Talk:Junk DNA

Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by the Computational Biology task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Archives

1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Should this article mention the Onion Test anywhere or is a bit of a niche formulation of the argument? I've never actually seen that term used 'in the wild', but maybe I just missed it. Could either be mentioned inline in tthe articcle text or just thrown in the see also section if ppl rechon it's worth linking to. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 02:30, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This article didn't even link to

C-value paradox. I've added that link, and stuck a mention of Onion Test

in the latter as a See Also, though a more organic means of linking perhaps should be preferred. (There's also a possibility of merging Onion Test into C-value paradox, as the onion test is a means of kicking the tyres on proposed solutions to the C-value problem.)

There is an issue with the lead at Onion Test, which equates non-coding and junk DNA.

Lavateraguy (talk) 10:50, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to revert most of the links that were recently added by Melosina because, in my opinion, it's an example of overlinking (too much blue). I don't think it's necessary to link to terms such as "DNA," "genes," "protein," "natural selection," "eukaryotic," "nucleus," "expression," "geneticists," "evolutionary biologists," molecular biologists," "evolution," and "Nobel." Some of the links they inserted are not at all helpful in the context of an article on junk DNA and may even be counter-productive (e.g. "functional," and "mutation"). The problem of overlinking has been covered many times in the past few years. For example, the essay on the overlink crisis says,

Overlinking is the characteristic of having too many internal wikilinks or hyperlinks to external webpages. Editors should use an appropriate number of wikilinks in an article's text. In addition to providing relevant navigation opportunities, an appropriate number of blue links makes articles easier to read, especially in long paragraphs or sections.

The issue concerns readability. Too many Wikilinks (too much blue) makes the article less attractive to readers without adding any significant value. This is a serious problem in science articles where the leads can look overwhelmingly complex to the average reader because of excessive Wikilinks (e.g. Human genome).

The Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Linking makes the following wise suggestions concerning links.

An article is said to be overlinked if it contains an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding. A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from. Unless a term is particularly relevant to the context in the article, the following are usually not linked: -Everyday words understood by most readers in context

Perhaps we can find a happy medium where unusual terms that are essential to understanding are given links but commons scientific words that should be familiar to anyone reading this article are not? Genome42 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. Some terms are super obvious like DNA, expression, genomes, natural selection that they do not to be wikilinked. Feel free to clean it up. Ramos1990 (talk) 18:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps having the word YET used more frequently, as well as having as a second point if not the first, a clarification clarifying / a differentiation differentiating between,..

.

1 matched-with-others-in-surpassed-evolutionary-progressions-and-so-redundant(true junk) DNA,

2 assumed-no-function junk from genetic processes (high confidence - temporary retentions kept longer than needed if needing to be kept at all), and

3 theorised to have no function but of more compatible DNA-chemistry -combinations ... junk (ones that have still matching after-activation matching chemistry with organelles or functional materials in plasma/interstitial spaces, but are without 'context' in nearby genes along the chains, and so seem pointless, despite chemical-compatibility. Compared to things like say, immune system instructions or embryonic stages, ones with clear-purpose) (less-confidence / more reasonable uncertainty - the chemistry suggests a high likelyhood if not outright proof, of past usefullness) ...

.

... could help to introduce the concept FIRST?

Rather than finding the contrast or inferred-problems with the single concept or inferred consistency, further down the page, and the static tense (scientific conclusion-ary) avoiding the still-new problems of the field? i.e. using YET, adds necessary cautionary relativity to a solid concept, but a phenomenon that is sometimes irreversibly presumed static.

---

i.e. when something THOUGHT junk, is 'let-back-in', at the PREVIOUS time of it being labelled junk, the static nature was less correct, than saying "YET", so,.. yet-confirmed as junk, or yet-re-included back into unknown status rather than confirmed-junk or certified-junk, etc. A big part of that problem is WHO certifies, but that might end up making the page much larger than it should be if that kind of debate/issue should be on a separate page or is not subjectively purposed - i.e. at least the 'YET' nature of both corrective processes, reveals just HOW-new, this science is. Sort of like if you re-wrote it entirely, and re-wrote it with constant inferred STATUS inferences, to keep reminding the reader, that DNAs classification can rapidly CHANGE, that DNA is only sometimes statically clearly-purposed, nature's IMperfections, compared to imaginary ideals, etc. That's not opinion, that's hard-science. Human DNA for tails, for example, are recent, but HAD function. Tense with it as an example, would be an easy example to demonstrate the principle of CAUTION with DNA's classification as junk or not-junk. 120.21.106.152 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand your point. Could you give a specific example of something you think should be changed? Genome42 (talk) 22:10, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]