Talk:Eukaryote hybrid genome

	Evolutionary biology Low‑importance
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

someone marked this as copyvio[1], of course it just went thru peer review and is in PLOS(the source of copyvio)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Sphilbrick and Ozzie10aaaa: Thanks for flagging this. This article was imported under a CC BY license from doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008404 (earlier draft provenance). The lead section also appears in the STORRE repository as "Fulltext - Accepted Version" that was embargoed until the publication date of the journal article (this week), however in the meantime may still trigger copyvio tools. This comment is therefore just to note that import from doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1008404 should still make the lead compatible with Wikipedia's licenses. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see that learned opinion favours a glossary at the top of the article. Personally I believe that we have in Wikipedia one enormous glossary readily to hand, as indeed the mass of bluelinks in the glossary do rather handily demonstrate. Accordingly, I'd not bother with yet another level of redundancy at all, what with infoboxes and navboxes and lead sections and portals and all. Even worse, I understand that glossaries are popping up in other such articles. If we need a genetics glossary it should be done once, as a list article, basta. If consensus is to have the thing in this and all other articles (redundancy piled on redundancy) then it should not be the first thing readers see: it could be further down the article, or collapsed, or both. I think we should have that diagram at the top, a bit bigger. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that top of article is probably too much. Possibilities:

• Include at top of article, but collapsed (most obvious, but may be too prominent)
• Include in references section (where people might look for extra info, but could be missed)
• Merge into
  Glossary_of_genetics
  and link to that (centralised to reduce maintenance overhead, but hard to find relevant items in mega-list)
• Transclude wikidata descriptions or a specialist definition text string value (currently would require including QIDs, but could maybe eventually be done with just item names)

If anything is included in the article, I'd be keen on working out ways to do selective transclusion of relevant items either from the main glossary of even better, from wikidata. (discussion)? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:41, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merging into

Glossary of genetics

is obviously sensible and the right place for a centralised list. This and other articles can then freely link to that; they already link directly to many of the individual terms. As 'Helps', this and other articles may then have:

1. a link to the glossary, near the top or at the end (or in a box near the top?)
2. links to genetics terms (other articles)
3. brief glosses of any specially difficult terms (parentheses next to term at first appearance)
4. appearance in diagram(s) and diagram captions
5. mw:Reference Tooltips or WP:Tools/Navigation popups (Users can be encouraged to switch on one of these useful gadgets in their Preferences/Gadgets panel)

That ought to be enough, really. If not (belt, braces, and suspenders) then a collapsed glossary might be acceptable but it really shouldn't be necessary, given the single-click accessibility of definitions via wikilinks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:18, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]