User talk:Boghog/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Comparative genomics

Hi Boghog; I've been looking at your edits on the comparative genomics article with interest. Do you have any thoughts about whether Wikipedia has an article which would point to the homologous regions of homo sapiens and bonobos? I've tried to contact the 2 top editors of this page for comparative genomics but was told that their User pages no longer exist. Any thoughts about the homologous regions comparative map? ErnestKrause (talk) 19:35, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Phylogenetic tree of great ape species

Hi Ernest. There does not appear to be any standalone articles specifically devoted to the comparative genomics of bonobos. A brief overview of comparative genomics between Homo sapiens and bonobos is included in Bonobo#Genetics_and_genomics. If a standalone article were to be created, its scope could be broadened to encompass the great apes, for which secondary sources are available PMID 34456962, or to primates more generally PMID 36599936. Another possible approach would be to focus on human comparative genomics, in which bonobos and chimpanzees would feature prominently. Thoughts? Boghog (talk) 04:59, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

References

I've much enjoyed the linked Great Apes article which spent some time of the issue of separating discussion of new genes and old genes. The other article was pay-walled. You are correct out point out both bonobos and chimps as being the center of concern for comparative genomic analysis with respect to homo sapiens. By homologous regions of the respective genomes, my reference is to compare the location and size of genes which contribute to the growth and development of the major organs, for example, brain, liver, kidneys, lungs, etc. There are several sites I believe that have done this for almost all subregions of the human brain for example. It would be nice to start collecting this type of information for Wikipedia to maybe expand the approach taken in the current comparative genomics article in the direction of the closely related primates. It might also be nice to compare the discussion of common 'primary traits', and then 'advances traits' which might appear in the one primate though perhaps not in the other. Interesting? ErnestKrause (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2026 (UTC)

Genetics is outside my expertise. I main concentrate on drugs and drug targets. Concerning PMID 36599936, it is available for download through the Wikipedia Library and I think you have a sufficient number of edits to qualify. Alternatively if you enable priviate Wikipedia e-mail (see WP:ENABLEEMAIL), I can e-mail you the pdf.

Concerning new article, how about Comparative genomics of great apes with PMID 34456962 and PMID 36599936 as sources? with the following as a lead sentence:

• Comparative genomics of great apes studies similarities and differences among the genomes of the living great ape species that includes humans, chimpanzees, bonobos, gorillas, and orangutans, to elucidate their evolutionary relationships and genetic divergence. Boghog (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

That's really informative and your idea for a sibling article looks very good. Just to put it out there, my second sentence, after your first sentence, would be: "The study of the differences among these various genomes has also been illuminated by the contemporaneous research in proteomics which uses individual genomes as a primary basis for the planning of research and experimentation." I'm also thinking of emphasizing homo sapiens, suggesting that the title might be "Comparative genomics of hominidae". ErnestKrause (talk) 16:39, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

Vauthors

Hallo, Thanks for tidying up the ref I added to Anakinra. I don't usually edit in medical areas (except on Anakinra and Schnitzler syndrome with which I have personal involvement, injecting the former every day to control the latter) so am not really familiar with "vauthors", though I did realise that the references I'd created using the doi and reftoolbar was not in the same format as other refs, sorry.

But I'm baffled. The ref displays with 6 authors and then "et al", but I can't see how this happens. Does "vauthors" automatically count 6 authors to display and then add "et al"? I'm accustomed to the "display-authors" field which tells how many authors to display, but that doesn't seem to be used with "vauthors".

If one or more of the authors had articles, can they be linked from a vauthor-using ref? Would you use "author-link2=" if it was the 2nd author, or link them directly from the text of the "vauthors" field?

Thanks for any light you can shed. PamD 15:10, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Ah, I've now found Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Citing_medical_sources which I think will explain. I tried to follow its instructions but this particular article doesn't seem to be in PubMed yet (OK, its publication date is given as March 2026, so perhaps understandable). I'll experiment with an older paper and see how this automatic ref formatting works. Every day a school day, as they say: always something new to learn about wiki editing. PamD 15:21, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Wow! Have now standardised (ie Vancouverised) refs 14 and 15 of Schnitzler syndrome using that amazing template-filling tool. But they both display all the authors (8 and 7), rather than applying "6 plus et al" which seemed to happen automatically with the Anakinra ref which started all this. Is there a setting for the whole article, on the lines of {{Use dmy dates}}, or how does it happen? PamD 15:34, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Have now added a link to that template-filling tool to my list of "useful stuff" in my sandbox - I see from your userpage that you've been involved in developing it, or at least fixing it after a problem, so "Thank you"! It looks very useful and I'll try to remember to use it on the few occasions that I venture into medical (ie Vancouver style) territory. PamD 15:47, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Hi PamD. Thanks for your messages. In answer to your questions:

1. Near the top of the Anakinra article, I placed a {{cs1 config}} template with parameters |name-list-style=vanc and |display-authors=6. This template will enforce a consistent author format throughout the article. If {{cs1 config}} is first added to the article and followed a {{cite journal}} template with only |pmid= or |doi= included and then run citation bot, the bot will add the missing data to the templates including authors using |vauthors= parameter.
2. The |vauthors= parameter is fully compatible with |author-link=. You just have to count each of the linked authors manually. Alternatively you imbed wink-links directly in |vauthors=. For example vauthors = [[James Watson|Watson J]], [[Francis Crick|Crick F]] which will render as "Watson J, Crick F".

I hope that helps. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Thanks, very clear. I did wonder whether there was something in the article specifying the 6 but hadn't looked for it. It's the sort of template I might notice but would carefully leave well alone on the basis of "don't mess with things you don't understand" (which not all editors follow). Always plenty to learn about Wikipedia and today's been a good day. PamD 18:29, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Wikimedia Hackathon Northwestern Europe 2026

Hello! I noticed you're a bot operator, so I thought you might be interested in a hackathon we're organizing: the Wikimedia Hackathon Northwestern Europe 2026, on 13–14 March in Arnhem, Netherlands.

It's a two-day, technically oriented hackathon bringing together Wikimedians from the region. Whether you want to work on bot frameworks, tools, or other technical projects, this could be a great opportunity to collaborate with fellow developers. Registration closes mid-January or when full. Let me know if there are any questions. Hope to see you there! Daanvr (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2026 (UTC)

Something different

I've recently located this material in a subheading and was wondering if it might be interesting as a new full length article at Wikipedia here: Proteomics#Practical applications. It then discusses 'New drug discovery'. Would this be remotely interesting to your field of study? ErnestKrause (talk) 01:27, 14 January 2026 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

Top 10	Top 10 Medical Editor Barnstar
	You were one of the top medical editors on English Wikipedia in 2025. Thank you for your hard work! -Mvolz (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hepatitis C

Hepatitis C has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. C679 10:18, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Lucanthone

Hi Boghog. Could I please ask you to work your magic on Lucanthone? It is blowing up on social media right now due to some silliness about it being a "cure for cancer hidden by the CIA". I have spruced up the page a bit, but if you could upgrade the references that would be appreciated. Meodipt (talk) 08:40, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Destubathon of the Americas

You are invited to participate in the Destubathon of the Americas, a contest/editathon which will run from May 1 to May 31. The goal is to destub as many of our 475,000+ stubs for the Americas (from Alaska down to Chile) as possible. A good chance to have fun in expanding many of our old stale stubs and win up to £2000 ($2680) in Amazon vouchers for expanding stub articles. Sign up in the Contestants/participants section on the contest page if interested. Even if not interested in prizes you are still warmly welcome to participate in it as an editathon! Hopefully we can achieve something significant in the month of May together! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:44, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

cleaning up after you ...

I have recently found myself cleaning up after you. Today's example is this edit. That article did not have cs1|2 errors before your edit but you left it with four errors: ref 94, ref 112, ref 135, ref 143 (all permalinks). This is why we have the Show preview button. Please use it to locate and fix cs1|2 errors that you create before you click the Publish changes button.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:02, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Can you provide a clear definition of the difference between a page number and an article number? If I understood it better, I would follow it. Conceptually, I understand the distinction, but I’m not sure how to reliably identify it in a script. I also never fully understood why |article-number= was necessary in the first place. Boghog (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

Many journal publishers have elected to publish their articles online with article numbers rather than page numbers. These articles often (always?) enumerate the article pages beginning at '1'. For example, doi:10.3390/ijms21239139 (ref 150 – permalink) in Diethylstilbestrol has article number 9139 and is paginated 1–43. If you go looking for page 9139 in International Journal of Molecular Sciences volume 21 no. 23, you won't find it.

Alas, there is no consistency among journal publishers that use article numbers so reliably identifying article numbers isn't easy. cs1|2 has adopted a series of conservative tests that it uses to decide when to flag |page= or |pages= values that look like an article number. Rather than rewrite those criteria here, search for I S _ P A G E _ A R T _ N U M in Module:Citation/CS1; the criteria are described there.

Did I answer your questions?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2026 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Thanks for the link. I have now incorporated a Python equivalent of the I S _ P A G E _ A R T _ N U M function into my script, so it can more accurately distinguish between |page(s)= and |article-number=, and normalize those parameters accordingly. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

GLA (gene)

Hi Boghog, saw that you originally created this article as a spin out from Α-Galactosidase. Was curious about the history of the decision and the appropriateness to separate the gene from the enzyme since there is precedent for them to be combined. Chrisvanlang (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Chrisvanlang. What I did was change a redirect from Fabry disease to GLA (gene), and I no longer recall my exact rationale at the time. However, in general, if there is a one‑to‑one correspondence between a human gene and an enzyme, then the gene and enzyme topics can reasonably be merged. In this case, there appears to be a second human gene, MYORG, that also encodes an enzyme with EC 3.2.1.22 activity, which suggests that there should be separate articles for the human genes and for the enzyme activity. Does that make sense? Boghog (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2026 (UTC)

New pages patrol May 2026 Backlog drive

May 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2026, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:23, 29 April 2026 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited FANCD2, a link pointing to the disambiguation page BRCA was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:44, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

New Page Patrol Newsletter - May 2026

Hello Boghog,

New Page Review queue November 2025 - May 2026

Backlog update

At the time of this message, there are 15,282 articles and 32,951 redirects awaiting review.

After the January–February drive the article backlog was reduced to 15,179 articles and the redirect backlog to 19,053 respectively. Great job! However, both queues are growing rapidly and any additional reviews are highly appreciated.

2024 and 2025 NPP Awards

JTtheOG was selected as the NPP reviewer of the year for both 2024 and 2025, for reviewing the most articles amongst all reviewers.

Hey man im josh and MPGuy2824 won the Redirect Ninja Master Award for 2024 and 2025 respectively, for reviewing the most redirects.

Overall in 2024, one Platinum, two Gold, eight Silver, 12 Bronze and 45 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 66 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year. In 2025, one Platinum, ten Silver, 13 Bronze and 38 Iron Barnstars were awarded. Additionally, 38 reviewers got the NPP barnstar for doing more than 100 reviews through the year.

BoyTheKingCanDance, Rosiestep, SunDawn, and Vanderwaalforces were inducted into the NPP Hall of Fame for having two separate years of 2,000+ article reviews.

January–February backlog drive

The experimental two-month long backlog drive concluded with 183 reviewers patrolling over 27,761 articles and 35,309 redirects, earning over 36,836 points. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 6,484.6 points in this drive.

May backlog drive

An article-only backlog drive is currently underway. We are hoping to make a big dent in the backlog. You can read more about it or join at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Backlog drives/May 2026.

PageTriage

An attempt was made to get the New Pages Feed to sort by date marked as reviewed instead of date created. However we had to revert it due to bugs. We may try again in the future. You can subscribe to the Phabricator ticket if you're interested in following along.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:37, 14 May 2026 (UTC)