|WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology||(Rated Start-class, Top-importance)|
The Sub-headings Genotype and Mendelian inheritance and Genotype and genetics have the same material. I propose we remove one of them, and put in internal links that are not common to the two duplicates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Moved inappropriate tone flag from main page to here:
||This article's tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia. (December 2007)|
- I'm not sure why Mr.bombo (talk · contribs) added this. Unless there is further description here on the discussion page, I propose we remove this tag? JetheroTalk 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
||This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (September 2010)|
I added an introductory paragraph that's a more accessible version of the original first few sentences. I don't know how to remove that 'too technical' box, though, and I'm not sure if it's warranted. OsamaBinLogin 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
- intro still perhaps more technical than it needs to be. We need to introduce topic without jumping right into words like 'allelic', or the technical jargon use of the common word 'character'. JetheroTalk 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
"constitution of a cell, an organism, or an individual" what is the difference between an organism and an individual? An organism is an individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
Merge Genotyping into Genotype Determining genotype section
- propose we merge genotyping into genotype.
- both articles need to be greatly improved, and there will be significant overlap (snp, technology, definitions, dna, etc...)
- people interested in genotyping can look at a section called one of: 'genotyping', 'determining genotype', or 'genotypic assay'
- existing genotyping page can redirect directly to this section rather than the top of the page, so navigation is not a problem. Searching for genotyping will also pull up this article.
- genotyping is rated stub and not rated for importance, while genotype is rated top importance
- Oppose, topics have not much in common from a user's perspective. One is about a method to detect genetic variability, the other article is about such variability itself. Genotyping should be improved but kept separate, they are already interlinked. Cacycle 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
- Rebutal - Many other topics have a single article for a range of related topics. dying disambiguates to death, burning to burn, walk to walking. Although at a technical level these are all different things, like genotype and genotyping, they are closely related. [Magnet] and [Magnetism], however, are different articles, both with considerable effort put into them but still lacking feature article status. They seem to have much overlap (physics, equations, >25% of the links) and magnet has a list of 'types of magnetism', while magnetism has a list of 'types of magnets'! So genotyping and genotype may end up having much overlap. Instead, they might be better understood as a whole, then perhaps 'split' if it becomes clear we can't find a cohesive explanation for the both of them. Do you think we could do both topics justice under one heading? JetheroTalk 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
- possible - It may be possible to merge the topics, however, people are often only interested in genotyping, as a process, because it is widely referred to within news releases related to research. If you hide genotyping within genotype, you'll make it much more difficult for people to get to what they are looking for -- though I don't know if that is actually a consideration for Wikipedia. Obviously, genotyping would immediately lead to genotypes, genetics and wide variety of technologies involved in genotyping. As stated above, this section is horribly deficient at the current time. 126.96.36.199 (talk · contribs) (post-signed by JetheroTalk 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC))
Oppose: Genotype is generally relates to molecular biology, while genotyping relates to the application of molecular biology to clinical treatment. Both require more advanced discussions, but the specific methods used to determine a genotype are not relevant to the clinical applications; likewise the ramifications of a clinical genotyping results are not relevant to the average molecular biologist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Sugest to change haemophilia
Since this disease is sex related, it's not the best example to illustrate zigosity and mendelian inheritance. Mens doesn't have two 'recesive' alleles, but the lack of allele in gene Y.
Sort it out
I think this whole article should be gone over and heavily edited, it is very confusing and often does not make sense or is factually incorrect. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)