imperative "Install the program like this", it needs to have the descriptive tone of "This is how the program is used" - or it could be replaced with a link to the project's how to page as the second commenter said. --Grace 08:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, could you point me to that Wikipedia policy? Also, which link to the project's how to page do you suggest to use instead (specific URL please)? Btw the prior poster didn't suggest, he simply DELETED the entire section. Dhatz 17:32, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOT is a good start. On a sidenote, I think the 'how to join' section is ok, only needs a little editing.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia is not a how-to guide 

message: I've noticed that this page uses large amounts of verbatim text from other websites: is the Wikipedia copyright policy being followed here? (Specifically, read section 4 - "Contributors' rights and obligations".) Mike Peel 10:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was referring to many parts of the page - basically every section which quotes more than a sentance from an external source. So long as the verbatim text has been copied over with permission from those with the copyright, then I don't think there's a problem. Mike Peel 19:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although it would be best if the Rosetta@home project would licence their contents under GFDL or CC or some other copyleft licence we could use.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus  talk  16:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

text: As an example, consider list items 1-3 in the  'Medical Relevance' section, which are taken verbatim from http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_medical_relevance.php and not put in quotation marks.  While the author (David Baker) is probably fine with having that content mirrored on Wikipedia, "Copyright © 2008 University of Washington" is clearly visible on the bottom of the page. The use of second-person should be fixed at the very least.  Emw2012 (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright violation? 

message: ie. "Decoding the human genome may be the greatest scientific achievement of this century. But before we can...", sentances starting with "But". --FauxFaux 15:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Project Signifigance could do with some rewording. 

message: I suggest you should have a references section at the end of this article. Many of your statements have inline web-links which could readily be turned into references using  or straight out  statements.
Also: don't put links in the middle of sentences put them at the end. Reading the automated peer review will provide links to the relevant policies / preferences.Garrie 03:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions 

message: The human proteome has ~400,000 proteins and there are more proteins in other organisms. 
Where you guys got 400k number from? It is less then 30k genes in in every given human being. So total number of significant proteins would be also less then 30 000. Even given that one gene can code for more then one protein it still would not make any difference since those genes relatively rare. 
On the other hand you can count human population as a whole counting every mutation as separate protein, this way you will end up having millions of proteins. But those one not a big deal since there shape would be very close to resolved ones and predicting shape from scratch, from amino acid sequence computationally will yield more errors in predicted shapes. 
The other possibility - count antibodies generated by human immune system would also give you millions of possible proteins. But those luck any sequence, so Rosetta could not help with them. 
This number - 400k for me sounds like a lie, simply made to justify project. 
204.16.188.3 03:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human proteome has ~400,000 proteins? 

message: The Baker lab section is outdated (compare the post-docs listed there to those listed at the referenced link).  It seems inappropriate to list the ~20 post-doctoral fellows now at the Baker lab (with that number likely increasing).  Considering that the only other information in that section is that the lab is at the University Washington and that David Baker runs it (plus department and HHMI information seen in other places in the article), I'm nominating the section for deletion.  The information can easily be incorporated into the introduction, which, according to the  archived peer review, should be expanded anyways. Emw2012 (talk) 17:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: After a little over a week without any objection, I just deleted the 'Baker lab' section.  Instead of moving the information to the introduction, I thought it'd be more appropriate to put it into the article on  David Baker. Emw2012 (talk) 05:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 'Baker lab' section: nomination for deletion

message: This section is great! It concisely explains the difference between the two programs without getting into too much detail, which I think is great for newbies like me. It would be nice to expand this section to discuss which diseases are more relevant to each project, so that people know which diseases they are fighting when they join the project. Mad props to whomever made this section! 76.190.151.109 (talk) 04:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Differences between protein research projects

message: This is very, very cool.  Keep up the excellent work.69.122.62.231 (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great 

message: I was under the impression that pages linked directly to the front page, in particular featured articles, were traditionally protected for the duration of their display. This is clearly not the case here. What gives? Am I completely off base, or did somebody screw up the system? 75.148.127.194 (talk) 01:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * My understanding is that most of "Today's featured article"s retain their normal level of protection, except that move-protection is added in cases where it was not previously applied.  This policy, which seems to extend back at least a few months, has been used in this TFA as it has been in others. Emw2012 (talk) 05:35, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dumb Question 

message: If the project had 77 teraflops worth of processing power on 30 nov, how much does it have now, having been exposed on one of the most visited pages on the internet? Would be fun to know... EditorInTheRye (talk) 13:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: * There was a boost in the number of new users joining the project for about two days (see here), but no substantial increase in overall processing power.  The project's main site happened to be experiencing trouble for about the first half of the UTC day, and seemed swamped with requests when it eventually came back up.  The article got 26.8 thousand fews the day it was featured, 8.4K the next day, then 5.7K, 4.7K, 543, and 252 (yesterday) (see [article traffic statistics for Rosetta@home in December 2008]).  That was in addition to 7.2 million views of the Main Page on December 1 2008. I imagine that the inopportune timing of having the main project site down and bogged thereafter was the main factor in the insignificant boost in processing power and active users.  As the primary author of the article, it would have been nice to know that the R@H article was going to be 'Today's featured article' at least a few days in advance. Instead there was no mention on the article's Talk page or mine beforehand, nor much advance notice in the TFA archives.  I learned by seeing it on the main page, which, while a great surprise, didn't give me time to notify the Rosetta@home team that they should prepare for a large increase in server demand.  Emw2012 (talk) 16:20, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effects of WP main page exposure? 

message: I think that this article could benefit from a section explaining exactly what the differences are between the Rosetta Beta and Rosetta Mini applications.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawkbawkboo829 (talk • contribs) 03:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rosetta Beta as opposed to Rosetta Mini 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rosetta@home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090225121243/http://www.hivvaccineenterprise.org/_dwn/Oral_Sessions.pdf to http://www.hivvaccineenterprise.org/_dwn/Oral_Sessions.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Rosetta@home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090218192526/http://www.teampicard.com:80/profiles/Interview.php?id=4 to http://www.teampicard.com/profiles/Interview.php?id=4
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Rosetta@home. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140419012044/http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_license.php to http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_license.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080925030646/http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_requirements.php to http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_requirements.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080923080902/http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_medical_relevance.php to http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_medical_relevance.php
*Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6Aqr6BFe7?url=http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-highperformance to http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-highperformance
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071011151128/http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-diseases.html to http://folding.stanford.edu/FAQ-diseases.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080924094647/http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_old_potd.php to http://boinc.bakerlab.org/rosetta/rah_old_potd.php
*Added  tag to http://predictioncenter.gc.ucdavis.edu/casp8/target.cgi?id=119&view=all
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Rosetta@Home seems to be so called because it is based on the Rosetta software, but there is no actual page for that software, even though it is referenced from at least one other article.  (It is not hyperlinked in either.)
David Woolley (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confuses the distributed computing project with the underlying software 

message: This is a 2008 promotion that is in need of a review against current FA standards. 
The article seems overly reliant on primary sources, with way too many citations to sources too closely associated with the subject, such as Rosetta@home, Boinc, David Baker (Baker D) and Brian Kuhlman. There is also a number of citations to users' posts in forums, which don't seem to meet WP:RS. The article is in need of citations in many places; I will flag some of them with the cn tag. RetiredDuke (talk) 17:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  FA in need of review 

message: This article is heavily promotional, reads like an add put forth by people with a strong COI. And the reader should be cautioned that the problem of protein structure prediction, the main thrust of Rosetta@home, has been already solved using artificial intelligence by DeepMind, a company owned by Google! DeepMind developed the predictive tool AlphaFold that incorporates Rosetta input among many others to make their most accurate predictions of protein structure. AlphaFold has overtaken Rosetta in the CASP (Critical Assessment of protein Structure Prediction) competitions.  TruchaForelle (talk) 23:48, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This reads like a promotional piece