Talk:Signalling pathway

Multiple meanings, but "no need" for dab?

@Neodop: That seems to me very odd, and if correct to be at least in need of some explanation. There are certainly multiple pathways. Your proposed redirect is to Signal transduction, which says it refers to signalling within cells. That equally certainly is not the only possible type of signalling pathway. For instance, I do not see "Hedgehog", "Hippo", or "Notch" within that article. If I've understood the topic correctly, pathways could be involved in evo-devo, in signalling within the cell or between cells, and so forth. So why would you be claiming that there is "no need" for a dab? Please either explain how these are covered by "Signal transduction", find a better target, or revert. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Chiswick Chap, there are only two meanings for signal transduction pathway (i.e. signalling pathway). The primary and by far most common meaning is a biomolecular cascade exerting changes in a cell; this includes as you say Wnt, Notch, MAPK, and countless other pathways. They are the basis for most complex life and obviously have implications in "evo-devo" (I agree that this merits a section in the signal transduction article). A secondary meaning refers to such signalling seen at the organ/organism level, which includes the endocrine and nervous systems. In the end, although the first meaning is used in cell/molecular biology and the second in physiology/medicine, both have the same biological basis, it's just a matter of perspective. For developmental biologists the difference often doesn't even exist since the whole organism is just a few cells! In my experience there are no other meanings whatsoever, so WP:TWODABS applies. Furthermore, because the first meaning is the broader and more common one, the 10-year old redirect clearly stands, and there is no need to mess with thousands of links for no reason. Cheers. Neodop (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neodop: Messing with thousands of links? Hardly: all I propose is a single page. There's a list of different signalling pathways, which you rightly acknowledge exist, and there are plenty of different ones, but I am puzzled that you are trying to insist that they are all within a cell: the key point about the ones involved in development is that they frequently affect many cells at once, setting up zones and stripes during embryonic development to create new tissues, organs, and limbs. I don't know what your talk of "just a few cells" is supposed to mean: developmental biologists are more than aware of different signalling pathways affecting things outside the cell. And the endocrine and nervous signalling meanings are not trivial either, as you also admit, so we agree there are multiple meanings here. It seems totally obvious that the page should list the pathways which have articles: it is no good at all pointing to one article which has existed for years but which doesn't mention any of them – for the good and simple reason that the article is not about them at all. We need to revert to the list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Chiswick Chap I think you are confused by the definition of signal transduction pathway. As you say, most do not start and finish within a cell. Generally the signal starts outside the cell (often in a another cell) and has an effect in the cell, that's why most key "transducers" are receptors (RTKs, GPCRs, cytokine receptors, etc). Both cell signalling and signal transduction deal with this topic. Anyone who searches or clicks on "signalling pathway" is looking for one of those articles, likely the latter, and not an indiscriminate fork. Please feel free to enhance the content of those articles. A malformed dab or list makes no sense at all. Neodop (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I found yet another article on the topic, biochemical cascade. It actually looks much more accurate, detailed and appropriate than signal transduction, so I am going to redirect there. Do you agree? Neodop (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

@Neodop: I don't think so, though it at least mentions one or two (I saw Wnt signaling pathway): cell signalling#Signaling pathways would actually be a better target than the current Signal transduction, which provides precisely no help to anyone looking for signalling pathways whatever. There seems, however, given you have now found three articles on the topic, to be a complex tangle of navigation and overlapping articles which would take a deal of expert time to resolve. I should have thought, too, that a bluelinked list of signalling pathways within molecular biology was the very opposite of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, given that the criterion for list membership would be very sharply defined. Perhaps we should change the redirect AND provide a list. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:47, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Rather than argue, I've updated the redirect, and have created a separate list of signalling pathways. The area remains in some disarray, however. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I think your "solution" exacerbates the problem. That list is a duplication of the section signal transduction#major pathways, which I think is pointless anyway; such info should be integrated in the other parts of the article, highlighting the main pathways for each signalling mode (i.e. mentioning MAPK within RTK signalling, Wnt within GPCR, etc). Why would anyone mention a very small selection of completely unrelated pathways with no context? What could anyone possibly learn from that? Why, when we already have articles such as cell signalling, signalling pathway, biochemical cascade, biological pathway and cell communication, which cover the topic wholly or in part? The solution is to make the signal transduction article provide a good overview (Bradshaw's Handbook of Cell Signalling being the only high quality publication covering the whole topic afaik). Neodop (talk) 10:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

A list is clearly justified on a major topic. The multiplicity of overlapping but only partially covering articles emphasises the problem and the importance of the area, but is not relevant to the need for a list, nor a valid counter-argument to having one. Commonly on Wikipedia we cover important topics with a single top-level article (missing here); subsidiary articles clearly signposted, one per section of the top-level article; a category (or more than one); and a list of the major types involved: all are helpful in their different ways. By the way your sig. transd.#major pathways only lists 3, so the new list already offers much wider coverage. If it's incomplete, why not add to it? Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:26, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

They belong in the article signal transduction which is the "top-level article"; it might as well be called signal transduction pathway (that's why it redirected there for a decade). And you haven't listed "major types", but a few random specific examples without any sense or criteria, citing a commercial non-reliable source. Please, read my previous post again if you don't understand what I mean. If you don't have the ability or sources to conceptually classify signalling pathways and to realise that the signal transduction article already attempts this (without listing barely any specific examples, sadly), then maybe you shouldn't create a random list with no justification. And claim that there are several signalling pathways, several. Really? 15? 80? More like hundreds in humans, and thousands upon thousands if you consider all life forms. Just like list of proteins (?!). If I have time I will fix the signal transduction article, and hopefully then you will realise how pointless your "list" is. Neodop (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't claim to list "major types", I suggested that the top-level article should cover those. And please read WP:OWN, too, when you have a moment. I'm leaving this discussion now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)