Talk:Enzyme

Backwards copy notification

@Opabinia regalis @John Mackenzie Burke @TimVickers @DrKay @Neuraxıs @Pseudoenzyme @Boghog @GeneMosher @Gzuckier @Takometer @Evolution and evolvability @Opabinia regalis @Adrian J. Hunter @Physis @KarstenKemeter @Blythwood @Nthep @V35b @Dlamming @Holeung @Cacycle @Marj Tiefert @Bensaccount @TimBarrel @Hichris @(3ucky(3all @Holeung @Mcy jerry @Serephine @John @Wayward @Cwhitt817 @Drphilharmonic @DMacks @01roshay @Acather96 @Beta cafe @Ewen @Alexeyevitch @RichardSnow07 @PhD2005 @Ebuxbaum @David D. @Apdang @Maralia @Icelight

I was curious how many attribution problems may have happened in this (copyvio report) published, potential copyvio with the who wrote that extension, so there's that...

If you were wondering, yes, I already submitted a comment to PubPeer, and no, CC-BY-NC and CC-BY-SA are not compatible. ⸺(Random)staplers 07:07, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• BTW, if any listed users want to take this further, (and only the listed users can do this) you will have to list the paper as a mirror on Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#How to list new mirrors.

⸺(Random)staplers 19:21, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

• Moderated... well, I'm not really surprised, given the potential legal trouble here. I'll leave it to you, @DMacks. ⸺(Random)staplers 06:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like PubPeer has a special procedure for copyvios. See the FAQ, and DMCA. Probably explains the moderation, so in addition to WP:MIRRORS, you all know where to go from here...

  Well, that's definitely it for me. ⸺(Random)staplers 06:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

  • For future reference: I created an essay in case this happens again.

  ⸺(Random)staplers 09:14, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Etymology of apoprotein and apoenzyme, please

I suspect that apo- is doing a lot of work and, if that work could be lampshaded adequately, at least its vague outlines would be a lot more accessible to non-specialists.

112.213.42.56 (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Hot springs sentence & spelling inconsistency

At the end of the first paragraph of the Structure section there is the sentence "Enzyme denaturation is normally linked to temperatures above a species' normal level; as a result, enzymes from bacteria living in volcanic environments such as hot springs are prized by industrial users for their ability to function at high temperatures, allowing enzyme-catalysed reactions to be operated at a very high rate." This sentence doesn't seem to be very related to the rest of the paragraph and also lacks a citation. I think that it should either be deleted or moved to somewhere it is more relevant to, such as the Industrial applications section, with a proper reference.

Additionally, this sentence uses the British English "catalysed" instead of "catalyzed" in American English which this article is meant to be written in, see WP:RETAIN and the banner at the top of this talk page. But the spelling of "catalyse" and variants seems to be a reoccurring problem, happening by my count four other times this article. DefNotaHedgehog (talk) 10:42, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

On the first matter, I think tagging with 'citation needed' would be the first step. I'll do so now. I'll also fix the inappropriate spellings of catalyzed. cheers, anastrophe, an editor he is. 20:32, 6 June 2026 (UTC)

So err... Why the picture of the IUPAC definition, and not just the definition?

The picture:

1. Because the image itself is just an image of text and has a fixed size in pixels rather than a more scalable measure (and there isn't an easy way to produce a scalable one since not all screens report their geometry / DPI) and the screenshot is going to get ugly above its max size of 901x394px since browsers don't go to any sort of lengths to make upscaled images look amazing for the most part.
2. Unexpectedly links to the doi.org link which redirects to the iupac site instead of a wikimedia page, which is normally a popover with an X to close it out that appears over the current page and doesn't require resorting to the browser back button. I clicked on it to try to figure out what conceivable reason there was for using an image of the definition from the gold book, since sometimes this might be in the image description. Obviously this didn't help. It does show up in the page's image gallery as #3 if you navigate to it with arrows. The description for it on that page is just the exact text of the image minus decorations, so it doesn't even need to be re-typed. Apparently IUPAC, who uploaded the file (for what intended purpose, I can't say) already did it for us. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enzyme#/media/File:IUPAC_definition_for_enzymes.png
3. Doesn't have alt-text, just a minimally descriptive caption, so anyone using screen readers / text to braille output / etc is kinda screwed, and according to WP:MOSALT the default behavior will be to read the image filename or the link which isn't useful, followed by the caption which isn't a proper alt text since that page also specifically says non-decorative things (anything that links somewhere) need an alt text that conveys what's in the image. But, more specifically, it has this to say: If an image contains words important to the reader's understanding, the alternative text should contain those words. Period. This is an accessibility issue, not a style one. This is an image of text, the only way to describe it for a screen reader is with that text. The other option for accessibility is providing that same description nearby in the article body.
4. Fixing the alt-text issue would pretty much require duplicating the image text since it's just an image of text, which would appear to be fine since it's CC-BY-SA... but the text in the image would still be unreadably small on high DPI monitors so this only fixes the screen reader / images turned off issue. At that point, why use the image at all? I can see just fine and all it did was annoy me by interrupting the flow of the page, then annoy me further by not going to its description page like everything else on here. And again, the description of the text on the image's page is already just the text.

Was there some reason it was done this way that I'm missing? It seems... weird. The only time I've seen this elsewhere on wikipedia were when a photograph of some ancient museum-only document was used to display what the original looked like. All I can think is that someone thought the CC-BY-SA release by IUPAC only applied to the image and not the text it contained (which again, is all the image actually is, unless they were releasing copyright on the fonts and reproduction of the UI design too)? Who knows. The ref for these is short and auto-generates using {{GoldBookRef |file=E02159 |title=Enzymes}} for whoever decides to fix this, I'm fleeing for the rest of the month: A Shortfall Of Gravitas (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2026 (UTC)