Hi! User:Alexbateman pointed me in the direction of your page. There are a large number of automatically generated pages for protein familes linked on User:Cboursnell/Sandbox. Please feel free to create new pages from any that interest you, or to use the content in these pages to improve existing pages. If you edit these pages to indicate which you have done, and also let me know which you have worked on, then this would be a great help. Many thanks --RE73 (talk) 11:56, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great! I will make a list of my changes and place it with other technical comments on your talk page. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think for those families which form part of a multi-protein complex we should consider each case on an individual basis. With some a separate artcle for each subunit may be appropriate, with others one article could describe the whole complex. As you say, we need to follow the guidelines for notability here. If an article about a whole complex becomes too large it can always be split at a later date. Thank you for tidying the infoboxes on NADH dehydrogenase, this seems like a good solution in this case. On some other pages we may want to go one step further and put them all in an expandable bit at the bottom (sorry, I don't know the technical term for this!) as I have done in Helix-turn-helix. In this article I felt there was nothing to be gained by having the infoboxes readily visible, but the information is there should people wish to see it. I'm going to take a closer look at PF10409 (C2) as it may be that I can improve the Pfam family. I think in general fo clan members it would be ideal to have a page for the clan/superfamily and link from this to articles for the individual families. However, there will be cases where there is not sufficient information readily available to do this. --RE73 (talk) 12:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right, let's do it on the case to case basis. I agree with your solution in Helix-turn-helix. Alex simply forget to include PF10409 to appropriate clan (compare to SCOP). These C2 domains are the same superfamily or possibly even from the same family - this is rather arbitrary (do not mix them with these "C2" domains. Almost forget, the List of glycoside hydrolase families... I agree with removal of the boxes. However, we need to keep some text for individual families per WP:List. My very best wishes (talk) 17:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added PF10409 to the C2 clan. Sorry for the delay on this - I've been pretty busy lately. Your work with the protein family pages is really appreciated. Thank you. --RE73 (talk) 09:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I will work more with protein families, bioinformatics and molecular modeling pages, as time allows. Right now I am quite busy with my "original research". My very best wishes (talk) 14:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently looking at the families which you suggested should be in clans. This will take some time! I am also going to try to build a new family from CarnocyclinA. We'd really appreciate it if you could email any such suggestions for new families, clans or any other changes to pfam-help@sanger.ac.uk - this way we can keep track of requests easily which may become lost or overlooked on my talk page. Many thanks --RE73 (talk) 11:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Be prepared for a long list. The determining superfamilies/clans is a very complicated business even if you know 3D structures. As Murzin said, he had to be very "conservative" in deciding which protein families are evolutionary related (belong to the same "superfamily"), rather than simply have a common "fold" in SCOP. My very best wishes (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2012 (UTC) Done. My very best wishes (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Hi. What you did was a brilliant idea that anyone can understand. Psychiatrick (talk) 22:22, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]