Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics/Archive 2

I am writing an article on familial DNA database searches, which are currently mentioned in the

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haplogroup_J1_(Y-DNA)JohnLloydScharf (talk) 01:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Looking for some opinions from others. An editor wants to remove Adolf Hitler from a list of 'famous DNA'. Maybe some sort of consensus can be reached.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

I have been having a discussion recently with another editor regarding the set up of the {{

There have been repeated changes to a table on this page that I think are wrong, from several anonymous IP addresses (I haven't reverted the last one). The changes have to do with relatedness ratios. It would be helpful if knowledgeable people could check this. Am I making a mistake? Thanks in advance. Nadiatalent (talk) 16:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The new article titled Behavior mutation is a complete orphan: no other articles link to it. To do:

• Other articles should link to it.
• The links from this article to others were formatted like external links. I've fixed some of them so they're normal internal links, but most of them still need to be attended to.

Michael Hardy (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Could someone please cast their eye over Paraiyar#Genetics. It is complete gobbledegook to me and it is common for contributors to Indian caste/community articles to show "half a story" in order to promote a POV. The contributor was editing from an IP registered to General Motors & so I am unsure of their technical expertise etc. If someone could actually rephrase the section so that it makes sense to the layperson then so much the better. Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 18:05, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I randomly stumbled upon this article. I have no idea what this article is really about, but it raises several red flags of

Could someone knowledgeable check Monohybrid cross for factual accuracy? There are several allegations of factual inaccuracy on the talk page, and some of the statements seems flatly untrue or contradictory to my freshman-biology-only eyes (e.g. "The cross between their [P-generation] offspring is referred to as a dihybrid cross, in which parents are both heterozygous at one locus.").

-Equaaldoors (talk) 21:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:HighBeam describes a limited opportunity for Wikipedia editors to have access to HighBeam Research.
—Wavelength (talk) 17:56, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Can anyone help me expand the genome section of the tammar wallaby article? I hope to get it to FA status. Here's a database that collects papers relating to the tammar genome. I have a tough time understanding them. LittleJerry (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Myself and at least one other editor have been unable to verify claims being made by a (potential) COI contributor to the article. Please see the article talk page for additional information as the technical nature of the claims is beyond my ability to succinctly reproduce accurately. Thank you for your contributions! --

I cleaned up the article on the replisome. This included content reframing, major additions, and much improved citations. Would anyone care to proof it?Thermodynamic (talk) 11:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Nice! Could someone reference it some more? (I've wikilinked the article for easy navigation)Staticd (talk) 08:07, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree, great job in exapnding this article. I have tweaked the article a bit further. Boghog (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments on Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Static_vs_dynamic_topics:_seriously_outdated_articles will be appreciated, so we can get a general perspective on this. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a new article. I don't know what to make of it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Came here to say the same thing. Looks like an essay-like fork of DNA. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see also: User talk:Notahelix#Your username Anna Frodesiak (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

At least one article (e.g. Four-gamete test) has a redlink to "segregating site", and others use the phrase without definition. An internet search suggested that this might be (essentially?) the same thing as Single-nucleotide polymorphism. Is this right and, if so, can something be added to that article to indicate the relation? Melcombe (talk) 11:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I have done a small rewrite of the

What you wrote in the article looks good to me. The only substantive problems I could see predated your edits. One I've fixed; the other I can't check now as I don't have my textbooks handy: is it correct to call the triplets in all six reading frames "codons"? I'd have thought only the triplets in the translated reading frame are really codons, as they're the only ones than encode amino acids. The rest are just meaningless trinucleotides. I'd never refer to "codons" in an untranslated region of an mRNA, for example. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 14:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for checking over the article, I just assumed codon was a generic term for any three nucleotides. So a codon is a triplet of nucleotides on a DNA or RNA strand, that will eventually equate to an amino acid? Also as a side note, the Complementarity (molecular biology) article seems to need a big overhaul, I may try to do some work on it tomorrow (and use references). -Zynwyx (talk) 00:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, and yeah, I checked a genetics and a bio textbook and a med dictionary, and all agreed: for a codon to be a codon, it has to encode either an amino acid or a stop signal. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:38, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

see

Talk:Non-helical DNA structure for discussion, to amalgate responses — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.234.93.35 (talk

) 19:30, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

We'd really appreciate some help from someone familiar with topoisomerases and/or bacterial chromosome replication. Please see

Talk:Non-helical models of nucleic acid structure#Balancing information needed. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs

) 04:45, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the usage of the term

I've managed to find two nice looking secondary sources and used it to expand the article but they are paywalled. (annual reviews and oxford journals) Another editor

I have no objection to this, and would suggest what we need is an actual relevant quotation from the above paper. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:10, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

IP edit-warring on this page, has added [4] or similar for the 4th time.

I have just proposed the ENCODE publication as a candidate for the front page news. Please comment at

It's now up, so this article will probably get significant views over the next few days. I've added what information I am able to, but I'm not a geneticist, so my ability to handle this is limited. Anything more that people are able to add would be great. Looie496 (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Hot potato article that needs work. Has a genetics section. Tijfo098 (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The articles this discussion should concern:

• Genetically modified food controversies
• Genetically modified organism
• Genetically modified food
• Genetically modified crops
• Genetic engineering
• Genetically modified fish
• Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms

The concept of genetically modifying organisms (especially crops/food) is a fairly controversial topic, so I would imagine that the articles get a fair amount of visitors. That said, I want to point out some issues to the articles that could be fixed. I've assigned numbers to each suggestion/issue, so that they can be discussed in separate sections.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs)

Quick comment. I have been checking page hits

First as a reality check

the Katy Perry article avg is about 17,000 hits per day http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/katy%20perry

More seriously the article on China has about 20,000 hits a day http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/china

Of the articles you mention....

GM foods is highest ballpark avg 2200 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20food

GM organisms avg is about 2000 http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20organism

genetic engineering is about 2000 as well http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetic%20engineering

GM food controversies has been big of late but still avg only about 1000 hits (recent increase may be Seralini press release, California referendum.. I'd like to think it is because I have concentrated information there

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20food%20controversies

GM crops is pretty small, maybe 500 average. As I note below, I don't think people actually care about agriculture.

They care about food and the contoversies. Right?

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/genetically%20modified%20crops

Regulation of the release of genetic modified organisms is the smallest, maybe 70. I think the title of this article is terrible but have not tackled renaming it.

http://stats.grok.se/en/latest60/Regulation%20of%20the%20release%20of%20genetic%20modified%20organisms

The title name is fine. There are regulations that govern approval to work with GM organisms and regulations that set the protocols and restrictions while they are being developed and tested. This article is about the regulations governing the release of these organism into the environment. I was working on a parent article and will release it (unfinished most likely) to mainspace soon. AIRcorn (talk) 02:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

So.. not sure if that meets your idea of "fair number of visitors". :) Jytdog (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Frankly my dear... If an article gets 10 hits a day on average IMO it earns its place in WP. This is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a tabloid rag. Not every word in a dictionary gets looked up every single day, and some of the most valuable entries are exactly the entries that one has difficulty finding anywhere else, sometimes because nowhere else bothers to publish them. Let's not fall into the trap of "I wish people would stop pestering us for X; we don't stock X; there is no demand for it!" As long as we can produce articles with intrinsic substance and significance and with a decent presentation of information and relevance, our only reaction to a low hit count should be to check whether it could be better presented to strike the eye of potential readers. JonRichfield (talk) 08:28, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

sarcasm my dear! I think you misunderstood my point. I have spent hours working on these pages - I want them to accurate because I believe wikipedia should always be excellent, regardless of whether the topic is "popular". You got more to my point with your last remark - and that is, how used are these pages? Relative to "popular" topics, and relevant to each other? Why is the regulation article - the one I would hope people read and learn about a lot, so rarely consulted? And my comment about "not sure if that meets you definition of fair number" - I really meant that - I have no idea what Yutsi had in mind when he said that. I like data and hard numbers so I put them out there.Jytdog (talk) 01:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Crossed wires my dear, I suspect. The nearest I came to deliberate acerbity was in rejecting any idea that a low hit rate was a priori a basis for questioning the justification for an article's existence. Sure, if large numbers of people read important topics, that looks good and we should aim for it, but for a lot of really vital technical topics it is fashionable to raise Cain chanting meaningless slogans in the streets, but God forbid that anyone should actually take time learning what it really is all about. (GMO-hatred is not the only such topic, mind you!)

• 1. Per
  WP:SELFREF
  , self-references like "This article discusses x" should generally be avoided in the article's body, and, from a glance, these articles seem to use a lot of them.
• 2. The Further reading and External links sections could be sorted better. For example, they could be divided into subsections of Pro-, Anti-, and Neutral, or divided by the format of the publication (Web, book, journal, etc.).
• 3. There seems to be a significant amount of overlap in the articles. For instance, Genetically modified food seems to be mentioned a lot, especially when controversy is mentioned (e.g. in the last paragraph of Genetically modified organism's lead).
• 4. Genetically modified fish should be moved to Genetically modified animal, since transgenic animals do exist.
• 5. Since most of Genetically modified food concerns Genetically modified crops, we should merge the former into the latter, and merge any material in the former about animals into Genetically modified fish / Genetically modified animal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs)

Issue 1

hi read this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purebuzzin (talk • contribs) 11:56, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Additional note. I just read the

WP:SELFREF. Jytdog (talk

) 00:13, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Two regular wiki editors, arc de ciel, and aircorn, have also raised concerns about this as well -- see User_talk:Jytdog#CommentJytdog (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

• As I stated at Jytdogs talk page, I would prefer hatnotes to refer to different articles on similar topics. AIRcorn (talk) 01:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Another user, Semitransgenic has objected to this paragraph - deleting it and noting "remove editorial remarks, use dablinks at the top of the page to tell readers of other relevant content". Happy to see a proposed example!Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't support this kind of in-article editorialising, dablinks (hatnotes), or an infobox would be a better method, the tone of the lead in general needs addressing. Semitransgenic _talk. 15:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

It is not editorializing in the sense of giving an opinion. If you want to provide sample hatnotes I would be very interested to see them! What do you mean by "tone"?Jytdog (talk) 15:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

starting a paragraph with words like "nonetheless" etc. veers towards

MOS:OPED. Lead prose should ideally be pragmatic, just provide an accurate summary of the key/notable content found in the main body of text. Semitransgenic _talk.

16:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

If nothing else could we get an answer to this issue. The paragraphs that this concerns are these ones. AIRcorn (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I am OK with how this was handled at Genetically modified food controversies if you want to implement, aircornJytdog (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No problem. It is not looking like this is going to be closed soon. AIRcorn (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Issue 2

• To the extent that these sections remain, I agree that they could be sorted that way - it would be better. In general I have tried to eliminate these sections, slowly, making sure that the matter is incorporated into the suite of articles. I understand that this is best under the MOS.Jytdog (talk) 17:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• The external links sections should be trimmed to just websites that contain an overview of the whole topic (i.e a website about GM mice should be on the GM mouse page, but is not needed on the GM organism one) but are not suitable for inclusion in the page itself (i.e a large list of GM crops like here. The less the better in my opinion and would be more than happy to see them trimmed. I however do not think that they should be separated based on their alignment. AIRcorn (talk) 01:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue 3

• I don't really understand this point. Perhaps you could explain better. My POV: People's concerns about GM food are what drove the mess and what drives a lot of the ongoing editing. I have done my best to carefully sort things out. In my mind, GM food per se (what is it?) should be handled in the GM food article, and controversy around it (and many other surrounding issues), in the controversy article. Regulation of it and GMOs that produce it, in the regulation article. Crops that produce it (and other things) in the GM crops article. GMOs in general, and genetic engineering in general, in those articles. These topics are inter-related, for sure. They need to mention and reference each other. But the topics are separable. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Some overlap is inevitable, but it should be reduced as much as is practicably possible. I don't particularly like controversy sections in articles and would rather see the issues mentioned in the appropriate section. Although I concede that this might be hard to maintain in these articles. What should happen if we have a controversy article is that the GM food should have a controversies section linked with a main template to the controversies article. It should include a couple of paragraphs outlining or summarising the main points associated with food. The GM crops should have the same except its paragraphs should focus more on crops and so on. AIRcorn (talk) 02:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The hard thing about your proposal, aircorn, is that opponents of GM food very rarely have a single focus and it is very hard to sort out the "heart" of many objections. Many seem to care most about industrial agriculture (many angles on this... so-called "corporate control of the food supply", messing with "nature", chemical use, etc. Others really seem to care about riskiness of the food they eat. Others seem more focused on corruption of regulatory agencies. And all those issues very much overlap and feed into each other. And there are problems that touch on everything. The key issue can be broadly captured under the rubric of gene flow/contamination. People worry about gene flow from GM crops to other crops and to weeds (environmental concerns and food-safety concerns, especially with pharming crops, and economic concerns for organic farmers); people worry about harvested crops being mixed (a la starlink); people worry about litigation from gene flow or contamination (mostly based on misunderstandings of Monsanto v Schmeiser). So I ended up with one big honking controversies article. Happy to hear thoughts about how to rationally separate!!13:55, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Answered below AIRcorn (talk) 00:21, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue 4

• No objection! Except that no article exists on genetically modified animals. Your link above points to an external links section in the GMO article.. strange. Jytdog (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• I would not move that article, if any should be move it is
  Genetically modified mammals with fish, insects, etc added as sub sections. AIRcorn (talk)
  02:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
• All this points, to me, to one article one main article on GMOs with subarticles to the various ... biological kingdoms maybe?? Jytdog (talk) 13:56, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Issue 5

• I disagree very strongly. People care about what they eat -- what goes into their bodies. GM Foods needs its own article. GM Crops are agriculture -- most of the information you need to know in order to understand them, has nothing to do with food. Much of the material now in the GM crops article was originally in the GM foods article and I pulled it out and put into the GM crops article, and then expanded it. It still needs more expansion in some sections as noted in the article. Farmers don't buy GM seed, thinking about food. They buy them because they make sense to farmers as businessmen. The companies don't make GM seed, thinking about food. They make them so that their customers --farmers -- will buy them. It's agribusiness. It's not about food. (I am not saying that is a good or bad thing -- no moral judgement - it is just the way the world is). It is absolutely true that the companies have to satisfy regulators in order to do business, because some (but not even most) of the product directly becomes food and so it must be safe enough to eat. Most of the product goes to feed livestock and poultry (which then become food). Much of the product is used industrially and never becomes food (cotton, corn for biofuel, potatoes for starch used industrially. etc). It is true that some GM crops used directly as food have failed because farmers' customers didn't want to buy it as food (the New Leaf potato failed because farmers' target customer, McDonald's, didn't want GM potatoes for french fries, even though they satisfied Americans' desire for perfect-looking, unblemished food). But GM crops is its own topic. Look how long that article is already! And the GM foods article also requires expansion itself.. not even close to describing all the food you find in the store that is GM.Jytdog (talk) 17:36, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
• Keep them separate. Not all crops are food (cotton is one of the most common GM crops and it is a stretch to label it food, plus you have Amflora and biofuels that are being developed) and with the development of the GM salmon soon not all food are not going to be crops. It still needs some work separating the two, but the crop/food split is a good one at my mind. I would bring back the GM plant article at some stage too, and make it a parent one of the crop one for much the same reasons, there are some important GM plants used in research that are not and never will be grown as crops. AIRcorn (talk) 02:12, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I have no quarrel with most of your points and the proposed separations of topics seem reasonable to me, but I am mildly puzzled as to why you exclude cotton from food plants as a topic. I don't eat much fabric or cotton wool myself, any more than I can help anyway, but I have eaten a lot of foods prepared or canned in cottonseed oil and have probably eaten more products of cottonseed cake than I know about directly, and a good deal more meat from animals that have eaten large quantities of cottonseed cake. Once you remove the gossypol, either artificially, or genetically, cotton is quite an important food plant. And beware what you say about hemp and poppies too! Just an obiter dictum... JonRichfield (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Not too familiar with

Genetically modified cotton article created, plus one for tobacco, Arabidopsis and other important plants. AIRcorn (talk)

12:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Right. That is the sort of thing I had in mind in my comment below when I spoke of "adjusting or even radically changing the suite of articles in the light of matters emerging..." JonRichfield (talk) 16:25, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks John! I am very aware that cotton is used to make cottonseed oil -- in fact I have been trying to get the Andrew Weil website to change its stupid page on cottonseed oil which is not accurate. http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/QAA400361/Is-Cottonseed-Oil-Okay.html See the Cottonseed_oil#Concerns_about_fats_and_toxicity that I edited to make accurate. And I do list cottonseed oil in the Genetically modified food article. In my comments above, I was not trying to exclude the use of cottonseed oil as food; I was just making the point that the cotton from GM cotton plants -- along with many other products of GM crops -- are not used for food. Sorry to have created a misunderstanding. Jytdog (talk) 13:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

No problemo. All such misunderstandings should only be so easily fixable ;-) JonRichfield (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: To forestall almost inevitable accusations of POV, if not actual corruption by evil multinationals, I have no material, contractual, or commercial interest in any form of GM that I know about. Idealistically and intellectually I am deeply interested in the matter and deeply alarmed and disgusted at such examples as I have seen so far of, for example, large scale plantings of crops with genes for defensive production of single substances for pest control; such abuses rank with the early days of misapplication of antibiotics, both in human medicine and in agricultural and veterinary practice.

Interesting comment! I like the comparison with antibiotics. GM seed with stacked traits are now 25% of the market and growing steadily (http://www.isaaa.org/resources/publications/briefs/43/executivesummary/default.asp), so things are snapping into a line of intelligent use quickly....Jytdog (talk) 13:19, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not aware of that trend. It is encouraging, though of course it is just a hint at the depth of responsibility that we bear when tinkering with such powerful tools. If we are not careful we shall simply turn a vital biotechnological opportunity into an exercise in the fostering of super-pests. JonRichfield (talk) 19:46, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

That said however, I regard GM as a field on a par with computing, the control of fire, printing, and the development of modern science in terms of historical importance for the future. There is no way that we could rationally justify ignoring or sidelining it. The question of how to present it, including how to split the topics into manageable articles is what matters, as already indicated in several of the contributions to this RFC. I have no particular quarrel with the proposed titles as presented, as long as each is coherently written and adequately cross-linked to the others. Questions such as what readers care about putting into their bodies are far less important than questions concerning the clarity and perspective of each article. Since the articles are in inevitably not independent, there must necessarily be some overlap, but this is hardly a new problem and requires no new techniques in dealing with it. Concise cross-reference plus clear reference to the main article for each topic is naturally important, but hardly challenging.

As I said, I have no quarrel with the proposed split, but I also would have no problems with adjusting or even radically changing the suite of articles in the light of matters emerging during their authorship and editing. JonRichfield (talk) 09:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Principles in using subarticles

Hi

IMO, any time we have subarticles, there should be a standard, brief paragraph in the "head" article (ideally taken from the lede of the subarticle and edited for concision if necessary) and a link to "main", and then keep an eye on those standard paragraphs for changes so that they stay short and plain. Ideally, no statistics would be in those standard paragraphs, otherwise when new data emerges we have to go back and update the data in many places which will inevitably lead to missing things and the overall suite falling out of sync within itself and with reality. I feel that we should try hard to avoid having long sections in different articles that cover the same matter. This was the state in which I found articles within this suite several months ago and most of my work has been consolidating overlapping material into clear, NPOV, well sourced discussions. Having a suite of articles covering various aspects of complex matter is indeed common in WIkipedia, but it is also commonly handed badly IMO. For instance in the suite of evolution articles, the main evolution article has a history section that is very long (7 paragraphs that fill my screen)... and there is an entire much longer subarticle on the history (about 10x longer). I glanced over the two texts and they don't tell the same story or even use the same refs.... this is not a happy thing for an encyclopedia and we should avoid doing this. This is for me a very important principle and I hope we can discuss it. Jytdog (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Organisation and consistency is the bane of Wikipedia. This seems reasonable though. AIRcorn (talk) 00:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

sorry you have thrown me off.. do you mean lack of organization and consistency are the bane (i.e. a source of harm) or do you mean that pursuing them is a bad thing? sorry, i don't know you that well and this was confusing...Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

It was meant slightly tongue-in-cheek. Due to its nature Wikipedia tends toward inconsistent disorganisation (anyone can edit after all). It is amazing that it works as well as it does. Providing order is an admirable thing, and I will help out as much as possible, but at the end of the day you are going against the natural inertia of the project and no matter what you do, if you want to keep it organised it is going to take constant watching. AIRcorn (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally hear you on that. :) I intend to watch for a long time. But I also want to structure things as much as possible, with explicit markers "This goes here, that goes there" - to help keep things in line.Jytdog (talk) 03:30, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see you getting consensus for the self references (issue 1 here). I would suggest using the hidden text function. Simply type<!-- Add appropriate comment here -->. It will only be seen by editors when the click the edit button. See this for how it might work. AIRcorn (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

(starting tabs over) Hi Aircorn... so far nobody has gone to the mat on the the self references. With respect to the objection raised in Issue 1, I wrote above, that if you read Wiki's self-reference policy, it is clear that these texts do not violate that policy. Nobody has responded to that so I assume nobody disagrees. My sense is that you and arc de ciel have objected on more stylistic grounds... but neither of you has gone to the mat on this. Is this indeed important to you?

But let's go back to the subject matter of this section. I have been trying to lay down a principle that sections for which we have big subarticles should just be very brief stubs - 1 paragraph taken from the lede of the subarticle, so that we don't end up with long, weedy descriptions of a given issue in different articles that extensively overlap with each other and with the main subarticle... which leads to inconsistencies and disorganization that you have described as a bane of wikipedia (and I heartily agree!). I thought we had kind of agreed on this... but you just recently expanded one of these stub sections with a bunch of material copied from a subarticle. So what gives? How shall we do this? I have been tempted to go into some of the articles you have created and apply this "stub principle" (for instance you have a section on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms" in your "regulation of genetic engineering" article that is my mind is waaaay too long and should be just a stub, as we have a whole article on "regulation of the release of genetically modified organisms") but i have held back from stubifying that section until (and only if) we reach consensus here.Jytdog (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

No one needs to got to the mat. We have consensus so far (me, Arc and Yutsi against you so far) not to use them. Is it important to me? No other things are more important at the moment, but one day I would like to get the articles up to

Good

standard and that is not going to happen with those instruction paragraphs in the lead.

I think we slightly misunderstood each other above. I agree that there should only be short summaries in the head articles, but we have a disagreement over what is short. I think that there needs to be enough information in the parent article that the reader will get a good overview of each topic, they should not be obliged to go to another article to find this. They should only have to go there if they want to find more details. Basically each article should stand on its own and stubby sections are not going to allow that. Three to four paragraphs covering the regulation and controversies should be enough, but anything less and the article is going to be incomplete. AIRcorn (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for talking! OK, on the guide paragraphs.. both Yutsi and Arc based their objection on their understanding of wiki policy, and as mentioned, I don't see how these run afoul of the self-reference policy. You seem to be basing your objection on that too, when you say that an article with these paragraphs, will never be Good. But what is the basis for that? Please explain...

Thank for zeroing in on the "stub" issue. I really appreciate it. So to you the key principle is that the article should stand on its own with respect to providing a good overview and that a compact stub is not enough. I had thought that the stub does provide an overview, but what I am hearing is that this is too high level for you -- it is not a "good" overview. So you want more of the story in all the articles. Whew that is all a tall order for complex matter like this. It helps me understand why you want longer "stubs." OK I need to think about this a bit! I will write again in a couple of days, this requires thinking and if I come into alignmnent with you, some major resetting for me. Thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 22:48, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

The

WP:Lead, which I don't think the navigational paragraphs meet. Another one is broadness, which is why I think we need more than one paragraph stubs in important sections. AIRcorn (talk)

16:41, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

All this done with the principle of subarticles mentioned above...Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything here. Although I would think you would have to cross reference food in the crops article and crops in the food one. As far as the controversies go I would have a section solely on the health concerns in GM food and one solely on the environmental concerns in the crops one. Then I would have a section over-viewing the other concerns. I think the length of the controversy section should depend on the article. GE, food, crops, plants, animal, organisms should probably get their own section with a good overview of the issues relevant to each topic and a {{

Bt brinjal it says in the first sentence of controversies "There are many controversies surrounding the development and release of genetically modified foods, ranging from human safety and environmental impacts to ethical concerns such as corporate control of the food supply and intellectual property rights" in the lead of the controversies section). The rest of the section just details the issues with the titles topic and does not dwell on the overall controversies. For the controversies article itself I would keep the public perception as the first header, then have health concerns, environmental concerns, regulatory concerns (including labeling), religious concerns and Intellectual Property concerns (including corporate control). Most should fit into one of these broad categories. It may become necessary to split health and environment to separate articles to reduce the size. AIRcorn (talk)

00:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You would have a pretty long section on controversies in (for example) the food article - in that one, focused on health. Then, again in the main controversies article, you would have another fairly long section on health (which is all about food)?Jytdog (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by pretty/fairly long. I was thinking two to three, possibly four paragraphs (maybe a bit more in the controversies article). The health section in the GM controversies is well beyond fairly long already, especially if you add in Pusztai and Serilini. For example the GM food could be presented like:

I like the smallification of text!! didn't know one could do that. Funny that you have "animal based" - there is no GM food from animals (yet). but in theory i see what you mean. But i disagree really really strongly that "GM crops" is main for plant-based GM food. GM crops is about agriculture. its not about food. why do you think gm crops is about food? more to say but that stopped me - one thing at a time!Jytdog (talk) 03:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Should have been see also like the animal one. AIRcorn (talk) 03:44, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Seems to me acceptable.Fox1942 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Today David Cameron unveiled plans for a National Health Service DNA database that could one day hold the genetic details of every person in Britain (see news reports here and here). Where does this development fit on Wikipedia? The United Kingdom National DNA Database is a criminal intelligence database. HelenOnline (talk) 13:00, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

According to this article in the Guardian, the UK already has a (health) DNA database, the UK Biobank which does have a Wikipedia article. HelenOnline (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

this is how my brain works can look at a thing and tell you how far way if its brokin most of the time my small brain fixes it i have know idea how this works as a child i fixed all household stuff and did not know^[1] how or why too this day — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.228.200.160 (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

What do you think? Details are here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teaktl17 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi all, I refer to the confusion on genetic studies as

Hello WikiProject Genetics people!
Apparently Kihara was one of the most significant scientists in wheat genetics. I've started the biographical article, but the science is beyond me.
Could you possibly have a little look into this? Thank you! Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Could we get a few eyes on the info at Talk:Recent African origin of modern humans#New study about hpalogroup A00. --Moxy (talk) 21:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Just a ping that I created Horse genome. Would appreciate anyone who'd like to add necessary scientific info to it, I am not a scientist, just a horse geek with an interest in equine genetics. Montanabw^(talk) 22:01, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

We have an edit war ongoing at African admixture in Europe - could we get a few experienced editors to look over this edit - see what is going on here.Moxy (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Pls see Talk:Genetic history of Europe#Europeans share common ancestors who lived 1,000 years ago -- Moxy (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

from the article:"The identical ancestors point for Homo sapiens has been estimated to between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago.[4][verification needed]"

(I was the one who inserted the verification needed, as well as, perhaps wrongly, put up a cleanup tag that someone else took down.)My real question, is, this true or at least somewhat verifiable as a minority viewpoint(which should be labelled as such, if so)? It cites something from Nature, which sounds good, but it's a pay site.I'm wondering if it's a letter to the editor. Since I've reead that people have been living in Australia for more than 50,000 years, and in the Americas for at least 13,000 year I think it's probably wrong.Thanks.-Rich Peterson76.218.104.120 (talk) 05:40, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It does appear to be a letter, although it was written by scientists/statisticians from MIT and Yale, includes statistical analysis and is well sourced. Here is a link to a free version of the full text. This article is a comment on the first one and appeared in the same version of Nature.

The 10,000 to 5,000 range does seem very low, considering that migration out of Africa is estimated at about 100,000 years ago. What this range is, is a statistical estimate created using computer models. I think what they're getting at is that populations in places like Australia and the Americas have not been in reproductive isolation for some time, so statistically there is no one alive now who wouldn't have a common ancestor 10,000 years ago in say Europe. The authors admit that their migration model is simplified and that data on migration rates is limited. I think the sentence in question could be misleading and should be clarified with details from the full reference and maybe the second link above. Sarahj2107 (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

thanks, could you or some other knowledgeable person around here do the clarification? This is important because, since my earlier post, i've found a religious website that uses the same nature article to support a literal interpretation of the bible. Frankly I wonder if that's the agenda of wikiproject genetic geneology.76.218.104.120 (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I will see if I have time later to do it. It doesn't surprise me that creationist would use it to try to support their beliefs, however, there is no agenda by wikiproject genetics or wikipedia in general. You should be careful about what kind of accusations you are making. Sarahj2107 (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say wikiproject genetics. Why are you so certain?76.218.104.120 (talk) 04:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I actually just read the article. It actually doesn't say anything about "5 to 10 thousand years ago". I tried to wrap my head around their statements to see if I could independently arrive at the article's 5 to 10k years ago claim via

This article, about controversial experiments on rats claimed to show that GM (Roundup-resistant) maize and Roundup "are extremely toxic", could do with some neutral eyes: it is the subject of heavy editing by SPAs. I had to semi-protect it for a short time this morning because of repeated attempts to blank it as an attack page. JohnCD (talk) 15:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Editors are invited to comment on (and improve) a

Hi all,

I came across the article

Hey,

I agree with you, that this article indeed needs some attention. Additionally I am confused about three things:

1. What is the intended difference between the articles ancient DNA and Paleogenetics ?

2. Shouldn't it also be mentioned that you can study "old" DNA that is "fossilized" within recent organisms, e.g. in Retropseudogenes, etc.? (see for example this study, which uses Retropseudogenes to analyze the contemporary and ancient human transcriptome: Shemesh, R., Novik, A., Edelheit, S., & Sorek, R. (2006). Genomic fossils as a snapshot of the human transcriptome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 103(5), 1364–1369.) IronicPseudonym (talk) 15:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Input is needed regarding a dispute about how best to represent the results of the INMEGEN study.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Can any qualified individuals in the project comment as to whether the opinions expressed here by "bioscience resource project": [5] are pseudoscientific? Also their main news website: [6]. Context: [7]. Here is the Wikipedia context:

For a while I've been compiling a bibliography of

See

From the talk page:

Please update this article.

Can someone please update this article. Some of these citations are over thirty years old. Listing Pseudogene as dysfunctional is just not the case anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.65.170.183 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

In support of this request:

Protein Coding 'Junk Genes' May Be Linked to Cancer

In the current paper in Nature Methods, researchers present a new proteogenomics method, which makes it possible to track down protein coding genes in the remaining 98.5% of the genome, something that until now has been an impossible task to pursue. Among other things, the research shows that some pseudogenes produce proteins indicating that they indeed have a function.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/11/131117155500.htm

-- Jo3sampl (talk) 14:01, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't this stub be called "Anthropological Genetics" which seems to be the most common name (although both are used) and considerably expanded? Cross-posting to

There are a lot of POV-pushing content forks among the anthropology articles at present. The term "physical anthropology" seems to be being supplanted by the term "biological anthropology" in the current professional terminology,Biological Anthropology section of American Anthropological Association and yet here on Wikipedia there are several articles that all stake claims to being the general article on biological anthropology, with competing points of view because of poor sourcing to push ideologies. The article you mention should probably turn into a redirect to the best existing article, and eventually some of the articles will have to be deprecated (as POV forks) and merged into one main article with neutral point of view. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 14:46, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few Wikipedia articles that cite primary research publications on human genetics, often to push a particular point of view on human race categories. I've been reading university textbooks on human genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate

The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The guidelines, consistent with the

On the topic of human population genetics and variation within and among human populations, a widely cited primary research article is a 1972 article by Richard Lewontin, which I have seen cited in many of the review articles, monographs, and textbooks I have read over the years.

• S2CID 21095796. Archived
  (PDF) from the original on 25 November 2010. Retrieved 23 November 2013.

Some Wikipedia articles give weighty emphasis to commentary essay published years after Lewontin published his primary research article on human diversity, when his primary research results had been replicated in many other studies and his bottom line conclusion that "about 85% of the total genetical variation is due to individual differences within populations and only 15% to differences between populations or ethnic groups" had been taken up by many textbooks on genetics and medicine. In 2003, A. W. F. Edwards wrote a commentary essay in the journal BioEssays

• PMID 12879450. Archived
  (PDF) from the original on 25 November 2010. Retrieved 23 November 2013.

in which Edwards proposes a statistical model for classifying individuals into groupings based on haplotype data. Edwards wrote, "There is nothing wrong with Lewontin’s statistical analysis of variation, only with the belief that it is relevant to classification," pointing to his own work with Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, the author of the book

• ISBN 978-0-691-08750-4. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• PMID 19797062
  . Retrieved 23 November 2013.

• Koenig, Barbara A.; Lee, Sandra Soo-jin; Richardson, Sarah S., eds. (2008). Revisiting Race in a Genomic Age. New Brunswick (NJ): Rutgers University Press.
  ISBN 978-0-8135-4324-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Whitmarsh, Ian; Jones, David S., eds. (2010). What's the Use of Race?: Modern Governance and the Biology of Difference. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press.
  ISBN 978-0-262-51424-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Ramachandran, Sohini; Tang, Hua; Gutenkunst, Ryan N.; Bustamante, Carlos D. (2010). "Chapter 20: Genetics and Genomics of Human Population Structure". In Speicher, Michael R.; Antonarakis, Stylianos E.; Motulsky, Arno G. (eds.). Vogel and Motulsky's Human Genetics: Problems and Approaches (PDF). Heidelberg: Springer Scientific. pp. 589–615.
  ISBN 978-3-540-37653-8. Retrieved 29 October 2013. Most studies of human population genetics begin by citing a seminal 1972 paper by Richard Lewontin bearing the title of this subsection [29]. Given the central role this work has played in our field, we will begin by discussing it briefl y and return to its conclusions throughout the chapter. In this paper, Lewontin summarized patterns of variation across 17 polymorphic human loci (including classical blood groups such as ABO and M/N as well as enzymes which exhibit electrophoretic variation) genotyped in individuals across classically defined 'races' (Caucasian, African, Mongoloid, South Asian Aborigines, Amerinds, Oceanians, Australian Aborigines [29] ). A key conclusion of the paper is that 85.4% of the total genetic variation observed occurred within each group. That is, he reported that the vast majority of genetic differences are found within populations rather than between them. In this paper and his book The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change [30], Lewontin concluded that genetic variation, therefore, provided no basis for human racial classifications. ... His finding has been reproduced in study after study up through the present: two random individuals from any one group (which could be a continent or even a local population) are almost as different as any two random individuals from the entire world (see proportion of variation within populations in Table 20.1 and [20]). {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Krimsky, Sheldon; Sloan, Kathleen, eds. (2011). Race and the Genetic Revolution: Science, Myth, and Culture. Columbia University Press.
  ISBN 978-0-231-52769-9. Retrieved 31 August 2013. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Tattersall, Ian; DeSalle, Rob (1 September 2011). Race?: Debunking a Scientific Myth. Texas A&M University Anthropology series number fifteen. Texas A&M University Press.
  ISBN 978-1-60344-425-5. Retrieved 17 November 2013. Actually, the plant geneticist Jeffry Mitton had made the same observation in 1970, without finding that Lewontin's conclusion was fallacious. And Lewontin himself not long ago pointed out that the 85 percent within-group genetic variability figure has remained remarkably stable as studies and genetic markers have multiplied, whether you define populations on linguistic or physical grounds. What's more, with a hugely larger and more refined database to deal with, D. J. Witherspoon and colleagues concluded in 2007 that although, armed with enough genetic information, you could assign most individuals to 'their' population quite reliably, 'individuals are frequently more similar to members of other populations than to members of their own.' {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• ISBN 978-3-642-20992-5
  . Retrieved 23 November 2013. The massive efforts to study the human genome in detail have produced extraordinary amounts of genetic data. Although we still fail to understand the molecular bases of most complex traits, including many common diseases, we now have a clearer idea of the degree of genetic resemblance between humans and other primate species. We also know that humans are genetically very close to each other, indeed more than any other primates, that most of our genetic diversity is accounted for by individual differences within populations, and that only a small fraction of the species' genetic variance falls between populations and geographic groups thereof.

• Bliss, Catherine (23 May 2012). Race Decoded: The Genomic Fight for Social Justice. Stanford University Press.
  ISBN 978-0-8047-7408-6. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• PMID 24032721
  . The small genomic differences between populations and the extensive allele sharing across continents explain why historical attempts to identify, once and for good, major biological groups in humans have always failed. ... We argue that racial labels may not only obscure important differences between patients but also that they have become positively useless now that cheap and reliable methods for genotyping are making it possible to pursue the development of truly personalized medicine.

• Marks, Jonathan (October 2013). "The Nature/Culture of Genetic Facts". Annual Review of Anthropology. 42. Annual Reviews: 247–267.
  ISSN 0084-6570
  . Retrieved 23 November 2013. Lewontin's conclusions have stood up remarkably well, across diverse kinds of genetic markers, but this produces an odd paradox.

An author who is intimately familiar with Edwards's statistical approach, because he has been a collaborator in fieldwork and co-author on primary research articles with Edwards, is Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza. Cavalli-Sforza is a medical doctor who was a student of Ronald Fisher in statistics, who has devoted most of his career to genetic research. In an invited review article for the 2007 Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics, Cavalli-Sforza joins issue directly with the underlying factual disagreement among previous authors, but cites different previous publications.

• PMID 17408354. Retrieved 23 November 2013. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Lee, Sandra; Mountain, Joanna; Koenig, Barbara; Altman, Russ; Brown, Melissa; Camarillo, Albert;
  PMID 18638359. Retrieved 3 December 2013. We recognize that racial and ethnic categories are created and maintained within sociopolitical contexts and have shifted in meaning over time Human genetic variation within continents is, for the most part, geographically continuous and clinal, particularly in regions of the world that have not received many immigrants in recent centuries [18]. Genetic data cannot reveal an individual's full geographic ancestry precisely, although emerging research has been used to identify geographic ancestry at the continental and subcontinental levels [3,19]. Genetic clusters, however, are far from being equivalent to sociopolitical racial or ethnic categories. {{cite journal}}: Invalid |display-authors=18 (help
  )

• Barbujani, Guido; Pigliucci, Massimo (2013). "Human races" (PDF). Current Biology. 23 (5): R185–R187.
  PMID 23473555
  . Retrieved 2 December 2013. What does this imply for the existence of human races? Basically, that people with similar genetic features can be found in distant places, and that each local population contains a vast array of genotypes. Among the first genomes completely typed were those of James Watson and Craig Venter, two U.S. geneticists of European origin; they share more alleles with Seong-Jin Kim, a Korean scientist (1,824,482 and 1,736,340, respectively) than with each other (1,715,851). This does not mean that two random Europeans are expected to be genetically closer to Koreans than to each other, but certainly highlights the coarseness of racial categorizations.

I hope these sources are of help to Wikipedians working on articles within the scope of this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I would love to add a genome information box to the pages of species that includes the number of chromosomes, karyotype, size of the genome, GC content, and so on. I've mocked up a simple example on User:Sdjackman. Could a Wikipedia veteran help me implement this? Thanks, Shaun —Preceding undated comment added 01:17, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Shaun, I think this idea has potential. But given that such a box could end up present on thousands of articles about species, I'd suggest first investigating whether there's broad agreement that such a box is desired. The logical place to ask would be Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life, but that page doesn't seem to be well trafficked, so perhaps Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) would be better. Note there's already a Template:Infobox genome, although so far few articles contain it ([8]). Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 01:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! I hadn't noticed that Template:Infobox_genome already exists. Thanks for pointing me to this resource, Adrian. I've added a Infobox genome to my talk page User:Sdjackman. —Preceding undated comment added 02:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a lot of interesting articles based on the ongoing research in behavior genetics, both in humans and in nonhuman animals. I've been reading university textbooks on genetics "for fun" since the 1980s, and for even longer I've been visiting my state flagship university's vast BioMedical Library to look up topics on human medicine and health care policy. That university has long been a center of research on human behavior genetics, being the site of a major study of monozygotic twins reared apart. For the last four years, I have attended a weekly graduate seminar there on behavior genetics, keeping up with the latest publications on all aspects of behavior genetics, from the genes to the behaviors. On the hypothesis that better sources build better articles as all of us here collaborate

The guidelines on reliable sources for medicine remind editors that "it is vital that the biomedical information in all types of articles be based on reliable, third-party, published sources and accurately reflect current medical knowledge."

Ideal sources for such content includes literature reviews or systematic reviews published in reputable medical journals, academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant field and from a respected publisher, and medical guidelines or position statements from nationally or internationally recognised expert bodies.

The guidelines, consistent with the

Other Wikipedians who watch the article Behavioural genetics did all of us a great favor on the article talk page by suggesting helpful sources. In particular, User:Pete.Hurd suggested an authoritative textbook on behavior genetics, covering both the human and the animal research, and following up on his suggestion led me to several other helpful sources with similar subject cataloging in libraries.

Noting that Behavioural genetics is listed as a start-class, high-importance article by the WikiProjects for both genetics and psychology, I will start a workpage of an article update draft in my user space, relying on the sources recommended on the article talk page and on others listed here (in approximate order of date of publication, which is also almost but not exactly the order in which I have read them over the last few years):

• ISBN 978-1-4051-1061-7. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Bazzett, Terence J. (2008). An Introduction to Behavior Genetics. Sunderland (MA): Sinauer. pp. 241–242.
  ISBN 978-0-87893-049-4. Taken together, these findings suggest that about 50% of the variation seen in IQ scores is accounted for by genetics and a nearly equal percentage is accounted for by environment. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Kim, Yong-Kyu, ed. (25 March 2009). Handbook of Behavior Genetics. Springer.
  ISBN 978-0-387-76727-7. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Flint, Jonathan; Greenspan, Ralph J.; Kendler, Kenneth S. (28 January 2010). How Genes Influence Behavior. Oxford University Press.
  ISBN 978-0-19-955990-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Anholt, Robert R. H.; Mackay, Trudy F. C. (2010). Principles of behavioral genetics. Academic Press.
  ISBN 978-0-12-372575-2. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Goldman, David (2012). Our Genes, Our Choices: How Genotype and Gene Interactions Affect Behavior. Elsevier Academic Press.
  OCLC 773025118
  . Retrieved 7 November 2013.

• Segal, Nancy L. (2012). Born Together—Reared Apart. Cambridge (MA): Harvard University Press.
  ISBN 978-0-674-05546-9. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Plomin, Robert; DeFries, John C.; Knopik, Valerie S. (24 September 2012). Behavioral Genetics. Shaun Purcell (Appendix: Statistical Methods in Behaviorial Genetics). Worth Publishers.
  ISBN 978-1-4292-4215-8. Retrieved 4 September 2013. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Turkheimer, Eric; Gottesman, Irving I. (1991). "Is H² = 0 a null hypothesis anymore?". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 14 (3): 410–411.
  S2CID 143733356. Archived
  from the original on 19 April 2013. Retrieved 22 November 2013.

• Turkheimer, Eric (October 2000). "Three Laws of Behavior Genetics and What They Mean" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 9 (5): 160–164.
  S2CID 2861437
  . Retrieved 29 October 2013.

• Johnson, Wendy; Turkheimer, E.; Gottesman, Irving; Bouchard, Thomas (2009). "Beyond Heritability: Twin Studies in Behavioral Research" (PDF). Current Directions in Psychological Science. 18 (4): 217–220.
  PMID 20625474
  . Retrieved 21 November 2010.

• Johnson, W. (2010). "Understanding the Genetics of Intelligence: Can Height Help? Can Corn Oil?". Current Directions in Psychological Science. 19 (3): 177–182.
  ISSN 0963-7214. Archived
  (PDF) from the original on 25 August 2013. Retrieved 15 December 2013.

• Johnson, Wendy; Penke, Lars; Spinath, Frank M. (2011). "Understanding Heritability: What it is and What it is Not". European Journal of Personality. 25 (4): 287–294.
  S2CID 41842465. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2011. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help
  )

• Dick, Danielle M. (2011). "Gene-Environment Interaction in Psychological Traits and Disorders". Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 7: 383–409.
  PMID 21219196
  .

• Spinath, Frank M.; Johnson, Wendy (2011). "Chapter 10: Behavior Genetics". In Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas; von Stumm, Sophie; Furnham, Adrian (eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Individual Differences. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing Ltd.
  ISBN 978-1-4443-3438-8. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |laysummary= ignored (help
  )

• Maxson, Stephen C. (10 October 2012). "Chapter 1: Behavioral Genetics". In Weiner, Irving B.; Nelson, Randy J.; Mizumori, Sheri (eds.). Handbook of Psychology (PDF). Vol. Volume 3: Behavioral Neuroscience. John Wiley & Sons.
  ISBN 978-0-470-89059-2. Archived from the original on 2013. Retrieved 15 December 2013. {{cite book}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |archivedate= (help
  )

Some content is plagiarised from the http://creation.com/genetic-redundancy article (the author on CMI is "Peter Borger"). See this difference, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetic_redundancy&diff=524203465&oldid=489462530 and note the phrasing of the odd English wording...

WIK = "the major part of the websites makes only a few links"

CMI = "the major part of the websites makes only a few links"

The addition was by an IP that is the University of Basel. Perhaps related there is or was a Dutch biologist who works on asthma research called Peter Borger in Basel. If Borger put in the material then he should cite where it is first used (Journal of Creation 22(2):79–84 August 2008 though that's probably not a WP:RS by WP standards) and if it is copied by another (non-Author) then it is a copyright violation unless the original is compatible (which for CMI it is not). That aside the wording is conducive to promoting an Intelligent Design agenda of casting doubts about Darwin and natural selection (with the addition of "A Darwinian Paradox" and "This is because the redundant character of the genes (which are not associated with genetic duplication and which do not mutate faster) seems to defy natural selection."). The article needs going over to remove Intelligent Design/Creation POV. Fromthehill (talk) 06:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Fromthehill. That content was added by 131.152.227.74 in November 2012. There have been no substantive edits to Genetic redundancy since then, so I've reverted to the version prior to 131.152.227.74's edits. I'm hoping I'll get time to clean up the article a little more over coming days. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I've archived some inactive threads to subsections which were notifications about discussions that have since been closed. — Cirt (talk) 11:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello geneticists! Is the above old abandoned Afc submission about a notable topic? I notice that there is Identity by descent. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Identity by state is an important concept in genetics and could well be notable. But the AfC article doesn't have any information in it beyond the definition and the topic is treated better in Identity by descent. The two refs are just to random papers that happen to mention IBS, but the best refs for IBS are probably textbooks at this point. So I don't think there is anything worth preserving in this abandoned draft. If deleted, I'll create a redirect for Identity by state to Identity by descent. Thanks, --Mark viking (talk) 20:00, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, it is probably most notable as a subsection of identity by descent. Canada Hky (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have tagged it for deletion (G13). Thanks again for taking time to check this out. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:44, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

These two articles seem to treat "element" and "module" as roughly synonymous. I'm not a genetecist but is there a reason to have two articles? If not then they should be merged at the most common title. Thanks. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

There articles don't state it clearly, but a regulatory module is a set of tightly clustered transcription factor binding sites, whereas a regulatory element is any sequence of DNA that regulates transcription. See for example, [9] and [10]. There is evidence that regulatory modules have interactions among the binding sites and so are more than just sets of independent regulatory elements. Because of this, I think the two articles should be kept separate. --Mark viking (talk) 23:54, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Dear genetics experts: This old abandoned Afc submission will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the article be kept? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

It's in mainspace now. —Anne Delong (talk) 00:58, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Can anyone help with

• Draft:Mayan Genetics. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Drug2Gene. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that the creator has bypassed AfC and created the article at Epigenome editing. --Mark viking (talk) 17:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I have done a history merge to repair the cut-and-paste move, and this is once again at

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Epigenome editing. JohnCD (talk

) 22:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Is this database notable? Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MethBase. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Opinions are needed from this WikiProject on this matter (

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Selective Chemical Labeling of 5- hydroxymethylcytosine. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 19:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place that may be of interest to some members of this project at Talk:XY sex-determination system#Proposed merge with Maternal influence on sex determination. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 12:14, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Genetics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Anyone interested in representing the project in this interview? Best, –Mabeenot (talk) 00:13, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Replied. I look forward to hearing from the other editors involved in this project. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 01:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm delighted to say that the

As discussed at Talk:Genetic history of the Iberian Peninsula#Page move suggestion there are a number of pages relevant to the apparently defunct WikiProject Human Genetic History, that have pages of the form "Genetic history of" <geographic location>. It is suggested that these might be helpfully moved to something like "Genetic history of people of" <geographic location> or "Human Genetic history of" <geographic location>. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that User:InceptionBot generates a new article list for Genetics. There are three examples for adding the results to a Project page, replacing Russia with Genetics. The search rules can be modified. --Bamyers99 (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe we can now, in 2011, assume that the concept of prokaryotes vs. eukaryotes is obsolete... As it is now agreed by everyone with a decent background in biology; archaea are closer to eukaryotes than they are to bacteria. Both archaea and bacteria are still considered "prokaryotes"; which makes no logical sense. Therefore, I propose; like many did before me, that when an author refers to bacteria, the term "bacteria" is used. If writing about archaea, usage of the term "archaea" is best. Finally, if speaking of both; it is preferable to say "bacteria and archaea" or "archaea and bacteria" than "prokaryotes".

I think a detail like this one would indeed contribute to more accurate and reliable articles.

Archaea include halophiles and thermophiles. Since these organisms lack nuclei, it makes more sense to categorize them as prokaryotes. Moreover, they do not share several qualities with eukaryotes. Except for the lack of peptidoglycan and the inability to cause disease in humans, archaea have numerous similarities to eubacteria. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:E:1600:403:F8ED:D19A:AC46:E938 (talk) 23:54, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

N-32 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.203.202.109 (talk) 15:59, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to throw such terms overboard just because they don't refer to

monophyletic groups. Terms like reptile (paraphyletic) and warm-blooded animal (polyphyletic, like procaryote) are quite useful as long as it is made clear that they don't define a genetic relationship. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk

) 16:24, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I support ἀνυπόδητος. If terms designating polyphyletic groups were banned, writing about biology would be much harder. Maproom (talk) 19:38, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Would you please review and verify the Genetics section on article

RfC response: 2

Responding to the RfC, I've read the section and am mystified ... What exactly does the following mean in non-technical English?:

A revelation of the study is the surprising presence of a Turkic-rooted woman among the Pokrovka Sarmatians, and the complete absence of any pointers characteristic for the Indo-Iranians, who reputedly constituted a bulk, if not all, of the Sarmatians.

Is it trying to say this: that various people wrote that the Sarmatians were Indo-Iranian in origin; but they are wrong? If so, perhaps it could be rewritten more simply. Also, the word "reputedly" is a weasel word, so if we report the claim about the Sarmatians being mostly or all Indo-Iranian, a citation is necessary. Here is my first try at rewriting the sentence which caused my difficulty:

The study of the Pokrovka Sarmatians revealed two surprises: they include a woman of Turkic origin, and they include no people of Indo-Iranian descent. The second point refutes the claim ^{[citation needed]} that the Sarmatians were all, or mostly, Indo-Iranian in origin.

However, the second sentence contains a logical fallacy, and it's as follows. Unless the people in the Pokrovka sample numbered at least one half of all Sarmatians - which is extremely unlikely - the fact that the sample contains no people of Indo-Iranian descent does not refute the claim that the Sarmatians were mostly (i.e. more than 50%) Indo-Iranian in origin. So here's my second attempt:

The study of the Pokrovka Sarmatians revealed two surprises: they include a woman of Turkic origin, and they include no people of Indo-Iranian descent. The second point refutes the claim ^{[citation needed]} that the Sarmatians were all Indo-Iranian in origin.

Note that I've glossed over one point: I've translated "the complete absence of any pointers characteristic for the Indo-Iranians" into "no people of Indo-Iranian descent". If this is an over-simplification, feel free to fix it. yoyo (talk) 12:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, genetics experts! Here's an old Afc submission that will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic, and should the draft be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 03:56, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I can understand the jargon in the article. But it leaves me with the feeling that "community genetics" is not really a field of study, just a label. It lists plenty of research papers, but no actual results, conjectures, or findings. Maproom (talk) 07:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maproom. I was curious, so I did an Internet search, and found that there is a Journal of Community Genetics and that there was another publication Community Genetics which has changed its name to Public Health Genomics at about the same time that the former journal started publishing. Is this latter term perhaps the more common name for the field? I am a musician, not a biologist, so I have no idea. —Anne Delong (talk) 12:00, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

These are two separate fields. Public Health Genomics and Journal of Community Genetics are both about the medical applications of genetics to human communities. The Wikipedia article however is about the relationships between plants and the populations of insects and other small creatures which live on them. So, IMHO, if the article is accepted it should be given a less confusing title. Maproom (talk) 13:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow, that would be confusing. I wonder if the term really is used in both contexts. It seems unlikely. Thanks for pointing that out. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm convinced that the term is used in both contexts, quite often for both. There was previously a page called Population groups in biomedicine which would seem to be quite a good match to the medical meaning of community genetics. I can't find the discussion about the merger of that article, perhaps someone else could have more luck in tracking that down. If that merger could be undone, then perhaps Community genetics (medicine) could be a redirect to it, and Community genetics (ecology) could work as a title for this one. I think the subject of this proposed page is worthwhile, though the draft could use some work to make it a less one-sided view. There is a substantially different definition "Community genetics is the study of the interaction between genes within a species and populations of other species in a community." visible in google scholar, though the article itself is not accessible. I think it is also not true that foliar arthropods have been the main focus so far, intertidal communities seem to be a significant area of research. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 21:19, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The medical side could perhaps be hatnoted to medical genetics. Lavateraguy (talk) 21:31, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, Maproom has edited the draft, so it will not be deleted now for six months. Hopefully during that time it will be improved to the point where it can be moved to mainspace. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:40, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

So correcting an error postpones deletion? I never knew that. I shall be more careful in future. Maproom (talk) 17:23, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the db-g13 deletion reason is that the content of the Afc submission has not been edited for six months or more. This is to prevent old drafts from hanging around for years. A draft could be deleted for other reasons, though, such as being an attack page or a hoax. —Anne Delong (talk) 03:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

There is a general consensus on the article talk page that the amount of material in this article on genetics (at

This article section desperately needs the experience of editors who can objectively assess the comparative value of these genetic studies and help other editors decide what to include, what to prune and the amount of emphasis and weight these studies should receive. Your assistance would be welcome but any editor taking this on would be advised to announce what you are doing on the article talk page. Thank you for considering this request for assistance! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Category: Human gene and Category: Human genes should probably be merged. Although I'm not a specialist, the only difference I can see is that one's title is singular and the other plural. There probably is a MOS item about singular or plural category titles. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear genetics experts: Here's another old AfC submission that appears to be relevant to this project. Is this a notable topic, and should the page be kept rather than being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me worthy to be an article. But I have two comments about it, which I would prefer to make at the article's talk page, but being an Article for Creation it doesn't have one:

• It repeatedly mentions "nitrogen level". This can't mean the total amount of nitrogen in the cell. And it can't mean elementary nitrogen, N₂. So what does it mean? The article ought to explain.
• The "Homology" section makes no sense at all. Homology between what and what?

Maproom (talk) 16:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maproom. I've moved it to Draft: space, so you should now be able to start up a talk page and add your comments. This is something new that is being tried out; let me know what you think. The AfC comments at the top of the article will disappear when it's accepted, but the talk page comments will remain. I'm pretty sure that the title shouldn't start with a capital letter; the software did that automatically. Am I right? —Anne Delong (talk) 16:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

You are right on the capitalisation, compare lac operon. I'll put my comments on its new talk page when I have more time. Maproom (talk) 17:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the title by adding a "lowercase title" template. Apparently this just hides the capital letter rather than really changing the title... oh well, whatever works. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

In mid-March, two students announced on the talk page of the Gene cluster article, that they were planning to improve the article, as a college project. They requested other editors not to edit the article until their project was assessed, om May 7th. They then made many changes to the article, adding a lot of new material.

Other editors praised their efforts. I criticised them, as I believed they were incorporating errors and misunderstandings into the article. They accepted some of my criticisms, and made some corrections.

Their deadline is now a week past, and I assume that their project is over, though they and their professor have given no feedback on it. I believe that they have made many improvements to the article, most notably the addition of material about Hox genes and the Homeobox family. But I also believe that some of the errors they introduced are still there, and should be removed.

However, I believe that I am not the best person to clear up the errors. While I believe I am technically competent to do it, I feel some "commitment" to the article, which must be a bad thing. I would prefer another editor to take a lead here. I have already stated many of my views on the errors, on the article's talk page, and can provide further details if asked. Maproom (talk) 11:19, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/FAM163B
• Draft:TMEM 134. FoCuSandLeArN (talk
  ) 01:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Draft:Family with sequence similarity 63, member A
• Draft:Acyl-CoA Thioesterase 9
• Draft:GPATCH11
• Draft:Selenoprotein O
• Draft:Transmembrane 86A
• Draft:C12orf66
• Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Chromosome 7 Open Reading Frame 50 (C7orf50)
• Draft:ZNF691

These all seem to be part of some university project. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 13:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Little or nothing is known about their function of many of these genes. Furthermore many of these drafts contain a large amount of original research in the form of

Draft:TMEM 134. The rest should be rejected as both non-notable and containing original research. Boghog (talk

) 19:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Are those other 2 ready for mainspace or do they need previous editing? Ping me when possible. Regards, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello. Although the

talk

) 18:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

talk

) 23:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. The lede makes little sense to me, and I don't think that's because I lack the technical knowledge to understand it. Where would you like me to comment? Maproom (talk) 16:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Um, you can either install the reviewing script

here or comment here and I can link this convo from the article. Cheers, FoCuSandLeArN (talk

) 17:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

• Draft:CCDC47. FoCuSandLeArN (talk
  ) 17:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Draft:CXorf66. FoCuSandLeArN (talk
  ) 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Draft:FAM98A. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 20:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
• Draft:Multiple Epidermal Growth Factor-like Domains 8
  .
• Draft:WWC2. FoCuSandLeArN (talk
  ) 20:20, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try here.

• From the first paragraph: "In fact, when the transposon inserts itself in the gene, the gene's function will be disrupted." Which transposoon? Which gene? I wonder if it means "In fact, when a transposon inserts itself in a gene, the gene's function will be disrupted."
• Second paragraph: "Transposon sequencing (Tn-seq) is a type of transposon insertion sequencing." But presumably, transposon insertion sequencing is a type of transposon sequencing, making this definition circular, or perhaps redundant. And if the reader is expected to understand "transposon insertion sequencing", it ought to link to an explanation.
• Third paragraph: "next generation sequencing". This sounds like marketing language. If it isn't, it needs to be defined (and it would be better to use a less ephemeral term, if one exists).
• Third paragraph again: "our knowledge of gene function remains the limiting factor in our understanding of the role genes play." This seems to mean ""our knowledge of what genes do remains the limiting factor in our understanding what genes do." I hope it can be made clearer.

I have not read the body of the article in detail, but it would benefit from copy-editing. Would you like me to do some directly on the article? Maproom (talk) 22:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Please do so if possible. I'll place the link to this discussion. Thanks, FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 01:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have accepted this article into mainspace:
  Transposon Sequencing. It's primary issue is that it's language is too technical. It would benefit from expert attention. If you feel I have made a mistake here, please nominate for deletion. Cheers, --LukeSurl ^{t c}
  22:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The subject matter is technical (and possibly to specialised for Wikipedia), so it's hard to avoid technical language. Those who can understand the technical language will notice further problems, such as those I have detailed above and on the article's talk page. No-one seems bothered about fixing them. It seems that someone has created a very specialised technical article, and then abandoned it to its fate, which, I suggest, should be deletion. I find the subject fascinating, and would like to understand it better. But while the article is unlikely to be improved from its current state, WP is probably better off without it. Maproom (talk) 13:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello WP:Genetics. This article needs expert attention. Thanks to anyone willing to check and verify. Please, see also discussion at

That should never be an article. It says, in effect, "phenotypes sometimes vary for genetic reasons", and then gives one obscure example (it could have given an obvious one like human hair color). Maproom (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Any chance to improve the article? I've found an article on the topic in a reputable journal, see external links. --

Vejvančický (talk / contribs

) 08:10, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Adding a second obscure example would not be an improvement. If you really want to retain and add to the article, use an obvious example such as hair colour in humans. Maproom (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Please could someone have a look at Draft:Epigenetics of partner preference and comment on Draft talk:Epigenetics of partner preference? Can it made into an appropriate article? Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:50, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

This is an interesting (at least to me) article about a newly-discovered phenomenon. I'll write something on its talk page. Maproom (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the new stub Allelotype conflates genotype, allele frequency, and genotyping. Scholarly sources mainly deal with chromosomal signatures of cancer cells. If any experts can improve it beyond a dictionary definition, or if it can hold water and can ever be more than a stub definition, great, other wise a judicious merge to larger articles may be warranted (I'm not a fan of isolated stubs differing by pedantically subtly elements, but in this case I'm not yet certain.) Cheers, --Animalparty-- (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Allelotype is a term used by some in the cancer community as a generalization of karyotpye to encompass copy number variation at the sequence level (loss of heterozygosity, variation in tandem repeat and microsatellite numbers) in addition to simple polymorphisms typically expressed in SNP genotypes. There exist secondary sources such as Determination of Cancer Allelotype, by Jennifer J. Ascaño and Steven M. Powell. Sorry, I don't have time to develop the article at this point. --Mark viking (talk) 20:54, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Compare Bivalent (genetics) with compare with Chromosome . We have links going to both of these, and there seems to be complete overlap, unless someone expand the bivalent article. If we do, I think there's a lot to be said for making Chromosome pairing its article title, I spotted this in the AfCs, but Idon;t have time to work on it further. DGG ( talk ) 16:55, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that "Chromosome pairing" would be a better title. Maproom (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Hello again, genetics experts. Is this abandoned AfC submission about a notable topic, and should the page be saved and improved instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 02:22, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

A company which supplies tools used in research labs. Doesn't seem notable, and provides no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 07:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; I suspected as much, but since I thought that I'd better check with someone who could understand what the compandy did. —Anne Delong (talk) 10:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear genetics experts: This old AfC submission is about to be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable topic? Should it be kept and improved instead? —Anne Delong (talk) 01:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I would say it is notable, but not a topic. It is a dictionary-type definition, of a basic term and of three derived terms. And there's another at Gene stacked event. Maproom (talk) 06:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; it's been deleted now. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Dear genetics experts: Is this old AfC submission about a notable topic, and should it be kept instead of being deleted as a stale draft? —Anne Delong (talk) 04:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The proposed article does not say what a "cer sequence" actually is, and the source it cites does not help. The subject is genuine, but imho too specialised to justify a WP article. Maproom (talk) 07:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If no one edits it, it should disappear shortly. —Anne Delong (talk) 01:37, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a very specific fix for a very specific problem. If I understand it correctly, people working with plasmid ColE1 may have issues with it as it seems to form monomers before the researcher introduces the wanted nucleotides, but using Exonuclease III-generated deletions, takes out the "cer" site that causes this premature closing of the plasmid. Does not seem notable to have a WP article. Cheers,

talk

) 17:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

There's been

Genetics experts: is Draft:ANNK1 and addictive behaviors a notable topic? --Cerebellum (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, definitely notable. But I have not checked if there's some other article about effectively the same topic. Maproom (talk) 14:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I also think that Taq1A is a notable subject as it relates to addiction/cravings. It already has some several good quality references and I think it is worth bringing it up to shape. Since it also touches psychology and mental disorders, I rather not edit that article. Cheers,

talk

) 20:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, article is now at

ANNK1 and addictive behaviors. --Cerebellum (talk

) 10:08, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Major changes made in this article based in part on genetic claims which I think are being misrepresented. I've commented at

This is a tough problem in most articles about genetics of human beings on Wikipedia, as editors rush to make unwarranted claims about ethnic group relationships from unreplicated, small-n primary research studies, in complete violation of the

Wikipedia content guideline on reliable sources. At length, I am finding some current peer-reviewed review articles and textbook chapters that have begun to summarize and give a balanced overview of the many primary research studies, but meanwhile there are dozens of articles on Wikipedia that need clean-up to avoid overreliance on primary studies in human genetics to make overbroad conclusions about ethnic group relationships. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit

) 14:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Any general improvements to Obesity#Genetics / Genetics of obesity would be most welcome (see also Talk:Obesity#Genetics). Thanks, 86.134.200.29 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I feel the so-called "

The "ethics" section is very poor. IMHO it should be rewritten from scratch, or deleted. As it is it presents sociologists as interfering busybodies, who object to a procedure while understanding neither its purpose nor its risks. I am sure this is unfair; but I do not have access to the sources cited.

And what is the word "vacillating" doing there? Maproom (talk) 07:27, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. I've also redirected Mitochondrial replacement to Mitochondrial disease#Management and prevention. 86.134.200.29 (talk) 10:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Trimmed 86.134.200.29 (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Two review articles in prominent journals about human population genetics are bringing together analysis of the many recent studies of human DNA, including DNA from ancient individuals.

• Hawks, John (2013). "Significance of Neandertal and Denisovan Genomes in Human Evolution". Annual Review of Anthropology. 42. Annual Reviews: 433–449, 438.
  ISSN 0084-6570
  . Retrieved 4 January 2014. The shared evolutionary history of living humans has resulted in a high relatedness among all living people, as indicated for example by the very low fixation index (F_ST) among living human populations.

• Pickrell, Joseph K.; Reich, David (September 2014). "Toward a new history and geography of human genes informed by ancient DNA". Trends in Genetics. 30 (9): 377–389, 378.
  PMID 25168683
  . However, the data also often contradict models of population replacement: when two distinct population groups come together during demographic expansions the result is often genetic admixture rather than complete replacement. This suggests that new types of models – with admixture at their center – are necessary for describing key aspects of human history ([14–16] for early examples of admixture models).

Earlier studies of this issue were based on more limited samples (fewer genes, and fewer human individuals from fewer regions and only recent times). As more samples of more genes from more individuals from more places and times are gathered, the molecular evidence is making it increasingly clear that human beings have been moving back and forth across the Earth's surface and mixing genes over long distances ever since their earliest ancestors moved out of the human homeland in Africa. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 16:50, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Over at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, we're having trouble disambiguating links to CDKN2A. It isn't apparent from context whether they should go to p16 or p14arf. Would it be possible for someone to go through the articles on the "What links here" page and correct the links appropriately? Otherwise, if CDKN2A should have an article of its own then some more information could be added and the {{Letter-NumberCombDisambig}} tag could be removed. Nick Number (talk) 14:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

The following articles currently exist:

• Genetic diversity
• Genetic variability
• Genetic variation

In addition, "Genetic variance" previously redirected to genetic diversity, but I made it into a disambiguation page for these three articles. It would be wonderful if an expert in the topic would make it clear what the differences between these topics are, either within each article or in a separate article (similar to the introduction to genetics article). "Genetic variance" could remain a disambiguation page, be made into a separate article, or be made a redirect to an appropriate article. If it is made into a redirect, hopefully it will have an explanation for the redirect near the top of the article, such as an alternative name. Finally, if "genetic variance" is to remain a disambiguation page, it should have appropriate descriptions of each topic. Currently, it only lists the articles.

Before I posted to this talk page (I was greatly delayed), an editor used a template to encourage the creation of a broad topic article on the disambiguation page. I am fine with whatever people think is best. Thank you very much, Kjkolb (talk) 05:25, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

A bibliography including current textbooks on genetics that I maintain in Wikipedia user space may be helpful for finding sources to distinguish these terms and to see how they are treated in books and articles about genetics. Some of the sources are review articles that you may be able to see just by following links. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Dear genetics experts: Here's an old AfC submission which will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Right now,

It looks like the content of this article was already merged into MACF1, so I think we can let the stale draft go. --Mark viking (talk) 15:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Mark viking, for finding that. Since it was the same editor who did the merge, there's no need to redirect the draft, so I deleted it as you suggested. —Anne Delong (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks competent to me, and worthy of article status. Maproom (talk) 18:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I concur, the article is a reasonable stub. "Bulked segregant analysis" gets over 9,400 hits on GScholar and shows many articles devoted to BSA and its variants. Definitely a notable topic. --Mark viking (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Maproom: @Mark viking: Thank you guys - I've gone ahead and pushed it to the mainspace. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:46, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Inexperienced users are editing and edit-warring over this article. It needs a quality check and involvment of experienced users to sort thing out. (Please don't block the editors as they are new). Iselilja (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I just made this edit to remove Template:Y-DNA G from Category:Pages using duplicate arguments in template calls, but I am out of my league with regards to the subject matter, so I would appreciate it if someone could have a look to see if the content is correct. Thanks! — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:02, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion going on on how to categorize genes. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 25#Category:Genes mutated in mice. Input from interested partticipants in this project is welcome. --Randykitty (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, this is to let you know that we've launched WikiProject Wikidata for research in order to stimulate a closer interaction between Wikidata and research, both on a technical and a community level. As a first activity, we are drafting a research proposal on the matter (cf. blog post). Your thoughts on and contributions to that would be most welcome! Thanks, -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi all,
This draft is up for

I can understand the science in the draft.

It is about a genuine subject, and does not have POV problems.

It is missing a lead. This could easily be remedied.

It does not start by saying what this protein does (and I don't think it explains this anywhere in the article). It should: see e.g. Alcohol dehydrogenase, which says what those proteins do in the first sentence of the article.

Most of it is far too specialised, particularly the Domains and motifs section. Such sections, with their explanation of the methodology used, are not suitable for Wikipedia.

Overall, I believe that this is not an encyclopedia article about a protein (if it were, it would belong in article space). It is a research paper, which should have been submitted to a suitable journal, not to Wikipedia. Maproom (talk) 10:32, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete – This is a protein of unknown function hence its
  original research. Boghog (talk
  ) 11:07, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

This discussion was just closed as keep. Unfortunately, very few people participated in the discussion and none seemed to be hampered by much knowledge about genetics. I find the distinction between "mouse genes" and "mutated mouse genes" untenable. If this distinction is being made for other species, too, then perhaps we should re-think the whole "genes" category tree. --Randykitty (talk) 23:28, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Genetics to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please assess the acceptability of Draft:Single-cell DNA template strand sequencing. I'm not well versed in the minutiae of genetics, but it looks like a reasonable article to me - however it has no wikilinks to other pages so please also help to add relevant ones. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I have nominated

Dear genetics experts: Here's an old AfC submission which will soon be deleted as a stale draft. Is this a notable organization which should have an encyclopedia article?—Anne Delong (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

I took a look at Google and PubMed and I found very few secondary hits. It seems to be a legit international organization, has regular conferences, a journal, publications, and addresses problems regarding the nomenclature, the definition of loci and alleles, population genetics and reporting methods. I DO NOT know the influence it has in the international forensic community, or if it is indeed used to set related international standards. It may be so, but I could not tell. IF the article was to be rescued, I would delete 90% of it, as it seems mostly self-promotion of individuals working there. My gut feeling is burn it. Cheers,

talk

) 20:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks,

BatteryIncluded. I agree about the promotional aspect, and I was prepared to address that issue, but the references are not linked on line and I don't have the knowledge to judge whether they are reliable and appropriate. Since you didn't find much, I will leave the draft to be deleted unless someone else here decides to take it on.—Anne Delong (talk

) 02:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Eight months ago, I wrote

No-one responded (and today, coincidentally, my request was archived). I am planning to work on the article myself soon. I shall copy this to its talk page.

While the students made many improvements to the article, they added a long section on formation, discussing various theories about the origin of gene clusters. But this is absurd; the origin of gene clusters (by duplication and divergence) was known in 1972, and is not in doubt. This is acknowledged in the second sentence of the article "A gene cluster is part of a gene family": The gene family article starts "A gene family is a set of several similar genes, formed by duplication of a single original gene."

I will replace the long "formation" section by a much shorter historical section, mentioning the various pre-1970 conjectures. Maproom (talk) 11:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Maproom (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Transcluded from Talk:Gene/Review

To

The gene article gets 50,000 views per month but has been de-listed as a featured article since 2006. Given the success of the recent blitz on the enzyme article, I thought I'd suggest spending a couple of weeks seeing if we can get it up to a higher standard. I'm going to start with updating some of the images. If you'd like to help out on the article, it'd be great to see you there. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 09:49, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears the main reason gene was delisted as a GA was sourcing (see Talk:Gene/GA1). The following free textbook is probably sufficient to document most basic facts about genes:

• ISBN 978-0-8153-3218-3
  .

a second one is even more relevant, but unfortunately not freely accessed:

• ISBN 978-0-321-90537-6
  .

I will start working on this as I find time. Boghog (talk) 17:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt on this! I see I did do some work here back in the day, but not enough. Looks like a typical large-but-untended wiki article - bloated up with random factoids with no attention to the flow of the article. I'm pretty busy for this week and out of town next week, but I'll try to give it some attention. Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:19, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably go through and make all the necessary MOS tweaks for FA status to the article within the next week. Too preoccupied with other articles at the moment to make any substantive content/reference changes though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:24, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Glossary

Snooping around I encountered Template:Genetics glossary, I don't know it's backstory, but it is a rather cleaver idea for a template in my opinion. I partially reckon it might go well under the first image in place or the second image depicting DNA, which conceptually is a tangent. I am not sure, hence my asking. --Squidonius (talk) 21:47, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Including a glossary could be useful, but I think it should be concise and tailored specifically for this article. Currently {{Genetics glossary}} contains 22 entries and some of the definitions are quite lengthy. A shorter glossary, closer to the size of {{Transcription factor glossary}} or {{Restriction enzyme glossary}}, IMHO would be more effective. Another option is to transclude the {{Genetics sidebar}} which in turn links to {{Genetics glossary}}. Boghog (talk) 06:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

...could also just transclude a collapsed version - provides the full set of terms and takes up little space. If people need a glossary, they can expand it. Glossaries probably shouldn't be expanded by default unless there's a lot of free space along the right side of the page between level 2 sections (i.e., horizontal line breaks), since images and tables should take precedence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Collapsed or not collapsed, {{Genetics glossary}} is still way too long. Glossaries should be restricted to key terms with short definitions that can quickly be scanned while reading the rest of the article. IMHO, a long glossary defeats its purpose. Furthermore an uncollapsed glossary is more likely be read and if kept short, no need to collapse. Boghog (talk) 08:30, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. Might as well make a new one since it's not referenced anyway; imo, glossaries should cite sources, preferably another glossary, because it's article content. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 08:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, apparently I added a bunch of stuff to that template awhile back, but don't remember it at all. It appears to be a subset of the article

genetics glossary

. (I'm not really sure we need both.) I agree that the template is way too long, and as constructed is hard to ctrl-F for a term.

I suggest just linking to the MBC glossary as a "reference". I would consider this kind of thing as a summary analogous to the lead paragraphs; no need for a clutter of little blue numbers. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

References

I'm planning on adding some more Molecular Biology of the Cell references to the article using {{rp}} to specify chapter sections. I went to the MBOC 4th ed. online page but I can find no way of searching by page number, chapter, section or anything else. Any ideas on how to specify specific sections as is possible for Biochemistry 5th ed. online? Alternatively, maybe there's a more easily refernced online textbook for general citations. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 11:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I had the same train of thought here on the regular talk page. How about something like this? Uses {{sfn}} to include links to individual sections as notes. Of course, now they're separate from the rest of the references, but maybe it's not a bad idea to distinguish 'basic stuff you can find in a textbook' from 'specific results you need to consult the literature for'. Opabinia regalis (talk) 06:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

You're right, I missed that. I agree that it's actually a good way to format it. Having a separate list that indicates the significance of the references is useful. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 08:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of {{sfn}} templates. They are more complicated and harder to maintain. Plus they don't directly address the problem of searching Molecular Biology of the Cell. What seems to work is to search for the chapter or subchapter titles in quotes. For example search for "DNA and Chromosomes" provides a link to the introduction of chapter 4. Then one can reference the chapter or subchapter number with {{rp}}. I am busy this week but should have more time this weekend to work on this. Boghog (talk) 12:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I mis-described my own suggestion; it's actually {{efn}} (not that that's better). I like your method better from an aesthetic and maintenance point of view, but the problem is that giving a reader a reference to "chapter 4" is less useful if there's no obvious way to get to chapter 4 from the book's table of contents page. I don't see a way to provide separate links for each chapter/section without splitting up the references in the reference list. We could use {{rp}} like this, but I think the links police won't like that. Opabinia regalis (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

OK, I now see what you mean. The choice is between {{efn}} and in-line external links and {{efn}} is the lesser of two evils. One other possibility is to append the chapter external links to the citation:

• ISBN 978-0-8153-3218-3. Chapter 4: DNA and Chromosomes; Chapter 7: Control of Gene Expression; Chapter 7.1: An Overview of Gene Control; Chapter 7.2: DNA-Binding Motifs in Gene Regulatory Proteins; Chapter 7.3: How Genetic Switches Work

or have separate citations for each chapter where only the |chapter= and |chapterurl= parameters differ:

• ISBN 978-0-8153-3218-3. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help
  )

Boghog (talk) 18:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

My first reaction to your 'appended links' idea was that we shouldn't create our own linked pseudo-TOC given the publisher's apparent desire not to have a linked TOC hosted by the organization they actually licensed the content to. But all the other ideas do essentially the same thing, so that's a bit silly. I think I like that idea in combination with {{rp}} chapter labels best, as it's least intrusive in the text, makes clear how many citations go to a general reference, and doesn't require a separate list or potentially fragile formatting. Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

I've not done much non-standard reference citation so I'll wait until you've done a couple so that I can see the format in context before doing any more. The ones I added yesterday shouldn't be too difficult to reformat. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

You're the one currently doing the work, so I think that means you get to decide :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

MBOC references

Article

Genes^[2]: 2 are numerous^[2]: 4 and useful^[2]: 4.1

References

So {{rp}} labels the chapter number but does not provide any easy link to the actual information. Therefore it's combined with a list of chapter links. the benefit is that the {{rp}} template is relatively easy to maintain and the list of chapter links doesn't require maintainance and places all the MBOC links together. As stated above, there's basically no way to avoid linking individually to chapters if we want to cite MBOC. I'll finish building the chapter list over the next couple of days. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I've finished adding MBOC references up to section 3 (gene expression). Also, whoever originally wrote the gene expression section of the article really liked semicolons! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 10:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Looks great, I like the collapsible box! I can't find it at the moment, though - IIRC there is somewhere an agreement not to use collapsed boxes for references for accessibility reasons. I don't see it in

WP:ACCESSIBILITY so I could be misremembering, and since the box contains links and not the reference note itself, it's probably fine. Just wanted to mention it in case someone recognized the issue. Opabinia regalis (talk

) 07:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

@

MOS:COLLAPSE, which states "...boxes that toggle text display between hide and show, should not conceal article content, including reference lists ... When scrolling lists or collapsible content are used, take care that the content will still be accessible on devices that do not support JavaScript or CSS." I checked this article on my phone, a mid-2011 model, and that entire box just doesn't appear at all using the default mobile view. I tried setting the template parameter expand=true so the box is expanded by default but that made no difference. Maybe better to change to a bulleted or indented list? Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs}

) 10:50, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: Well spotted - It's really irritating when templates don't work properly on mobiles! I've changed the MBOC list to be wrapped in {{Hidden begin}} + {{Hidden end}}, which renders properly on phones (default expanded). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 12:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yep, that works – thanks! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

If anyone has an interest in interactive annotated images, I've made a post on WP:IUP to discuss when wikilinked image annotation is appropriate. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 02:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Why is

I've copied the following post that might be of interest over from

WT:BIOL. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk

10:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Please could someone with knowledge in biology/proteins look at this draft article- due to my lack of subject knowledge, I cannot determine if it's notable enough for Wikipedia or not. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the notability of this one. It's an open reading frame, which has the potential to encode a protein, but not always. They are thousands of open reading frames and most of them are not notable. Of the references currently in the draft, all are reliable but 1-5 are only databases with basic information and not enough to indicate notability. Reference 6 mentions 753 lysine ubiquitylation sites on 471 proteins and makes not specific mentions of CXorf67. Reference 7 goes into some detail but only when its liked to MBTD1 as a fusion gene. Reference 8 is about a large section of chromosome X in general and makes no specific mention of CXorf67. I don't think there is enough significant coverage of this in the literature to distinguish it from the many other open reading frames and establish notability. Sarahj2107 (talk) 13:08, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Sarahj2107. There are thousands of ORF and if they code for something, we don't know which protein this one codes for. Although it seems good and standard cell biology research, it is very preliminary and has not reached notability for Wikipedia standards. Also, quoting databases as references is useless because it requires to know the sequence of the oligos input and of ample interpretation. Cheers,

talk

) 17:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ref 5 doesn't work and the other refs to databases aren't ideal, since the database content can change and many of them are not versioned in a way that's helpful. That said, I'm inclined to accept these as they come in. I can't see any value in trying to develop a WP:ORF as notability guidelines for open reading frames. IMO if an annotated gene is verifiable it can have a wiki page. (BTW, the mention in ref 6 is in the supplement; it's just an entry in the spreadsheet.) Opabinia regalis (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see the notability of an uncharacterized protein with unknown function. Cheers,

talk

) 00:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Please see

Perhaps add these to your list of things to look at? I don't have the expertise to do that myself. Thanks! -- Bassomatic (talk) 15:20, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you that they look like they could be merged. I'm currently busy with the gene article but I'll have a look at it when I'm done. For the moment I've added a merger discussion section and merger tags to the articles. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 00:00, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

This is slightly tangential, but should there be an article on epigenetic engineering (e.g., this summary paper which discusses another paper where the authors made use of engineered transcription factors and modulate transcriptional activation/repression through histone modification) at some point, or would that topic be better suited for coverage in the genetic engineering article? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Protein & Cell published a paper on CRISPR/Cas9 use for gene therapy in human embryos. An article in Nature states the paper looks "set to reignite the debate on human-embryo editing" - and the experiments are facing a backlash

Discussion on ITN: Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates § Human embryos genetically modified for the first time

There's also an excellent Ars Technica article on it. More generally, the

genome engineering, gene targeting and CRISPR pages need a bit of an update. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk

00:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

SEE below for my request for a separate article on crisper-cas9.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:20, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I've declined a draft article that was written by an IP over sourcing issues,

Selection (genetics). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot

02:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Category renaming proposed

Category renaming proposed at here. About 25 categories included in this category, renaming from, for example, Category:Genes on chromosome 1 → Category:Genes on human chromosome 1 is proposed (adding "human" to category name). Although I think there are no need to explain the reason of renaming to the members of this project, chromosome number which contains certain gene varies in species-to-species. So we need to specify species. --Was a bee (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

While the basic proposal here (to rename the subcats of Category:Genes by human chromosome) looks sound to me, I have raised questions in the CFD discussion regarding the categories for X and Y chromosomes and for MT chromosomes. Some informed input would be appreciated. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

CDKN2A disambiguation page

I previously posted this in October 2014, but didn't receive a response. It is still an issue.

Over at Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links, we're having trouble disambiguating links to CDKN2A. It isn't apparent from context whether they should go to p16 or p14arf. Would it be possible for someone to go through the articles on the "What links here" page and correct the links appropriately? Otherwise, if CDKN2A should have an article of its own then some more information could be added and the {{Letter-NumberCombDisambig}} tag could be removed. Nick Number (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

GScholar produces 29,900 hits for the term CDKN2A. This gene plays a role in cancer and looks quite notable. Looking at the history, there was some information on added to the page, then reverted as spam, but it didn't look like spam to me. This single gene encodes both proteins. There is also a

p19ARF homolog in mice. --Mark viking (talk

) 17:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mark viking: So you'd support restoring some of the deleted content and making it into a full article about the gene rather than a disambiguation page? Nick Number (talk) 19:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd support this. A quick search reveals the secondary sources: a review article, a page from the NIH, and a section from the NCI. GeneCards has some good information and there are quite a few references at the WikiGenes article. --Mark viking (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

@Mark viking: Ok, I've converted it to a stub using those references. If you have a chance, please look it over. I am not a geneticist, and AP Bio was a long time ago, so I may have misstated something. Nick Number (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

@Boghog: You've muddied the waters a bit with this edit. Per the previous discussion above, the stub article was created for the gene alone because there are two different proteins which the gene codes for, and the term CDKN2A was ambiguous when referring to them. Now I'm not really qualified to discuss this subject in any detail, but is there a way the lead can be rephrased to avoid confusion? Nick Number (talk) 23:03, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

OK, I have turned the stub back into a gene specific page. The vast majority of Gene Wiki articles are about both the protein and the gene that encodes that protein. This is because the function of the gene is so intertwined with the protein, it normally does not make sense to separate the two into different articles. In this case we have two different proteins encoded by the same gene and each protein is independently notable. So in this case it makes sense to have two separate protein articles. Please note that there is significant discussion about the gene in each of the protein articles (and there should be), so the division is not clean. Hence to minimize overlap, I think the stub should not be significantly expanded. Boghog (talk) 05:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Great, thank you. Nick Number (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Pronucleus

Dear editors,

I am new to this editing function of Wiki, however I had a query regarding the pronucleus description.

Specifically I have noticed that the Pronucleus page of Wiki discusses that the Pronucleus is haploid, then fusion occurs making the single cells zygote diploid. Then the cell immediately divides again, which would make the 2 cell stage contain two haploid cells. I have read an alternative explanation in 2 other sources, one quite good: Langmans Medical Embryology Pg 39, and another online at http://ww.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote03.html. These sources describe how the pronuclei double their DNA to achieve a diploid state prior to fusion. Then the single celled zygote is 4n and divides to make the 2 cell stage contain 2 diploid cells. Perhaps this is a minor technicality, perhaps we are all saying the same thing essentially, however I just thought a little extra detail couldn't go astray?

I welcome feedback to this curiosity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-handsaw (talk • contribs) 07:16, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I think you have misunderstood something. The cell does not "immediately divide again", though it probably divides again soon - a zygote doesn't have much else to do besides metabolise and grow into an embryo. And when this division does occur, it is not just a separation of the chromosomes, it is a mitosis, which doubles the total number of chromosomes present. Maproom (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you kindly for taking the time to read and evaluate this. If you would be so kind as to go to this website and perhaps tell me whether this is a good source: http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/dbefruchtung/zygote01.html. It states: The DNA must be duplicated before each commencing cell division so it can be distributed among the daughter cells. In an impregnated oocyte this happens for every chromosome set – the one from the father and the one from the mother – each in a separate pronucleus. The time needed for the duplication of the DNA amounts to roughly 12-18 hours. During this time span, the two pronuclei also get closer to each other spatially. I also read the same thing in quite a trusted text book Langmans Medical Embryology. Thanks for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-handsaw (talk • contribs) 08:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Interesting! I'd always envisaged all the chromosomes combining before S phase of the first mitosis, but according to the source you've linked, S phase actually occurs in each pronucleus separately before the membranes of the pronuclei break down and the chromosomes come together. The source is specifically about human embryology, so I don't know whether this is how it occurs in other animals. I don't think this actually contradicts anything currently written at Pronucleus, which says "The male and female pronuclei don't fuse, although their genetic material does. Instead, their membranes dissolve, leaving no barriers between the male and female chromosomes. Their chromosomes can then combine and become part of a single diploid nucleus in the resulting embryo, containing a full set of chromosomes." Nothing in this description states whether DNA replication (S phase) occurs before or after the pronuclear membranes dissolve. "Diploid" can mean 2n2C or 2n4C. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 09:34, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it amazing! I mean the implications of this could be very interesting. Firstly it may help us understand parthenogenesis in other animals, it may even mean that parthenogenesis could be manipulated in humans, but most importantly I think is that it might shed light on what prompts the DNA replication phase of mitosis. Eg how does the nucleus of 4n know to simply divide, rather than duplicate and then divide. It could teach us a lot about the prompts for DNA synthesis etc. Of course it may also just be meaningless information. "Yes we get to 4n, who cares how we get there." Either way I think that the wiki page would make a reasonable person think that the DNA replication happens after the pronucleus combine. Which may not be the case. Wiki states: 'Their chromosomes can then combine and become part of a single diploid nucleus in the resulting embryo, containing a full set of chromosomes.' Yes this is true, but this would not happen until the embryo consists of 2 cells. I think in all honesty this is such a minor detail, however, surely we should try to make wiki as clear as possible? More and more people are using Wiki as an information source. Again thank you for your conversation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-handsaw (talk • contribs) 10:03, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I see that my first answer to you was mistaken. I thought that the chromosome division which precedes mitosis counted as part of the mitosis. It doesn't. Maproom (talk) 11:08, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thats interesting, I too thought that mitosis included chromosome division, but you're right it doesn't. I'm still curious as to which version of events is correct. Is the DNA duplicated after fusion or in the pronuclei before fusion? If anyone can confirm or refute this I'd be much appreciated. I have a professor looking into this as well however he won't be able to respond for a few days. If it is true, do you think that details like these should be added to the wiki page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hawk-handsaw (talk • contribs) 11:30, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Definition of a Gene

As the

GA reviewed, it might be useful to check that there is consensus on the definitions (Talk:Gene#Definitions). T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk

01:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at the current definition – gene is a vague word, like "thing". It can be used to mean "locus, or "allele", or in various other ways. Maproom (talk) 07:36, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

The dogma in the 1990s was "one gene, one protein." If it is not translated and transcribed, is it a gene?

talk

) 01:23, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Translation is certainly not a requirement. We talk about rRNA genes, tRNA genes, microRNA genes, and so on. Though I can't think of anything I'd call a gene that's not either transcribed or involved in regulating transcription. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 02:51, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Unique Identifiers

So, there's a new project which may be of interest to some here. It arises out of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#UID_interface_to_Wikipedia, a proposal to make wikipedia articles available by their UID - for instance by their UNIPROT number. Umm. For reasons which should be all to obvious to anyone interested in computational aspects of genetics. And those two pages are all I have to show you, but I live in hope of input from you to take it all further. --

99 Lives

Cat Genome Sequencing Project, at the U. of Missouri

Homepage: http://felinegenetics.missouri.edu/99lives

Definitely notable, given this level of Google News coverage. I'm working on updating the Manx cat article with info about the loosely affiliated Manx Cat Genome Project, so maybe someone else can take on the larger organization.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  10:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Merge discussion

Editors may perhaps be interested in Talk:Desirable genetic trait#Merge proposal. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Now probably moot – Desirable genetic trait has (rightly, in my view) been deleted. Maproom (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Correct. Thanks anyway. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Czechs

Hello all--I know very little about genetics, but I do know that this Y-DNA haplogroup stuff has been contentious in various articles. With that in mind, I would like to ask some of you to look at this edit: Concus Cretus and ThecentreCZ seem to be getting into it a bit, without the mutual courtesy of talk page discussion. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:50, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

That is historical revisionism of Czech National Revival and triggers

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

as a German-Czech editor and his purposeful look on genetics studies, which is due to compromises at discussions on other articles purely false, and even is not the main indicator of main attributes of any nations.

--ThecentreCZ (talk) 16:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Missing information on RNA expression pattern

On the Template:Infobox gene there is an "RNA expression pattern", which seems rather informative – see GLUT1 for an example. However, this is currently missing an link to an article on Wikipedia describing exactly what this is, and how to read it. Please, can someone more knowledgeable than me (or rather much more knowledgeable) start such an article? Tony Mach (talk) 15:56, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Addressed over at Template_talk:Infobox_gene#Missing_information_on_RNA_expression_pattern. Best, Andrew Su (talk) 05:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

Greetings WikiProject Molecular Biology/Genetics/Archive 2 Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

• Fix and improve Mr.Z-bot's popular pages report

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards,

Stevietheman

— Delivered: 18:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Mitochondrial chromosome

In the Template:Chromosomes, we can read the list of human chromosomes, with 22 autosomes, and 2 sex chromosomes + the pseudoautosomal region. Do you think we should add the mitochondrial chromosome? This might be done by adding a new line, entitled Mitochondrial chromosome, and linking to mitochondrial DNA. Manudouz (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please help out merging

genome engineering

At

genome engineering should be merged. However in November User:Evolution and evolvability

asked for a qualified academic to help out with the merge. Maybe someone in here can lend a hand? Please just go ahead and properly merge both articles so that no content is lost.

I guess as there's also a

genome engineering

? What do you think would be the more accurate or popular term?

--Fixuture (talk) 16:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

To clarify, I think that

genome engineering can safely be merged, however genetic engineering is quite a different topic. The genome edit/eng pages both pertain to insertion and removal of multiple genes in a genome, usually in a targeted manner (a process that has been traditionally relatively difficult). Genetic engineering is a much broader term that includes simpler techniques such as addition of plasmids to bacteria, and is often used to indicate the addition of a single gene to a genome. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk

00:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: Thanks for the explanation. I know it's different topic - or from what I understood at least a superordinate one. What I meant to say is that by that naming convention the target of the page should be genome engineering. But I don't know what the best target for the merge would be. e.g. while I think "editing" is a term more often used in common language and better understood it doesn't really fit it as it's not the usual type of editing as one knows from IT and it doesn't really encompass additions, removals as well as the term "engineering". --Fixuture (talk) 18:06, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah, now I'm with you. "Genome engineering" is the older term, e.g. for adding and optimising whole biochemical pathways into bacteria. "Genome editing" has become popular in the last few years with the advent of comparatively easy nuclease tools (TALON, CRISPR etc). "Editing" has also been used, partly to distance the technology from the public understanding issues in which genetic engineering has become mired. I think "Genome engineering" should probably be the main page, since it's still by far the more commonly used term term. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

To do list comments

To do list

   Ensure that all of these categories are within Category:Genetics
   Confirm that the hierarchy of Category:Genetics and List of basic genetics topics are what a typical reader would expect. An example Genetics hierarchy is here.

Problems:

1. clicking "these categories" gives a 404 Not Found response

2. in "List of basic genetics topics"

"craniosynostosis" is not something typical reader would expect, IMHO

"Jurassic Park (genetics of)" doesn't exist

"List of human genetic disorders" seriously, why not just link to the online medelian inheritance in man?

instead of trying to maintain such a list independently? https://www.omim.org/

"non-directiveness" doesn't exist

"patent" If somebody wanted to create a page about biological patents, sure, but not just the generic patent page Same for "technology transfer".

DennisPietras (talk) 04:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Genetics article ratings are a mess, IMHO

I'm a new user with considerable experience in genetics. I consulted the table "Genetics articles by quality and importance" on

talk

) 05:25, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Assessments of of article quality and priority are performed by individual editors, often members of wikiprojects. You are welcome to improve those assessments, according to Wikipedia practice, as you see fit. A rough guide to article class is at

Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment and of article priority is at Wikipedia:Version_1.0_Editorial_Team/Release_Version_Criteria#Priority_of_topic. In what way have you found these assessments to be a mess and fubar? --Mark viking (talk

) 05:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi

summary table then automatically updates itself. Is it the importance or quality scores that you reckon need a review? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk

08:39, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark viking:2 extreme examples of how fubar they are. There are 2044 unassessed articles listed! The central dogma article was rated start class until I changed it to A. That has been discussed on the talk page for the central dogma. Apparently somebody else needs to review my rating, but since there are over 2,000 unassessed articles, I don't think a second review is going to be forthcoming anytime soon. At least now nobody looking to help improve a start-class article will need to look at the central dogma. I'm retired and developing a wikipediaddiction, so I'm going to try to assess articles and change ratings as I get time, but currently, that list is a mess. I've changed my username from Drdfp to DennisPietras (talk) 04:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark viking: I just read "alleles" and moved it from start class to B, because it isn't Crappy and it isn't worthy of an A. That way, somebody who might be interested in alleles but might be intimidated by the work of editing a start class article might more readily work on it. DennisPietras (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mark viking: I just read autosome and don't know what to do with it. Very little discussion on the talk page. One person asked for suggestions for what to add. That question beats the heck out of me! I would make a few tiny edits, but why bother? It is rated as start-class. It is a short article, but so what? That shouldn't mean it stays forever as start-class. Comments? And to think that there are over 2000 unassigned articles. I won't live long enough to look at them... DennisPietras (talk) 05:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@DennisPietras: It's great seeing you review the ratings. Even getting through the backlog is an important task, and reassessing the existing ones is just as vital. Autosome is definitely still start-class to my eye. It could do with some history, better organisation headings, some discussion&comparison of other organisms, some evolution info. Some articles (espec low-importance ones) can sit as start or C for ages, and often that's not too much of a problem.

Just a note, I think A class was basically phased out when

here. Hope that's helpful. Deinitely worthwhile getting through some of the backlog that's built up! The main thing is consistency across the categories. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk

05:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability and Mark viking:Re:autosomes: I understand that there are things that could be added. My thought would be to show how our chromosome 2 was derived from a fusion of 2 smaller chromosomes still seen in chimps, but that could be better discussed in an evolutionary background, IMHO. We could talk about the chromatin structure of autosomes, but there aleady is a page about that.... and on and on. Autosome to me could be a nearly finished B rated low importance article with more "see also" links. Re: A class phased out: and yet, there stands a row of one A class article, the central dogma, generated by me. Oh, the power! 8-) Maybe somebody will see that and think, "hmmm, maybe with a little effort this could become a GA article", and go for it. DennisPietras (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

How to organize the workforce

Folks, I'd like to see genetics articles get needed attention. I am going to throw out some suggestions and see if any stick. I'm a newbie, so this may be totally inappropriate, but whatcha gonna do, fire me?

1. Delete the "To do list" section. Has anybody but me ever commented on the links? Who is it that is responsible for eliminating things like "patent" from this project? Just do it.

2. Realize that there are about 100 people who have signed up for the project. I suggest that whoever is leading this project (if anyone?) compose a "ping list" (manually, if needed) of those users and send out a message asking each member to assess 20 of the 2044 unassessed articles over the next month. Explain how to do it. Explain that they are free to assess whatever articles they wish. If all goes well, by March we'll have a much better idea of what we are dealing with.

3. if all doesn't go well and there are still 1984 unassessed articles come March, just forget about the project. Seriously.

Note: I do NOT have the people skills to be a leader. If nominated, I will not campaign. If elected, I will not serve. DennisPietras (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I would attach little significance to who is "signed up".

When I first started to edit Wikipedia, I signed up for several projects, becasue they looked interesting, or because someone recommended them to me. I soon lost interest in most of them. I didn't unsign as I probably should have; and now I can't remember what they were. I think my behaviour is quite typical: I suspect most signed-up members of most projects have contributed nothing for years. Maproom (talk) 22:28, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The

WP:MCB has a more general 'Goals' section that performs a similar function. A slightly better metric of who is active in the WP:GEN community is this automated list. I agree that updating the rankings is highly useful, so happy to do my part to work though the backlog (although wikiprojects perform useful functions in addition to page rating). Most (all?) WikiProjects are non-hierarchical - they act like communal meeting places for editors with a particular interest to coordinate and update each other. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk

02:01, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, this is a big of a chicken-and-egg problem because of people like me who notice that the assessments are often dated and crappy, and therefore never bother to update assessments... ;) Good to see someone is interested in tackling the problem. If some of the articles have assessments from other projects that could be reasonably inherited, I believe there's a bot that will do that. I'll try to be less bad at this! Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

To help in the effort, I've also added the tracking log of all assessment changes to the

WP:GEN statistics page! Should be nice to see what's getting reclassified. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk

10:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiBlame is great!

If I am using it properly, the first 2 topics on the to do list

Ensure that all of these categories are within Category:Genetics

Confirm that the hierarchy of Category:Genetics and List of basic genetics topics are what a typical reader would expect. An example Genetics hierarchy is here.

were added in May 2008 by a user, GregManninLB, who was not signed up on the list of participants at the time and is not now, as far as I can see. I'm deleting them. DennisPietras (talk) 19:11, 17 January 2017 (UTC)