On 11 April 2025, it was proposed that this page bemoved toWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular biology. The result ofthe discussion wasnot moved.

Long story short, I created a data pipeline using python and SPARQL that made a diff between the list of human protein-coding gene entries (i.e., wikilinks to gene symbols on Wikipedia) and existing en-wiki sitelinks from HGNC-linked or uniprot-linked wikidata items. I've known there were a lot of redlinks that should be blue for a while now based on the number of bluelinks in the wikipedia lists and the number of en-wiki sitelinks on Wikidata.

In any event, there's over 1000 redlinks to gene symbols on Wikipedia that should be blue. I'll parse and upload the complete list with redlinks at a gene symbol and the corresponding bluelinks from Wikidata within like a day. Most of the cases are:

• "SYMBOL" (redlink) and a "SYMBOL (gene)" bluelink
• "SYMBOL" (redlink) and a "Protein_name" bluelink"

For now, the simplest and smallest bucket of page fixes to address is these: "SYMBOL" (redlink) due to borked capitalization (see the examples I've included a redlinked gene symbol page move target to below; the same convention applies to the rest of these). If anyone wants to move them to correct capitalization, I'd appreciate it. Need to write more python and regex. >.>

1. Ccdc60 ->CCDC60
2. CD1b ->CD1B
3. ClpX
4. Fam78b
5. Fam89A
6. FAM227a
7. Golph3 ->GOLPH3
8. Kiaa1755
9. Loricrin ->LORICRIN
10. Naa80
11. PrimPol
12. Proser2
13. SnRNP70
14. Tafazzin
15. Timeless (gene) ->TIMELESS (gene)

I'm very likely going to automate fixing the rest with a bot script.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)23:01, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also: just a reminder to myself, need to sort out and fix shit like this too:

• Bank1 |BANK1 |B cell scaffold protein with ankyrin repeats 1

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)23:06, 4 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

List of additional page moves

1. AGTPBP1 <->AGTPBP1 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 1 -- 1)
2. ATOH8 <->ATOH8 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 1 -- 1)
3. C1QTNF4 <->C1QTNF4 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 1 -- 1)
4. CAMK1G <->CAMK1G (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 1 -- 1)
5. CCDC88C <->CCDC88C (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 2 -- 1)
6. CLYBL <->CLYBL (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 2 -- 1)
7. DENND2B <->ST5 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 2 -- 1)
8. FAM170B <->FAM170B (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 3 -- 1)
9. HACL1 <->HACL1 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 4 -- 1)
10. INO80B <->INO80B (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 4 -- 1)
11. KIAA1549L <->KIAA1549L (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 4 -- 1)
12. LHFPL3 <->LHFPL3 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 4 -- 1)
13. NOTUM <->NOTUM (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 5 -- 1)
14. PLA2G4E <->PLA2G4E (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 6 -- 1)
15. PRXL2B <->PRXL2B (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 6 -- 1)
16. SP140 <->SP140 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 7 -- 1)
17. THADA <->THADA (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)
18. TMEM150B <->TMEM150B (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)
19. TMPRSS7 <->TMPRSS7 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)
20. TNIP3 <->TNIP3 (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)
21. TYMP <->TYMP (gene) (List of human protein-coding genes 8 -- 1)

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)03:40, 5 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I don't really understand the request. Could you clarify/explain, "...(i.e., wikilinks to gene symbols on Wikipedia) and existing en-wiki sitelinks from HGNC-linked or uniprot-linked wikidata items." ?BetsyRogers (talk)03:15, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I mainly just dumped it here for comment.

i need to sort the entries into which pages get redirected and which ones get moved. Will need to file a BRFA after that. Unfortunately, my laptop is out of commission and it’ll take a few weeks for my motherboard to be repaired. I’ll follow up again soonish.Seppi333 (Insert 2¢)22:04, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I'd be happy to help out if I can.BetsyRogers (talk)22:33, 24 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to thereassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article.Z1720 (talk)15:55, 22 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:C11orf71 has been submitted for review. Will someone take another look at it? My first and second thoughts are that it needs a properlede sentence and should be accepted because it is more likely to be improved in article space than in draft space. My third thought isI'm a chemist, not a geneticist. Should we accept it?Robert McClenon (talk)17:32, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

FailsWP:SIGCOV as written. Most of the references are to datapoints from databases and of the three primary references not one mentions "C11orf71", "URLC" or even "orf". So it failsWP:V too. The body of the article doesn't even make it clear why the gene is of any interest beyond changes in expression levels and doesn't explain why that even matters. Expression levels change all the time for many reasons. The reason for the change matters. The fact that the primary references failed verification has soured me on the topic and I doubt any of this stuff is even a hint of true. The author can probably salvage this if they find a review article (preferably three) and summarize that coverage judiciously. The fact that you can buyanti-C11orf71 antibodies on Sigma tells me this probably shouldn't be out of reach.⇌Synpath19:18, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it also needs mentioning that theI-TASSER model is original research.⇌Synpath19:23, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would reject the draft because I'm not a big fan of cluttering up Wikipedia with articles about all 25,000 human genes and who knows how many millions from other species.

I recognize that some genes are important enough to merit their own article but this isn't one of them.Genome42 (talk)17:25, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Many of these assignments expect undergraduate students to edit existing Wikipedia pages. This leads to bloating as students insert irrelevant material and/or material that is adequately covered in other articles. It's also not unusual for undergraduates to insert incorrect or misleading information.

I think we should discourage such assignments.Genome42 (talk)18:57, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flagging this discussion on theTalk:Deborah F. Kelly on how to handle the increasing retractions while mindful ofWP:BLP. Any input there would be greatly appreciated.Dbsseven (talk)19:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Molecular demons"...? I'm at a loss for words. I consider myself pretty well versed in molecular biology, biochem, etc., but this is the first I'm hearing about demon molecules. I'm hoping this is just some niche topic in biophysics or something like that.BetsyRogers (talk)21:23, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is a physics concept where the molecule seemingly lowers entropy, in analogy toMaxwell's demon in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics. The molecule does lower local entropy, but it does so by consuming energy and ends up increasing the total entropy of the system as expected. Such molecules are widespread in life; usually they are just called molecular machines or molecular motors. Ratchet mechanisms in molecular biology are one example. Demon here just means a being that does something you think should be impossible. There is no particular religious context, just physicist wordplay. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}23:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

For WikiProjects that participate in rating articles, thebanners for talk pages usually say something like:

• "This article has been rated asLow-importance on theimportance scale."

There is a proposal to change the default wording on the banners to say "priority" instead of "importance". This could affect the template for your group. Please join the discussion atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Council#Proposal to update wording on WikiProject banners.Stefen 𝕋ower^{Huddle •Handiwerk}19:46, 6 December 2025 (UTC) (on behalf of the WikiProject Council)[reply]

The articleMolybdenum cofactor has beenproposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unreferenced for 16 years. No other language has a reliably sourced article from which to translate. Attempts to source it, to ask for citations needed, and to merge have all failed over the years. This is in fact a disambiguation page with two entries.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the{{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in youredit summary or onthe article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing{{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop theproposed deletion process, but otherdeletion processes exist. In particular,articles for deletion allows discussion to reachconsensus for deletion based onestablished criteria.

If the proposed deletion has already been carried out, you mayrequest undeletion of the article at any time.Bearian (talk)03:49, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think redirecting toMolybdenum#Biological role orMolybdenum in biology is more appropriate than deletion.⇌Synpath14:04, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Just do it.Bearian (talk)14:24, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, thanks⇌Synpath23:35, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate some additional oversight on the articleMirror-image life. There is particular contention around an edit describing concerns about mirror-image life as "overblown" in the lead, in what the source provided actually describes as a two-sided scientific debate. Seethis discussion.Alenoach (talk)01:20, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Mothers against decapentaplegic homolog 4#Requested move 30 November 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Vestrian24Bio13:22, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is a requested move discussion atTalk:Pparg coactivator 1 alpha#Requested move 11 December 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject.Jeffrey34555 (talk)06:26, 18 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominatedDNA for afeatured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets thefeatured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process arehere. 🍕BP!🍕 (🔔)23:41, 3 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The articles on 5' and 3' ends of DNA and RNA have conflicting title formatting in regards to the prime symbol:

1.5′ flanking region - with a prime symbol

2.Five-prime cap - spelled out with a hyphen

3.Five prime untranslated region - spelled out without a hyphen

Is there any consensus on which is the most appropriate to use?

Pyrometry (talk|contribs)10:45, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

In the scientific literature, "5'" is the formal and most common way to write these ends. "Five-prime" is a phonetic spelling that is sometimes used in educational contexts, so that students learn that is it five-prime instead of five-apostrophe. "Five prime" just seems a misspelling. I would say that "5'" is the most appropriate for the title, but by all means show the phonetic five-prime version in the prose as an alternative name seen in the wild and allow it as an alternative-spelling redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}11:14, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

All three of these articles should be converted to simple redirects to other articles. We need to get serious about eliminating redundancy and concentrate on getting a small number of articles correct.Genome42 (talk)16:12, 8 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does the article onTranscriptional activator LAG-3 relate toLymphocyte-activation gene 3? Is this one and the same topic or not? Thanks for your help. I´m trying to de-orphan the former.Ruud Buitelaar (talk)03:21, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I posted a well-sourced edit request onTalk:MiRTarBase to update outdated infobox fields, lead statistics, external link, and references (NAR database issue papers 2011–2025). If anyone has time to review/implement, I’d appreciate it. Thanks!OrientC (talk)02:19, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a stab at addressing this. Comments on the article talk page.Dbsseven (talk)13:06, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@Dbsseven Thanks a lot for taking a look and for the pointer — I'll respond on the article talk page comments. Much appreciated.OrientC (talk)14:03, 2 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The redirectPseudogenetics has been listed atredirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets theredirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect atWikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 14 § Pseudogenetics until a consensus is reached. —Myceteae‍🍄‍🟫 (talk)20:45, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]