text:
Talk:Run Hide Fight

Reverted edits convey truth which belongs in article, article locked to keep it from being added - NPOV violation
This article is currently - 20210118 - locked after a short edit war between someone who added the fact that this movie was lauded by the audience at the Venice film festival where it was premiered while critics for the most panned it. On Rotten Tomatoes the critical score lies at 22% while the audience rates it at 98%. Usually when movies receive positive reviews from viewers but negative ones from critics this indicates there is a political motive for the discrepancy, as seems to be the case here as well.

By consistently reverting the edit which adds information which is certain to be of interest to readers looking for information on this movie, the article and the editor who did the reverting and the locking clearly violates the NPOV. Wikipedia is not supposed to be a political action platform, if you want to publish op-eds you should apply to the likes of Variety, the New York Times or Vogue. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia. By turning Wikipedia into a political pamphlet, one article at a time, you dramatically reduce the perceived reliability of the platform for everybody, not just those on the "conservative" side but also those on the "progressive" whose standpoints you think you defend. An echo chamber is not a place where truth is told, that is the definition of the term. Stop turning Wikipedia into an echo chamber, don't be so afraid of opinions which go against your narrative and, most of all, do not destroy this valuable asset.

Yetanwiki (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

 * The only one who is making this political is you. See Manual of Style/Film. That is the policy. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

You might want to read that section you quoted as it proves my point wrt. the Rotten Tomatoes score. Yetanwiki (talk) 20:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew. Come again? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that part as well now, strange that it is here since Rotten Tomatoes is generally seen as the place to go for this type of information as well as to gauge the difference between critical and audience response. Disallowing this type of information here makes it more or less impossible to keep a NPOV wrt. movie reviews on Wikipedia since professional movie critics tend to be a rather homogeneous group. Alas. Yetanwiki (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You could always bring it up again at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. If the film is ever put on CinemaScore, that is when we can add audience scores as it is accredited polling. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 20:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

If the movie was well received at the Venice Film Festival would that be notable? Trying to find a compromise here. The discrepancy between Critic and Audience is notable in my opinion, but clearly against current policy. David587320 (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you can find a WP:RS. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 06:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I looked for about 30 minutes and couldn't find anything about how the movie was received in Venice as it was listed as "out of competition." If anyone has anything, it looks like we have a decent compromise, otherwise, I'd say wait and see if any reliable/approved audience polling comes out. Until then, disagree with the rules all you want, and try to change them if you will, but follow them regardless. David587320 (talk) 16:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 * The so-called discrepancy is not worthy of note unless reliable sources note it, like with Star Wars: The Last Jedi. User ratings are essentially vulnerable to battleground mentalities whenever a film has a whiff of politics attached. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:47, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of which, and this is getting a little off-topic for this talk page, why does the Last Jedi list Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores under the "Audience Reception" page? Isn't that a violation of current policy? I'm new to the whole editing thing so I hope I did the reply right. David587320 (talk) 00:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They are included because they've been discussed directly by reliable sources, particularly their susceptibility. It's simply referencing primary sources in the context of understanding what secondary sources are discussing when it comes to these scores. Like if a film had a particular scene that multiple sources discussed, we would describe it before reporting what sources said about it. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 02:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

So the distinction is purely based on whether another source mentions the Rotten Tomatoes audience score? If that's the case it seems like it is only a matter of time until someone writes an article about the Tomatometer being broken again, which will restart this whole debate. Am I just grossly misunderstanding your point? David587320 (talk) 04:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * A mere mention would not suffice per WP:FRUIT. In the case of The Last Jedi, the score was directly scrutinized and the reason(s) for its discrepancy highlighted. Wikipedia can report how such scores are discussed. Another example is Ghostbusters discussed here. From what I've seen, the examples can be numerous enough that not every individual film gets discussed. So it depends on how much more coverage this film will get. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I think I understand now. Thank you. David587320 (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you already know this but WP:FRUIT is an essay not an official WP policy and as such, per Wikipedia norms, it's generally considered best not to refer to it as or imply that as is an official policy. The disclaimer states at the top of the WP:Fruit essay's page states: "This is an essay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints.". It would be better to refer to whatever the community has decided is how WP editors should handle audience scores currently. I have not kept up on this but if we have decide that merely citing a RT audience score alone is not acceptable per notability policy then lets cite that as the reason to keep it out of the article and state the justification the community cited. Essays can be useful for how to interpret and implement policies for individual editors in some cases but we should remember that they do not always represent a consensus interpretation of WP policy. Notcharliechaplin (talk) 04:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * MOS:FILM is a guideline, and it has already been quoted above, "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database, Metacritic, or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Since it is a guideline and not policy, there can be instances where it is appropriate to mention it, as I explained with Star Wars: The Last Jedi. Other examples can be seen at vote brigading. As you can see, when something is political, user ratings are used as a battleground, which completely defeat the purpose of accurately reporting an audience score. That's why CinemaScore and PostTrak are preferred to more accurately measure that. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:06, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

The discrepancy between critic and audience score is notable, one that has been discussed on the national stage (see Ben Shapiro of the Daily Wire, one of the largest conservative news sources), while other critics such as https://filmschoolrejects.com/run-hide-fight-review/ also give it a good review, but are not included.

While one can debate the reliability of a user score and its merits for inclusion, the debate surrounding the difference is something readers should be aware of. I aim to remain fair, neutral, and keep my own political beliefs at home. I hope you all do too. ASuperEditor (talk) 02:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Rotten Tomatoes uses verified critics, so if a critic is not there, then they must not have been verified (the link you provided is actually listed. There's also no doubt in my mind that some of the critics giving their review here are also politically motivated, like the audience score—I mean just look at the reviews by DeHaan and Griffin—but that's what we have to go with unfortunately). I enjoy watching Shapiro, and have seen him criticize Rotten Tomatoes vehemently in his recent videos, but given his company distributed the film, he is literally the definition of a biased source here. Even the fact that he has criticized Rotten Tomatoes so much gives even stronger reason to believe that the audience scores on Rotten Tomatoes are skewed. The Daily Wire is also not considered to be a WP:RS on Wikipedia Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Given The Daily Wire's involvement, I doubt there will be any RS' commenting on the audience scores, but we'll have to wait and see. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★' 15:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to point out another interesting example where the RT audience score was particularly notable: Gotti (2018 film). Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 22:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Please can someone explain something to me?

How can a site be accepted as a reliable source for critics review yet not accepted for audience review?

Secondly, between the critics and the audience, who should have more weight. I would argue the audience. The critics are as susceptible to politics as the audience are. I would argue even more.

I have seen a lot of movies with positive critics review that I regretted going to see at the cinema and for a while I err on the side of the audience. The number of movies I have seen that were good when the audience gave a positive review while critics gave a negative review are much more than that of the opposite.

Finally, what happens when the movies are not listed on metametrics?

I would argue that if there is no way to get the user score from metametrics, then the critics score should be left out of the movie article.

That for me would provide balance. I have seen quite a number of movies with good critical review that I and almost every one I know ended up hating. If that is not a sign that the critics can be swayed I don't know what else can be.

Finally, what process do you take to change or at least debate the rules? Moreh GAI (talk) 16:44, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

 * How can a site be accepted as a reliable source for critics review yet not accepted for audience review? To paraphrase what I read elsewhere: how can the The New York Times be considered a reliable when the letters to the editor are not? Wikipedia does not allow WP:USERGENERATED content as a source, user voted web polls (audience scores) are not a reliable source WP:RS. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:16, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that instead of the rules stating that audience review cannot be added to the movie article. Let it be allowed with a notation that it might not be accurate due to it being suceptible to vote stacking and demographic view, same way a warning label is added to cigarette packs.

I have come to see that most of the critics are one sided in their political thinking and if politics can sway audience review which are capable of being corrected by an equal number of audience with an opposite political view, should I think it won't sway the critics who basically belong to one political group? Moreh GAI (talk) 16:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021
Add "The film has an audience score of 92% on Rotten Tomatoes" after the sentence "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 22% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 03:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✔. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ❌. Participate in discussion above. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 13:49, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Second Semi-protected edit request on 20 January 2021
Update the sentence "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 22% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." to "Run Hide Fight received mostly negative reviews from critics and has a score of 30% on Rotten Tomatoes based on nine reviews with an average rating of 4.20/10." This change reflects more recent updates to Rotten Tomatoes. David587320 (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. ◢  Ganbaruby!   (Say hi!) 05:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Link Broken
The link to Rotten Tomatoes reviews is not working. Did Rotten Tomatoes take the movie down or move it? I couldn't find anything. The IMDb link is still working. David587320 (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * That's weird, but that's what we have archive links for I guess. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 19:49, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work for me either. I've only really seen this happen when the URL changes a bit (like to append a release year), but I am not seeing it moved elsewhere. We'll have to wait and see if it's a glitch or if there's something more. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * UPDATE: It seems to work now. I don't seem to see anything in the news about the RT page being down for a time. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:53, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

The article reports the critics dislike for the film, but it does not report the audience support for the film on the same site.
Film critics, like game critics and the mainstream media generally, tend to be on the left politically and culturally - they would not be expected to like a conservative film. If the hostile rating of the critics on "Rotten Tomatoes" is reported then the support of the audience for the film, on the same site, should also be supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:C405:8E2C:AB55:1D33 (talk) 15:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Did you miss the whole discussion about this in the first post here? Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 15:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * User ratings are subject to vote stacking and demographic skew, per MOS:FILM. They are not used even for non-political films. There is even less reason to use such ratings for political films since they are subject to vote brigading (from any particular stance). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:23, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes the first section does cover this to a certain extent, but it is rather convoluted and the article itself has not been corrected. If you are going to give the critics scores of a product you need to give the counter balancing audience scores. After all mainstream media critics are not going to like anything at all produced by a conservative company such as the "Daily Wire".2A02:C7F:96F6:5300:C405:8E2C:AB55:1D33 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't "need" to do anything. Audience scores from websites are not accurate in any sense, much less to counter-balance anything. When available, we use CinemaScore and PostTrak, but even these are self-selecting opening-weekend audiences. Critics aren't as self-selecting. Furthermore, taking a look, it does not appear that National Review has written about this film at all, and that is a critic that could have been referenced here. Why they haven't done that, I don't know. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand, which do you think is more probable Erik, the film being bad despite it receiving an over whelming audience review (even with vote stacking) and a bad critics review or the film being good despite it recieving bad critic reviews but good audience reviews?

Also, are you telling me the only measure of accuracy in movies is critics review?

Anyhow, I would argue a balance need to be made. Let us stop pretending as if critics cannot be swayed by politics in their reviews.

Once again I have seen a lot of movies with great critics review that everyone I know hated watching. Moreh GAI (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

I would argue that even if the exact audience review might not be mentioned in the article, the decripancy should be mentioned.

It could go something like this "The gap between audience and critics review is quite large although it may be due to vote stacking." Moreh GAI (talk) 17:22, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * See the very first thread on this talk page. The difference in the scores are not notable on the basis that no reliable sources have commented on the difference. I agree that some critics probably have gotten their politics in the way of the review (I noted a couple cases in the first thread), but there are no reliable sources discussing this (no surprise), so therefore it cannot be sourced on Wikipedia. Vaselineeeeeeee★★★ 17:45, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

NPOV
Please put the audience score in critical reception, or even in it's own section, since it is vastly different from the critic's score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

 * Hi, please see the previous discussions above. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:32, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Awful treatment
Why are you guys hating on rotten tomatoes? Use google please (talk) 08:01, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * So there's a number of problems here. For one, the standard procedure on Wikipedia is WP:BRD. You have something you want to add or change, so you boldly make that edit, no problem. If another editor disagrees with the suitability of what you've done and reverts it, then the discussion needs to take place without you trying to restore it. I'll grant that the other editors who reverted after you started this Talk section should also have come here. Second, you need to include a citation alongside the content you're trying to add (not in an edit summary or anywhere else). You can read about how to do that at WP:CITE or just look at the numerous other citations on this article. Third, the fact that you keep using misleading edit summaries talking about Rotten Tomatoes while trying to add a review that is NOT on Rotten Tomatoes makes it seem like you're attempting some subtle vandalism. That's definitely what I thought, and the fact that the content says "HEYUGUYS", a website we've never heard of, didn't help. Why do you keep pretending this is about Rotten Tomatoes? -- Fyrael (talk) 21:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Because the “HEYGUYS” reviewed is source directly from rotten tomatoes, only people hate rotten tomatoes would remove direct content from rotten tomatoes Use google please (talk) 18:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The review from “HEYGUYS” was removed again and I don't think that is unreasonable because it is not a publication I had heard of before now either, even if it does happen to be listed on Rotten Tomatoes. Also there are other positive reviews listed, why not pick one of them instead? Or better yet why not take another look at the reliable sources and see what bits they did say we're good even if the review overall was negative? The Hollywood Reporter for example did call it a "slick and compulsively watchable genre [film]". There is still plenty of potential to write a much better critical response section of someone is interested in putting in the time and effort. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:32, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Mixed criticism?
Critics' reception of this movie was overwhelmingly negative, not "mixed". <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 09:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * What do you think would be a fair and neutral way to describe it? Rotten Tomatoes 40% is by their standards "rotten" ie negative (but I can understand that someone might argue 40% was mixed). The Metacritic score of 13% indicates "overwhelming dislike” and to claim the reviews were mixed feels like editors are ignoring Metacritic. How can we strike a balance between those two and describe it from a fair and neutral point of view? (Please note that based on past discussions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_48#Mixed_to_positive_%2F_Mixed_to_negative "mixed to negative" is not an option). -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 22:03, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * None of RT's top critics gave the film a positive review, and most of the positive ratings that do exist are along the lines of "it's not as terrible as it could've been" and "if you can somehow watch this without subscribing to DW, it will probably be worth watching". What little praise this film got is faint at best, while the negative criticism is very clear and unambiguous. You're going to have a hard time finding anyone defending this movie who isn't pushing a "culture war" agenda. A bad film is a bad film, and negative reception is negative reception. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 12:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I edit all kinds of film articles and try to be objective, editors are supposed to assume WP:GOODFAITH and not label everyone they disagree with as some sort of biased culture warrior (even if a pattern of edits suggests someone in glass houses is throwing stones, and cares very much about hot social topics). Objectively 40% on Rotten Tomatoes is not "panned". I reverted to the previous WP:STATUSQUO of "mixed", it is a fairly broad definition of mixed but at least that way the WP:LEAD] and the reception section are not inconsistent. It might better to simply let the aggregator scores speak for themselves. This clearly needs further discussion. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

IP users have recently made a series of edits to the lede and the critical reception section, adding information that straight up contradict the sources. They falsely claim that the film received positive reviews in the lede, and that it received mixed reviews in the article itself, both of which is false. Critical reception of the film was overwhelmingly negative, as evidenced by sources, as well as the article itself. I also recommend protecting this article. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That obvious vandalism was promptly reverted by other editors, and no discussion was necessary.
 * I have removed from the Reception section the attempt to summarize Rotten Tomatoes 40% and Metacritic 13% as "mixed" as it seems like the best thing to do is to let the scores speak for themselves. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 04:21, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The lede still said "mixed". I took the liberty of correcting that. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 10:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * You took liberties all right. You did not follow the WP:SIMPLE rules and explain your changes with an edit summary. You again chose to claim that critics panned the film despite the Rotten Tomatoes score of 40%. Deleting that sentence entirely would be less biased. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 14:40, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Just because I accidentaly forgot to add a summary to an edit, that I was already discussing on the talk page, doesn't make that edit wrong. As I stated before, none of the 40% of RT critics that gave the film a positive review are considered "top critics" by the site, and considering the fact that the film is only available to DW subscribers and was not pre-screened for critics, there's a heavy slant in favor of critics that would be more favorable towards the film and as I stated above, even the positive reviews for the film are damning by faint praise. All but one of the individual reviews deemed notable in the article are unambiguous in their negativity, and even the one positive review is unconvincing. Not to mention 40% IS a negative rating on Rotten Tomatoes, while the other review agregate has a rating of an abysmal 13%. Calling the critical reception poor or negative IS the unbiased take here. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It is difficult to take edits in WP:GOODFAITH when editors do not follow WP:SIMPLE rules and the basic courtesy of explaining their changes with an edit summary, but as you have made the effort to continue the discussion we can put that aside and move on.
 * The scores: Rotten Tomatoes 40%; Metacritic 13%. I don't think Rotten Tomatoes should be ignored but I also I do not think Metacritic should be ignored either and we should try and find a balance between the two. Weighing up those two overviews, and on balance summarizing them as "poor or negative" would be reasonable yes, only that that is not what <IP_ADDRESS> did, instead he went further and more negative and said the film was "panned". Unless you have a WP:SECONDARY source that specifically uses the word "panned" it would be better not to use that more harsh description. There is a difference between "generally negative", "overwhelmingly negative" and "panned", so if an editor decided to change the intro to say the reviews were "generally negative" instead of "mixed", I might disagree but I would not need to revert as that would be enough to satisfy WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm willing to concede that I do not fully understand the distinction between "poorly received" and "panned" as english is not my first language. As long as we agree that 40% on RT (which is the higher of the two scores) still leans towards negative, rather than mixed. Mixed to negative at the absolute best. Take the Metacritic score into consideration and the question becomes rather one-sided. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 11:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Big, bigger, biggest. Bad, worse, worst. Panned is more than bad, it is worst. There have been many discussions about the appropriate wording to use Critical responses sections, one such discussion reiterated the principle of WP:Reliable sources and trying to avoid saying anything that is not already said directly by the sources. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 21:57, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Plot description omits explanation for how Todd gets to where he can shoot Chris
The plot description only mentions that he is Zoe's father. How is it that he is in a position to shoot Chris? Is Todd a law enforcement officer? Is he just a devoted father who owns and is comfortable with firearms? If might be useful for people reading the article, if that is explained.TheBaron0530 (talk) 14:19, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Guns are easily accessible (too easy some would say) but this probably does not really require further explanation in the plot section. Also the WP:FILMPLOT guidelines require brevity, not every detail can be explained in the plot section. It might be appropriate to expand the Production section with more information about the writing and development of the script, or to further explain the background context of high school shootings that may seem strange to non American readers.
 * In any case the production section does already say "The opening shot of the film, which features the main character hunting deer with her father" (also shown in the trailer) which explains why Todd has a gun readily available. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Audience scores are not allowed
Maybe it is a good sign that new editors are not yet familiar with the many rules and guidelines of Wikipedia or maybe it is a bad sign that old editors are just terrible at following the rules (see above), but someone has once again added the Rotten Tomatoes user score to this article and it needs to be reverted ASAP. (I would have reverted it already myself but it appears this article is locked until 2023.)

User generated content (including user voted web polls) is not reliable and not allowed as source for Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines on user generated content WP:UGC and WP:RS. -- <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 02:26, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

title: Talk:Run Hide Fight


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al-Shaheer Corporation

The result was delete.  Sandstein  20:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Al-Shaheer Corporation

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No in-depth coverage. Clearly fails WP:NCORP.  Greenbörg  (talk)  12:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 27 September 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete I concur with OP's assessment. There does not appear to be any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and WP:NCORP. -- HighKing ++ 14:53, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG. Enough coverage & has made headlines. See: DAWN, Business Recorder, Express Tribune & The News. - Mfarazbaig (talk) 22:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as clearly self-serving advertising that could easily qualify as G11, showing Wikipedia is certainly not the place for them. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ Talk 16:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - although I agree that the article is poorly written and formatted it meets Notability_(organizations_and_companies) given the coverage in the following sources.
 * 1) Tribune a leading news outlet in Pakistan.
 * 2) Dawn  Kagundu  Talk To Me  07:08, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Satisfies WP:GNG - plenty of articles, even just from a quick Google search. Company has won awards, etc. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. Please show which coverage you are talking about. Is it reliable? If not then it fails WP:RS.  Greenbörg  (talk)  17:25, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Search results are not an indication of notability, and i've found that the the two awards won by the company are sourced to user-generated-content, , , or are awards given by a company-sponsored chamber of commerce. Both types of sources fail WP:RS.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:36, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. The awards won by the subject company are only cited to websites with user-generated content or primary sources, and the majority of the news articles about the Al-Shaheer Corporation concern the company being listed on a stock exchange (which does not confer notability per WP:LISTED.) In addition, the company does not seem to be individually notable within (none of the various articles on the subject indicated to me how this company is significantly notable within the meat packing industry) the industry and as such fails WP:MILL. In short, a company that has received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG but does not fulfill Wikipedia's other criteria for inclusion.--SamHolt6 (talk) 16:31, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I can find some sources, but they're routine reporting on financial performance, like https://www.brecorder.com/2017/09/27/371743/al-shaheers-not-so-meaty-affairs/ or an unusable case study, like http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0972820117712305 I don't see anything that meets WP:COPRPDEPTH or otherwise establishes notability. Mduvekot (talk) 23:41, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- for lack of sources that discuss the subject directly and in detail; fails WP:CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:13, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

source: wikimedia

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Talk:Main Page/Concept/2006/September

I had the same idea User:Trevor MacInnis/MainPage, comments anyone? - Trevor MacInnis 14:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Design Revision

 * Summary of discussion: This needs tweaks, then this can be posted. A strong majority would like to see this design posted (10 or 11 of 13, including 2 comments on Trevor's design talk page), and some say tweaking is needed first. Almost all would like to see the design tweaked somehow. In response to feedback, Trev has done extensive tweaking now, two rounds at least, including in response to above comments, to improve this. A few minor things remain to do. This is almost ready.
 * Recent tweaks: The clock is gone. The globe is gone (though I think it could've stayed). The colors are more muted and also uniform. The text in the main column is larger.
 * An observation: When a new design is introduced, some will almost always prefer the old design, a simpler design, or another design. There is the possibility of making main page text into templates so that different main page skins can be used. In this case, since there is a strong majority in support for the new design, it seems reasonable for that to be the new default design (or skin).
 * The intent for the review was to see, rather quickly in a day or two, if there were any real problems with the new design. A review seems a good and even necessary step for a big design change on the main page -- but the assumption was this can be done rather quickly since this a new project. One significant problem did get mentioned in comments: usability. Usability is a serious issue. Text size has been mentioned by three people as an issue (two mentions on this page and one on the design comment page). I agree with that being an issue. Text size has been partly revised and will be addressed further. There is a question as to whether the right hand column text on blue background is too low a contrast. Once the text size in the right column is increased and the blue background on right is addressed (lighter blue? white box inside?), I think this can go up. Further comments? Thanks very much for your input, Reswik 13:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that the design is coming along nicely. Indeed, it has been significantly improved.  With a bit more tweaking (such as the aforementioned contrast adjustment), it should be ready for implementation.  Let's just wait at least a few more days to resolve the remaining bugs and verify that everyone's concerns have been addressed.  If I can find the time, I'll try to help out.  —David Levy 13:57, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Another day or so should be fine. I don't think we need to take too much longer because Trevor is in midst of further tweaking for usability concerns. Further edits can be done with the design in place. Reswik 15:11, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * What's the rush? Continual significant changes to a wiki's main page confuse readers and make the site seem less professional.  There's no harm in taking a few extra days to make sure that we have everything in order.  In particular, we need to ensure compatibility with all major browsers.  Has anyone tested the page with JAWS or Window-Eyes (the most popular screen readers for visually impaired people)?  —David Levy 16:49/16:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think it is ready for posting now. My main concern is Trevor has done 3 rounds of edits now (or 4 or 5 if you count several rounds fo tweaking in response to our requests in last day). He seems to be a very patient and helpful person. Perhaps he doesn't mind more work requested. However, I am concerned about us asking too much of our creative volunteers and frankly possibly scaring off future contributions. Further, the strong majority of the community opinion is to put up the page, once tweaked. It is revised and that has been well done. Maybe 1 or 2 things remain but those will be done I'm sure. I think the community can now assume the task of making changes and tolerating changes, which is in the nature of a wiki community, especially early on. It is ok to wait till tomorrow to see if any more comments come up. Feel free to dive in to edit the page. Thanks for you attention to quality in this, but let's do move on with the community's sense please, Reswik 17:27, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Firstly, Trevor was heavily involved in the English Wikipedia's main page redesign (which took months). I'm not suggesting that we should invest nearly that much time, but I'm quite confident that a few extra days won't wear out Trevor's patience or scare off future contributions.
 * Secondly, I'll ask again if anyone has tested the page with JAWS or Window-Eyes. You've cited a mandate from "the strong majority of the community," but minorities matter too.  If this design breaks the page for blind people (which actually occurred at Wikipedia), it doesn't matter how good it looks to those capable of seeing it.  —David Levy 18:24, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The Window reading issues for those with visual impairment that you mention are an important useability issue. That review needs to be done. I overlooked that; thanks for restating. Thanks also for information on Trevor's background. I'm relieved to hear that. Minority opinions do matter of course. We have dealt with the mentioned minority issues of usability in Trevor's round of edits today. I think you are trying to introduce too high a standard of production values and review for the first two weeks of the beta version of this project. Once the needed review for visual impairment issues are in place, I think this should be uploaded as soon as tomorrow. If you can think of anything else tangible that might need to be addressed in the design, please explicate. Thanks, Reswik 18:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Usability is my primary concern. It's important to test the design to ensure compatibility with all of the major browsers (IE, Mozilla, Safari, Opera, etc.), screen readers (JAWS, Window-Eyes), and resolutions from 800x600 up (at the default text size).  Given that most people seem to like the overall design, issues pertaining to aesthetics can be resolved later.  —David Levy 18:52, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks for feedback. I had checked IE and Mozilla previously. I just checked the design on IE and Mozilla in more resolutions. It looks ok (but at 600x800 in IE the right column is long; and in 1152x864 the design isn't as balanced). Do you (or does anyone?) have time to check in Safari and Opera and do you have the facility and time to check JAWS or Window-Eyes and if so how much time might that take? If you don't have time we can ask the list up at top level... Reswik 20:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I can check it in Opera. I don't have access to an OS X system at the moment, so someone else will have to check it in Safari.  A blind gentleman (who uses JAWS) assisted in the repair of the English Wikipedia's main page (which we ignorantly debuted without realizing that it was broken), and I'll attempt to contact him.  —David Levy 21:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That's great. For next design change (if there is one), it would be good to have a checklist of all the things to check (and associated programs) so that someone can replicate this checking who has not been through it. Reswik 21:31, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Accessibility
I had a few problems with the design in JAWS 5.1, which isn't the latest version but is still a good sample.

JAWS read out the lines saying "edit" which lead to an edit screen for the main page; the confusing thing about that was that the preceding line always said "link graphic icon" which lead me to the image description page for the icon image. The edit link for section headings on wikiversity pages was announced after the name of the heading rather than before it as it is on wikipedia; this confused me at first but I think it makes more sense to have the name of the heading read before the edit link.

I also think the column sections should be replaced with and if possible, so they can be navigated to like normal sections of a page. At the moment what I see when I press "h" for the next heading is: "from wikiversity", "welcome", "library" "Wikiversity in other languages" then "Wikiversity's sister projects". On my first browsing of the page I missed a lot of the information which was not in those section headings. JAWS also reads many blank lines after the end of each column which is distracting. I like the way section headings are used in the original main page, and I'm not too fussed about the heading on "Welcome to wikiversity. -- Graham87 06:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks very much for your feedback! The "edit" link issue is caused by the use of hiddenStructure markup (which lead developer Brion Vibber has deemed unacceptable).  You brought this code's incompatibility to our attention at Wikipedia.
 * I noticed this problem, as well as the lack of and tags. I created a version without hiddenStructure code, and I managed to incorporate and tags in some (but not yet all) of the page.  If you could test this version, I would sincerely appreciate it.  It's located at: Main Page/Design 2.  —David Levy 06:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, thanks, that reads a lot better. Another small thing: I think there should be more obvious differences in the titles between Service and Services as the titles sound similar with a screen reader. I know this project is still in its infancy and such things will be sorted out in time; I just prefer descriptive and unambiguous page titles. Graham87 06:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks again for your assistance! I agree that "Service" and "Services" are far too similar, and I hope that we can devise better names.  —David Levy 06:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

title: Talk:Main Page/Concept/2006/September


text:
Using GNOME/Configuration Editor

The Configuration Editor, technically known as GConfg-editor is a special tool to change hidden settings within GNOME. They are usually hidden because they are not missed by non-power users but power users may appreciate them.

The Configuration Editor is easy to get to grips with, yet learning all the Key's hard.

There are two ways to launch Configuration Editor.
 * 1) Menu, Preferences, Advanced, Configuration Editor.
 * 2) Type gconf-editor from Run Application.

The configuration editor screen

The screen is split in to three panes, key tree (left), key list (top right ), key info (bottom right).

Key Tree. There are four main key categories in the key tree.
 * apps
 * desktop
 * schemas
 * system

In each category there is a collection of folders which can contain sub folders and keys.

Keys each have a name, value and description. Make sure you try all the keys to see what they do. This guide has references to popular keys. Look out for them in Tip boxes!

title: Using GNOME/Configuration Editor


text:
Henrik Zetterberg (neurochemist)

Henrik Zetterberg (born 1973) is a Swedish professor of neurochemistry at the University of Gothenburg, where he is the Head of the Department of Neurochemical Pathophysiology and Diagnostics. He is also the leader of the Fluid biomarkers for neurodegenerative diseases group at University College London. The groups work on developing early tests for dementia.

Early life and career
Zetterberg was born and brought up in the Gothenburg archipelago, Sweden. He completed his doctoral thesis in 2003 on the subject of the Epstein–Barr virus. He performed postdoctoral research at Harvard using zebrafish as a model for alzheimer's disease. Zetterberg has worked together with Kaj Blennow, whom he met during his PhD, on many projects including coleading the Clinical Neurochemistry Laboratory together with him.

Research
His research includes the development of methods for early diagnostics for frontotemporal dementia through the use of Biomarkers, In 2020, a team of scientists led by Zetterberg published results regarding a new diagnostic for Alzheimer's disease based on protein concentrations in cerebrospinal fluid, which is a colorless fluid surrounding the brain and spinal cord. The test was reported to have an accuracy of around 90% and could detect the disease about two decades before significant symptoms were present.

title: Henrik Zetterberg (neurochemist)


text:
Jenny-Lyn Anderson

Jenny-Lyn Anderson (born 13 August 1992) is an Australian synchronized swimmer. She competed in the women's team event at the 2012 Olympic Games.

Personal
Anderson was born on 13 August ,1992, in Johannesburg, South Africa. She attended Danebank Anglican School For Girls before going to high school at Emmanuel College in Queensland. , she lives on Gold Coast, Queensland.

Synchronised Swimming
Anderson is a synchronized swimmer. She began the sport in 2006 and swims for the Gold Coast Mermaids Synchronised Swimming Club. Since 2009, Anderson has been coached by Marina Kholod.

Anderson finished fourth in the team event at the 2010 Swiss Open in Arbon, Switzerland. She finished eleventh in the team event at the 2010 FINA World Cup in China. Anderson and Tamika Domrow competed in the Open Free Duet at the 2011 National Championships, coming away with a fourth-place finish. She finished eighteenth in the technical team event at the 2011 FINA World Championships in Shanghai, China. She finished seventeenth in the team event at the 2011 FINA World Championships in Shanghai, China. She finished ninth in the team event at the 2011 German Open in Bonn, Germany and sixth in the team event at the 2011 French Open in Paris, France. The FINA World Championships held in Shanghai, China served as the 2012 Olympic qualifying event for the team. In the technical team portion, her team finished 18th and in the Free Team event, her team finished 17th.

She was selected to represent Australia at the 2012 Summer Olympics in synchronized swimming alongside Eloise Amberger, Sarah Bombell, Olga Burtaev, Tamika Domrow, Bianca Hammett, Tarren Otte, Frankie Owen and Samantha Reid. The Games will be her first. She is scheduled to perform one of the team's solo performances.

title: Jenny-Lyn Anderson


text:
Jeff Chabot

Julian Jeffrey Gaston Chabot (born 12 February 1998), better known as Jeff Chabot, is a German professional footballer who plays as a centre-back for club VfB Stuttgart.

Club career
Chabot started his career with Eintracht Frankfurt in 2010, before joining RB Leipzig in 2014; he joined the reserve squad in 2016. In 2017, he joined Sparta Rotterdam, and made his Eredivisie debut for the club on 12 August 2017 in a game against VVV-Venlo. He then joined FC Groningen in 2018; he made 29 competitive appearances for the club during the 2018–19 season, scoring a goal and providing one assist, helping the club to an eighth-place finish in the Eredivisie.

On 24 May 2019, Chabot signed with Serie A club Sampdoria for €3.7 million, on a five-year contract that would keep him at the club until 30 June 2024; the deal officially went through on 1 July, once the transfer window had re-opened. On 24 September 2020, Chabot joined Spezia on loan until 30 June 2021. On 26 January 2022, he joined 1. FC Köln on loan until 30 June 2023. In May 2023, Köln announced that Chabot would join the club on a permanent basis and sign a contract until 2026.

For the 2024–25 season Chabot moved to VfB Stuttgart and signed a four-year-contract with the club.

International career
Chabot was born in Germany and is of French descent. He is a youth international for Germany, and has represented the nation at U17, U19, and U20 level.

title: Jeff Chabot


text:
Life On Da Beat

Life On Da Beat (stylized as LIFE ON DA BEAT) is the debut studio album by Japanese hip-hop group Lead. It was released on April 23, 2003. The single debuted in the top five on the Oricon charts and stayed on the charts for five consecutive weeks. Bonuses with the album including one of five original stickers, tickets to one of five events, a chance to enter a t-shirt lottery and a leaflet that included a URL to download a special wallpaper.

Garnering popularity with their debut single Manatsu no Magic, the group had won the Best Newcomer Award at the 44th Japan Record Awards on December 31, 2002. The award helped their image and overall growing popularity as artists, leading into the success of their following singles and debut album. Life on Da Beat also includes a remix to their song "Step by Step," originally released on their single "Show me the way" in October of the previous year.

Information
Life On Da Beat (stylized as LIFE ON DA BEAT) is the debut studio album by newcomer Japanese hip-hop group Lead under the Pony Canyon sub-label Flight Master. The album was released on April 23, 2003, debuting in the top five of the Oricon Albums Charts at No. 5. It remained on the charts for five consecutive weeks, selling 30,214 copies during its run. The album had three singles prior to its release: Manatsu no Magic, "Show me the way" and Fly Away. Their success with their debut single, Manatsu no Magic, helped them land the Best Newcomer Award during the 44th annual Japan Record Awards on December 31, 2002.

The album was released as a standalone CD, not carrying a DVD counterpart. The music videos for the tracks "Manatsu no Magic," "Show me the way" and "Fly Away" would not be released for purchase until the released of their first compilation DVD and VHS Lead Movies 1 on September 18 of the same year. The compilation would also include offshoots of the group, along with a documentary and the music video for their then-released song "Funky Days!". For the album, several bonuses were included. Buyers could receive one of five original stickers, tickets to one of five events, a chance to enter a t-shirt lottery and a leaflet that included a URL to download a special wallpaper.

Much of the music on the album was composed by musical composers Yasushi Sasamoto, KATSU and h-wonder. Yasushi is a member of the rap unit BANANA ICE, which was formed in 1992. h-wonder is a famed musical arranger and composer throughout Japan, having worked with the likes of South Korean singer-songwriter BoA Kwon, Maaya Sakamoto and Kumi Koda. He debuted in 1995 as a soloist, but dropped his solo career to work with various artists in 1998. Although the members of Lead would work on their own material in the future, none of the songs from their debut album held their credit.

The song "Step by Step" (track #3) is a remix of the original version found on their "Show Me the Way" single. The remix was done by Gen Ittetsu, who is best known for his works with famous Japanese artist Gackt.

The tracks "One For Da Soul" and "Be Happy" were used as promotional tracks to help promote the album. "One For Da Soul" (stylized as ONE FOR DA SOUL) was used as the ending theme to the TV Tokyo anime series Bouken Yuuki Pluster World. "Be Happy" was used as the ending theme to NHK's television drama Tenshi Mitai between July 5, 2003 to September 20, 2003.

Background and composition
"Manatsu no Magic" was written and composed by musical composer Yasushi Sasamoto. For "No doubt", lyricist KATSU wrote most of the lyrics, while Yasushi wrote the lyrics for the rap. As with "Manatsu no Magic", Yasushi composed and arranged the piece. "Show Me the Way" was written and composed by musical composer Yasushi Sasamoto, who is part of the rap unit known as BANANA ICE. "Step by Step" was also composed by Yasushi, with the lyrics written by Kentaro Akutsu, while KATSU wrote the rap portion of the song.

"Fly Away" was written and composed by musical composer Yasushi Sasamoto. The strings arrangement was performed by Gen Ittetsu, who is best known for his works with famous Japanese soloist Gackt. The rap portion of the song was written by KATSU.

Much of the music made for the studio album Life On Da Beat was composed by musical composers Yasushi Sasamoto, KATSU and h-wonder.

Yasushi is a member of the rap unit BANANA ICE, which was formed in 1992. h-wonder is a famed musical arranger and composer throughout Japan, having worked with the likes of South Korean singer-songwriter BoA Kwon, Maaya Sakamoto and Kumi Koda. He debuted in 1995 as a soloist, but dropped his solo career to work with various artists in 1998.

Although the members of Lead would work on their own material in the future, none of the songs from their debut album held their credit.

Promotional activities
"Manatsu no Magic" was used as the ending theme to several Nippon TV shows, and the ending theme to the theatrical film Juunana Sai (十七歳 / Seventeen Years). It was used as the ending theme to the drama Romei, the variety show Chanoma Girls, and the shows Anta ni Gurattsu~e! (あんたにグラッツェ！) and Tabi wa Higae Ritchi (旅は日帰リッチ).

"Fly Away" was used as the theme song to the movie Boutaoshi!, which the members of Lead also starred in. It was also used as the opening theme for the Tokyo Broadcasting System Television series Count Down TV throughout the month of February.

"One For Da Soul" was used as the ending theme to the TV Tokyo anime series Bouken Yuuki Pluster World.

"Be Happy" was used as the ending theme to NHK's television drama Tenshi Mitai between July 5, 2003 to September 20, 2003.

title: Life On Da Beat


text:
User:Narender.rk10

Name: Narender Surname: Keswani City: Ulhasnagar Country: India Education: Higher Secondary Passed Pursing Graduation in BSC COMPUTER SCIENCE Interests: Technical Works, Drawing, Computer Programming, etc

title: User:Narender.rk10


text:
Perl Programming/Variables

In Perl, there are five types of variables: $calars, @rrays, %hashes, &subroutines, and *typeglobs.

Simple variables
Variables, called scalars, are identified with the $ character, and can contain nearly any type of data. For example:

Case sensitivity
Note that the perl interpreter is case sensitive. This means that identifier names containing lowercase letters will be treated as being different and separate from those containing uppercase letters.

Arrays
Arrays in Perl use the @ character to identify themselves.

However, when you deal with just one element of the array (using square brackets so it's not confused), then that element of the array is considered a scalar which takes the $ sigil:

As in the C programming language, the number of the first element is 0 (although as with all things in Perl, it's possible to change this if you want). Array subscripts can also use variables:

Associative arrays
Associative arrays, or "hashes," use the % character to identify themselves.

When using the => the left side is assumed to be quoted. For long lists, lining up keys and values aids readability.

However, when you deal with just one element of the array (using braces), then that element of the array is considered a scalar and takes the $ identifier:

Associative arrays are useful when you want to refer to the items by their names.

Subroutines
Subroutines are defined by the sub function, and used to be called using & (using  is now deprecated). Here's an example program that calculates the Fibonnaci sequence:

title: Perl Programming/Variables


text:
General Biology/Getting Started/Chemical Building Blocks of Life

Building blocks of life
 * Carbon based: organic molecules
 * Carbohydrates: CHO
 * Lipids: CHO, water insoluble
 * Proteins: CHONS, structure/function in cells
 * Nucleic acids: CHONP, hereditary (genetic) information

Carbon

 * Can make 4 covalent bonds
 * Chains
 * Straight
 * Branched
 * Ring
 * Hydrocarbons (C, H): store energy
 * Functional groups
 * Attach to carbon
 * Alter chemical properties
 * Form macromolecules
 * Sapoteton

Carbohydrates

 * Principally CHO (rare N, S and P)
 * 1C:2H:1O ratio
 * Energy rich (many C-H bonds)
 * Monosaccharides (principal: glucose)
 * Simple sugars
 * Principle formula: C6H12O6
 * Form rings in water solution
 * Disaccharides (sucrose, lactose)
 * Polysaccharides (starch, glycogen, cellulose, chitin)

Stereoisomers

 * Bond angles of carbon point to corners of a tetrahedron
 * When 4 different groups are attached to a carbon, it is asymmetric, leading to various types of isomerism
 * Stereoisomers: (D, L)
 * Same chemical properties
 * Different biological properties
 * D sugars, L amino acids

Lipids

 * C-H bonds (nonpolar) instead of C-OH bonds as in carbohydrates
 * High energy
 * Hydrophobic (insoluble in water)
 * Categories
 * Fats: glycerol and three fatty acids
 * Phospholipids: primary component of membranes
 * Prostaglandins: chemical messengers (hormones)
 * Steroids: membrane component; hormones
 * Terpenes: pigments; structure

Fatty acids

 * Hydrocarbon chain
 * Even number of C, 14->20
 * Terminates in carboxyl group
 * Saturated: contain maximum number of hydrogens (all single bonds); maximum energy
 * Unsaturated: one or more double bonds
 * Usually higher melting point
 * Many common oils are polyunsaturated

Proteins

 * Polymer of amino acids
 * 21 different amino acids found in proteins
 * Sequence of amino acids determined by gene
 * Amino acid sequence determines shape of molecule
 * Linked by peptide bond (covalent)
 * Functions
 * regulate chemical reactions and cell processes [enzymes]
 * form bone and muscle; various other tissues
 * facilitate transport across cell membrane [carrier proteins]
 * fight disease [antibodies]
 * Motifs: folding patterns of secondary structure
 * Domains: structural, functional part of protein often independent of another part; often encoded by different exons
 * Shape determines protein's function

Amino acids

 * 21 commonly found in proteins
 * 21st is selenocysteine, not mentioned in text
 * Common structure
 * Amino group: NH2
 * Carboxyl group: COOH
 * R group- 4 different kinds of R groups
 * acidic
 * basic
 * hydrophilic (polar)
 * hydrophobic (nonpolar)
 * Confer individual properties on amino acids
 * List of amino acids

Structure

 * Primary structure: the amino acid sequence
 * Determines higher orders of structure
 * Critical for structure and function of protein
 * Secondary: stabilized by intramolecular hydrogen bonding
 * helix
 * sheet
 * Tertiary: folding, stabilized by ionic bonds (between R groups), hydrogen bonding, van der Waal's forces, hydrophobic interactions
 * Quaternary: _ 2 polypeptides

Function

 * Requires proper folding, cofactors, pH, temperature, etc.
 * Proteins are often modified after synthesis
 * Chemical modification
 * Addition of heme groups (hemoglobin, cytochrome)
 * Denatured proteins can not function properly
 * Proteins are degraded by proteosome as part of constant turnover of cell components

Hereditary (Genetic) information

 * Nucleic acids
 * DNA: deoxyribonucleic acid
 * Hereditary information of all cells
 * Hereditary information for many viruses
 * RNA: ribonucleic acid
 * Hereditary information of certain viruses (HIV)
 * Intermediate in gene expression
 * Composed of nucleotides
 * Ribonucleotides
 * Deoxyribonucleotides

RNA DNA origin

 * Which came first?
 * Paradox: DNA encodes protein necessary for its own replication
 * Discovery of catalytic RNA by Cech and Altman suggested that RNA might have been first self-replicating molecule
 * DNA evolved as more stable type of storage molecule

Proteins: Their building block is amino acids. The bond connecting 2 of the amino acids together are called peptide bonds. One of these bonds makes a monopeptide, two a dipeptide, and any more than that makes a polypeptide.


text:
User:MikeWaddell002/Books/Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh

 * Genes
 * Recombinant DNA

 * Nano
 * Nanomedicine
 * Nanosensor
 * Nanoparticle–biomolecule conjugate
 * Nanobiotechnology
 * Nanonephrology
 * Gold nanobeacons
 * Molecular nanotechnology
 * Self-assembly of nanoparticles
 * Dip-pen nanolithography
 * Nanoputian
 * Protein-bound paclitaxel
 * Doxorubicin
 * Photodynamic therapy
 * Top-down and bottom-up design
 * Impalefection
 * Bioartificial liver device
 * Artificial pancreas
 * Artificial skin
 * Artificial bone
 * Oral mucosa tissue engineering
 * Autotransplantation
 * Tissue engineering
 * Cryopreservation
 * Bioreactor
 * Biomolecular engineering
 * Site-directed mutagenesis
 * Polymerase chain reaction
 * ELISA
 * Biomimetics
 * Biomaterial
 * Bioelectronics
 * Biosensor
 * Biochip
 * Bioprocess engineering
 * Bioelectromagnetics
 * Bioelectrochemistry
 * Biological engineering
 * Biotechnology
 * Artificial organ
 * Gene targeting
 * Homologous recombination
 * Genetically modified organism
 * Genetic engineering techniques
 * Transformation (genetics)
 * Genome editing
 * Biological patent
 * Gene drive
 * Induced stem cells
 * Marker-assisted selection
 * Paratransgenesis
 * Chromosome
 * DNA
 * RNA
 * Genome
 * Heredity
 * Mutation
 * Nucleotide
 * Genetic variation
 * Evolution
 * Molecular evolution
 * Population genetics
 * Mendelian inheritance
 * Quantitative genetics
 * Molecular genetics
 * Genomics
 * Personalized medicine
 * Biological systems engineering
 * Biomedical engineering
 * Biomedical technology
 * Biomechanics
 * Synthetic biology
 * Horizontal gene transfer
 * Biocatalysis
 * Bioinformatics
 * Bioenergy
 * Metabolic engineering
 * Visual prosthesis
 * Cochlear implant
 * Brain pacemaker
 * Deep brain stimulation
 * Artificial lung
 * Artificial urinary bladder
 * Artificial uterus
 * Artificial heart
 * Artificial kidney
 * Bionics
 * Decellularization
 * Prosthesis
 * Monolayer
 * Foldamer
 * Macromolecular assembly
 * Ice-nine
 * Micelle
 * Vesicle (biology and chemistry)
 * Liquid crystal
 * Supramolecular assembly
 * Molecular Borromean rings
 * RNA splicing
 * Molecular biology
 * Genetics
 * Precursor mRNA
 * Intron
 * Exon
 * Transcription (genetics)
 * Protein splicing
 * Complementary DNA
 * Primary transcript
 * Spliceosome
 * Minor spliceosome
 * Exon junction complex
 * SWAP protein domain
 * Soft lithography
 * Self-assembled monolayer
 * Host–guest chemistry
 * Crystal engineering
 * DNA computing
 * Molecular machine
 * Molecular scale electronics
 * Structural biology
 * DNA machine
 * Nanorobotics
 * Nucleic acid design
 * Molecular models of DNA
 * DNA nanotechnology
 * Biochemistry
 * Computational biology
 * Molecular dynamics
 * Docking (molecular)
 * Quantum chemistry
 * Sequence alignment
 * Structural alignment
 * Protein structure prediction
 * Phylogenetics
 * Negentropy
 * Biophysics
 * Biophysical chemistry
 * Medical physics
 * Membrane biophysics
 * Molecular biophysics
 * Physiomics
 * Molecular assembler
 * Mechanosynthesis
 * Nanotechnology
 * Nanomaterials
 * Chemical synthesis
 * Interface and colloid science
 * Synthetic molecular motor
 * Nanocar
 * Biomolecule
 * Nanocellulose
 * Programmable matter
 * Picotechnology
 * Femtotechnology
 * Materiomics
 * Molecular mechanics
 * Nanoengineering
 * Nanoelectromechanical relay
 * Nanofluidics
 * NanoHUB
 * Nanometrology
 * Nano-thermite
 * Industrial applications of nanotechnology
 * Translational research
 * Wet nanotechnology
 * Biomolecular structure
 * Biomineralization
 * Motility
 * Biophotonics
 * Chromatography
 * Circular dichroism
 * Cryobiology
 * Electrophysiology
 * Gel electrophoresis
 * Biological membrane
 * Cell membrane
 * Biological thermodynamics
 * Ion channel
 * Cell surface receptor
 * Membrane transport protein
 * Enzyme kinetics
 * Molecular motor
 * Phospholipid
 * Protein
 * Biofilm
 * Nucleic acid
 * Cell biology
 * Cell division
 * Cell migration
 * Cell signaling
 * Dynamical system
 * Biochemical systems theory
 * Metabolic control analysis
 * Bioacoustics
 * Gravitational biology
 * Mathematical and theoretical biology
 * Morphogenesis
 * Neural coding
 * Radiobiology
 * Systems neuroscience
 * Tensegrity
 * Artificial life
 * Bio-inspired computing
 * Biological applications of bifurcation theory
 * Biostatistics
 * Cellular automaton
 * Computational gene
 * Ewens's sampling formula
 * Mathematical modelling of infectious disease
 * Metabolic network modelling
 * Molecular modelling
 * Morphometrics
 * Protein folding
 * Quantum biology
 * 3D bioprinting
 * Claytronics
 * Aerogel
 * Bioplastic
 * Conductive polymer
 * Fullerene
 * Graphene
 * High-temperature superconductivity
 * Magnetorheological fluid
 * Superfluidity
 * LiTraCon
 * Metamaterial
 * Metal foam
 * Multi-function structure
 * Carbon nanotube
 * Quantum dot
 * Silicene
 * Superalloy
 * Synthetic diamond
 * Ferro Liquid Display
 * Biometrics
 * Digital scent technology
 * Electronic nose
 * E-textiles
 * Memristor
 * Molecular electronics
 * Nanoelectromechanical systems
 * Spintronics
 * Artificial photosynthesis
 * Biofuel
 * Concentrated solar power
 * Electric double-layer capacitor
 * Lithium–air battery
 * Nanowire battery
 * Nantenna
 * Silicon–air battery
 * Implant (medicine)
 * Insulin pump
 * Brain implant
 * Joint replacement
 * Cryonics
 * De-extinction
 * Aesthetic medicine
 * Birth control
 * Ethnic bioweapon
 * Gene therapy
 * Bioremediation
 * Strategies for Engineered Negligible Senescence
 * Oncolytic virus
 * Plantibody
 * Regenerative medicine
 * Stem cell therapy
 * Stem cell
 * Skin cell gun
 * Synthetic genomics
 * Tooth regeneration
 * Virotherapy
 * Vitrification
 * Cryoprotectant
 * Ischemia
 * Organ transplantation
 * Life extension
 * Senescence
 * Ageing
 * Mind uploading
 * Indefinite lifespan
 * Advanced glycation end-product
 * Aging brain
 * Aging movement control
 * DNA damage theory of aging
 * Immortality
 * Slow ageing
 * Transgenerational design
 * Gerontology
 * Rejuvenation (aging)
 * Antioxidant
 * Suspended animation
 * Immunization
 * Free-radical theory of aging
 * Glycation
 * Viral disease
 * Antagonistic pleiotropy hypothesis
 * Evolution of ageing
 * Rate of living theory
 * Reliability theory of aging and longevity
 * Superhuman
 * Multi-agent system
 * Posthuman
 * Human enhancement
 * Performance-enhancing drugs
 * Nootropic
 * Neurostimulation
 * Nutraceutical
 * Functional food
 * Brain–computer interface
 * Neurotechnology
 * Exocortex
 * Genetic engineering
 * Parahuman
 * Myostatin-related muscle hypertrophy
 * Gene doping
 * Biological immortality
 * Immortalised cell line
 * Somatic (biology)
 * Tardigrade
 * Telomere
 * Telomerase
 * Biological clock (aging)
 * Centromere
 * Telomerase reverse transcriptase
 * Ribonucleoprotein
 * DNA repair
 * Cycloastragenol
 * Nanotoxicology
 * Cell potency
 * Asymmetric cell division
 * Embryonic stem cell
 * Adult stem cell
 * Cord blood-derived multipotent stem cell
 * Induced pluripotent stem cell
 * Stem cell line
 * Meristem
 * Partial cloning
 * Stem cell marker
 * Behavioural genetics
 * Classical genetics
 * Developmental biology
 * Conservation genetics
 * Ecological genetics
 * Modern evolutionary synthesis
 * Metagenics
 * Heritability of IQ
 * Human genetics
 * Human evolutionary genetics
 * Human mitochondrial genetics
 * Medical genetics
 * Microbial genetics
 * Statistical genetics
 * Genetic epidemiology
 * Archaeogenetics
 * Psychiatric genetics
 * Adenine
 * Adenoviridae
 * Allele
 * Amino acid
 * Model organism
 * Antibody
 * Sense (molecular biology)
 * Apoptosis
 * Dominance (genetics)
 * Autosome
 * Bacterial artificial chromosome
 * Base pair
 * Candidate gene
 * Chromosomal translocation
 * Cloning
 * Karyotype
 * DNA replication
 * DNA sequencing
 * Electrophoresis
 * Gene
 * Gene duplication
 * Gene expression
 * Genetic code
 * Nucleobase
 * Genetic marker
 * Genotype
 * Hematopoietic stem cell
 * Human artificial chromosome
 * Hybrid (biology)
 * Immunotherapy
 * In situ hybridization
 * List of genetic disorders
 * Messenger RNA
 * Metaphase
 * Microarray
 * Mitochondrial DNA
 * Nonsense mutation
 * Particulate inheritance
 * P53
 * Peptide
 * Polymorphism (biology)
 * Genetic screen
 * Pseudogene
 * Ribosome
 * Somatic cell
 * Suicide gene
 * Transgenesis
 * Thymine
 * Tumor suppressor gene
 * Tissue culture
 * Mutagenesis
 * Tautomer
 * Depurination
 * Deamination
 * Slipped strand mispairing
 * Hydroxylamine
 * Base analog
 * Bromodeoxyuridine
 * Crosslinking of DNA
 * Oxidative stress
 * Chromosome abnormality
 * Point mutation
 * Silent mutation
 * Missense mutation
 * Insertion (genetics)
 * Deletion (genetics)
 * Chromosomal inversion
 * Loss of heterozygosity
 * Frameshift mutation
 * Neutral mutation
 * Compound heterozygosity
 * Replication timing quantitative trait loci
 * Mutation rate
 * Carcinogenesis
 * Aneuploidy
 * Budgerigar colour genetics
 * Ecogenetics
 * Polyploid
 * Robertsonian translocation
 * Saltation (biology)
 * Signature-tagged mutagenesis
 * TILLING (molecular biology)
 * Trinucleotide repeat expansion
 * Genetics of aging
 * Longevity
 * Lipofuscin
 * Cross-link
 * Degenerative disease
 * Printable organs
 * Aminolevulinic acid
 * Amyl
 * Analyte-specific reagent
 * Anandamide
 * Angiogenin
 * Anticarcinogen
 * Antigen
 * Autacoid
 * Bile
 * Bilin (biochemistry)
 * Bioadhesive
 * Book:Biomolecular Structure
 * Non-helical models of DNA structure
 * Biopolymer
 * 1,3-Bisphosphoglyceric acid
 * 5-Bromouracil
 * Carbaminohemoglobin
 * Caseinase
 * Chaotropic agent
 * Chitin
 * Chlorin
 * Circe Effect
 * Committed step
 * Conformational proofreading
 * Cooperative binding
 * Cooperativity
 * Corrin
 * Creatine phosphate shuttle
 * Crotonyl-CoA
 * Depsipeptide
 * Dihydrobiopterin
 * DnaA
 * Endothelium-derived hyperpolarizing factor
 * Enzyme
 * Enzyme promiscuity
 * ER oxidoreductin
 * Exopolymer
 * Extended porphyrin
 * FMRFamide
 * Free radical
 * Glucagon-like peptide-2
 * Glycosyl
 * Glycosylamine
 * Gymnochrome E
 * Heme
 * Heme A
 * Heme B
 * Heme C
 * Heme O
 * Hemozoin
 * Radical (chemistry)
 * Multi-state modeling of biomolecules
 * Cyberware
 * Transhuman
 * Therianthropy
 * Timeline of genetically modified organisms
 * Bioelectrodynamics
 * Biomagnetism
 * Electromyography
 * Magnetoception
 * Magnetoelectrochemistry
 * Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation
 * Aether (classical element)
 * Electrotherapy
 * Electrical muscle stimulation
 * Electroacupuncture
 * Electrotherapy (cosmetic)
 * Microcurrent electrical neuromuscular stimulator
 * Molecular propeller

title: User:MikeWaddell002/Books/Gilgamesh


text:
Pharmacovigilance Programme of India

The Pharmacovigilance Programme of India (PvPI) is an Indian government organization which identifies and responds to drug safety problems. Its activities include receiving reports of adverse drug events and taking necessary action to remedy problems. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation established the program in July 2010 with All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi as the National Coordination Centre, which later shifted to Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission in Ghaziabad on 15 April 2011.

History
Many developed countries set up their pharmacovigilance programs following the Thalidomide scandal in the 1960s. India set up its program in the 1980s. This general concept of drug safety monitoring went through different forms, but the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation established the present Pharmacovigilance Program of India in 2010. Now the program is well integrated with government legislation, a regulator as leader, and a research center as part of the Indian Pharmacopoeia Commission.

Activities
As of 2018 there were 250 centers around India capable of responding to reports of serious adverse reactions. One of the challenges of the organization is training doctors and hospitals to report adverse drug reactions when patients have them. The Pharmacovigilance Program makes these reports itself, but ideally, such reports could originate from any clinic. The Pharmacovigilance Programme seeks to encourage a culture and social expectation of reporting drug problems.

One of the successes of the program was detecting adverse effects of people in India using carbamazepine. While this drug is safer among people native to the Europe, people of South Asia have different genetics and are more likely to experience problems when using it. Other countries could not have been able to detect this problem, and the Pharmacovigilance Programme's detection of it was a success story.

Collaboration
The establishment of the Pharmacovigilance Program made India a more attractive international destination for foreign companies to bring clinical trials research. Understanding the quality of India's pharmacovigilance programme is key to international researchers conducting trials in India.

The program collaborates both in India and internationally with the World Health Organization on projects for safe medication. As a collaborating center, the Pharmacovigilance Programme assists the WHO in developing international policy for other countries to manage their own drug safety programs.

While the United States and Europe have pharmacovigilance systems which are developed well in some ways, the Indian programme has more and specialized expertise to apply for the unique circumstances of India. The Pharmaceutical industry in India produces more drugs than any other national industry. Because of the large amount of drugs and the many countries which import them, the Indian program monitors in some ways more than anywhere else.

title: Pharmacovigilance Programme of India


text:
Talk:Analog Brothers

What the heck is a "lazar bell"?
I tried various searches online but I couldn't find it because there's a designer with a similar name: Herbst LaZar Bell (sp?). Maybe he designed these bells! I don't know! TIA, —Geekdiva (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Why doesn’t Black Silver have a page?
There are 12 different mentions of Black Silver featuring on different projects and that alone warrants a landing page. <IP_ADDRESS> (talk) 18:01, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Analog Brothers