This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The original proposal for the project can be found here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetics.
Now that the project has been started, there's plenty of work that needs doing. To get things rolling, I'd like to set up a project banner for tagging articles. I think that some of the articles within our scope – e.g., DNA, Genetic engineering, Human Genome Project – could potentially be included in Wikipedia:Version 1.0, so I'd also like to set up an assessment department (which sounds more formal than it really is) to help the V1.0 Editorial Team keep track of them. Comments welcome. Cheers. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Assessment page is up and running. I'd appreciate some feedback on the importance scheme, but if everyone thinks it's okay, we can start tagging and assessing articles in earnest. Cheers. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
article | pageviews in 4/08 | proposed importance |
---|---|---|
DNA | 302,886 | Top |
Genetic engineering | 93,799 | Top |
Gregor Mendel | 58,190 | High |
Allele | 41,989 | High |
Epigenetics | 30,046 | Mid |
Kay Davies | 303 | Mid |
Impalefection | 198 | Low |
X hyperactivation | 45 | Low |
Was thinking of tagging genetic code as top importance - it is one of the few genetics articles included on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection, but moving to top importance requires a second opinion ... LeeVJ ( talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The AfD for an "intro to PCR" article has me thinking about this again. I've been unhappy with the link to Introduction to Genetics placed at the top of Genetics, which now has FA status. The intro article is poor quality (but started when the main article was also poor quality, so understandable). Should we be guiding readers to this article from the main article? Should it even exist? Would anyone like to improve it? What should be done with it? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Simple English is a lot lower than the level you're looking at for 'introduction to' articles. Simple English is for people who don't speak much English or are a bit left of center on the bell curve. 'Introduction to' is more for people that don't have much or any specialist knowledge in the area concerned, so introduction to genetics would be more for an adult who has never studied biology, except perhaps at high school. The way things are at the moment I think an AFD wouldn't be a bad idea, unless someone(s) wants to set out what they want to article to achieve, how it's going to be different from genetics, and actually start doing it. Richard001 ( talk) 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I revised the project banner and added some project categories. Additionally, I expanded the project page with some headings typical of a WikiProject. Also, you might want to check these pages and these pages to see whether the project banner should be posted on the article talk page (if not already so done). That same list can be used to tag the article page with one or more genetics subcategories (if not already so done), many of which can be seen here and otherwise are subcatetories of Category:Genetics. GregManninLB ( talk) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at
Wikipedia:Bot requests
WikiProject Genetics is a new WikiProject. Would you please have a bot tag the talk pages of all the articles in
Category:Genetics stubs with {{WikiProject Genetics|class=Stub|importance=Low|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=|nested=}}. If the bot can determine that the article is unreferenced, please have the bot use |unref=yes as well. Thanks.
GregManninLB (
talk)
01:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Help me ensure these categories are in the one. A-Class Genetics articles A-Class medical genetics articles Applied genetics Automatically assessed Genetics articles B-Class Genetics articles B-Class medical genetics articles Category-Class Genetics pages Classical genetics Computational phylogenetics Cytogenetics Disambig-Class Genetics pages Epigenetics FA-Class Genetics articles FA-Class medical genetics articles FL-Class Genetics articles GA-Class Genetics articles GA-Class medical genetics articles Genetics Genetics articles by importance Genetics articles by quality Genetics articles needing attention Genetics articles needing expert attention Genetics books Genetics experiments Genetics infobox templates Genetics journals Genetics literature Genetics or genomics research institutions Genetics organizations Genetics past collaborations Genetics past selected articles Genetics past selected biographies Genetics past selected pictures Genetics stubs Genetics templates High-importance Genetics articles Human genetics Image-Class Genetics pages List-Class Genetics articles Low-importance Genetics articles Medical genetics Medical genetics articles by quality Medical genetics images Mid-importance Genetics articles Mitochondrial genetics Molecular genetics NA-Class Genetics pages NA-importance Genetics articles Non-article Genetics pages Old requests for Genetics peer review Phylogenetics Population genetics Portal-Class Genetics pages Project-Class Genetics pages Redirect-Class Genetics pages Requests for Genetics peer review Start-Class Genetics articles Start-Class medical genetics articles Statistical genetics Stub-Class Genetics articles Stub-Class medical genetics articles Template-Class Genetics pages Top-importance Genetics articles Unassessed-Class Genetics articles Unassessed-importance Genetics articles Unassessed medical genetics articles Unreferenced Genetics articles WikiProject Genetics WikiProject Genetics articles WikiProject Genetics participants WikiProject Medical Genetics participants WikiProject Medical genetics Wikipedians interested in genetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligent9876522 ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Elric of Melniboné got bot-tagged as a genetics article. He's a fictional albino, albeit a very notable one, and the article doesn't really go into the genetic nature of his disorder. I'm removing the tag, but feel free to readd if anyone disagrees. Jclemens ( talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that we have a lot of unassessed Genetics articles to classify, I've put together this table of pageviews together (using cumulative pageviews from 2/01/08 to 2/23/08) so we can see relative importance: User:Madeleine_Price_Ball/Genetics_counts The table has some colors assigning "top" to the top 6.7%, "high" to the next 13.3%, "mid" to the next 26.7%, and "low" to the last 53.3%—this hasn't actually been done, it was just so I could visualize which articles were where...
Here's some articles that jump out at me as maybe shouldn't be tagged Genetics...
Well I'm a little bored of going through it, I'll leave you all to vote on these questions. Please vote and sign right below each question, try to keep it short so we can all read it.
Madeleine
✉
✍
23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we please improve heredity? That page is necessary, but sort of incoherent in places and a bit odd.
Lu na ke et 14:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like one of the bots started tagging general virus articles ( RNA virus, Double-stranded RNA viruses). I'm not sure if these should really be classified as "genetics" articles or not. What are your thoughts? Schu1321 ( talk) 00:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Over the last month or so there have been several edits and reversions to the article Nucleotide, especially to the "Structure" section, so much so that it is difficult to determine exactly what that section should contain. It would probably be a good idea for someone with the appropriate background to have a look at the article to confirm that the current version in correct. Thanks! -- Hennap ( talk) 02:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Asperger syndrome got tagged into this wikiproject, and I see it was already labeled as being within Medical Genetics wikiproject. (If this hadn't been the case I would have gone ahead and removed the tag without posting here.) Are we going to include all human conditions affected by genotype, or will we limit ourselves to conditions for which a significant fraction are caused by a particular mutation (ie they have a Mendelian inheritance pattern)? With all the bot tagging, we need to guard against making the coverage of this project too broad. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'm removing the Genetics wikiproject from Asperger Syndrome, I'll note that there's an image request for it: Need an image of loci implicated in autism. See, for example, Figure 1 in Abrahams & Geschwind 2008 ( PMID 18414403). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The Race and intelligence article is in need of help with genetics, especially population genetics. -- Jagz ( talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I found this book in Wikibooks: Handbook of Genetic Counseling. Could we use some of those articles? What do you think? NCurse work 19:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I do a lot of article assessments for WPMED. Most of the genetic conditions are unfamiliar to me, which makes it difficult to place them on the priority-for-improvement ("importance") scale. What I've found most helpful is when the lead has a couple of words about the prevalence of a condition. So -- purely as a personal plea from me -- if you are working on an article about a medical condition and happen to know whether it is "uncommon", "rare", "very rare", or whatever else seems appropriate, could you please add a keyword or two for me? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I've forgotten which couple of articles prompted this note, but I'll post here (or at MEDGEN) when I run into complicated articles in the future.
LeeV, I don't actually care what standard you choose for designating the epidemiology: there are several perfectly reasonable definitions. It's just that if you can give some sort of indication about prevalence (or anything else that helps establish the context), it's really helpful to me. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have created an article Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. One editor felt it didn't meet the notability guidelines, and has since decided to let it go, but I would like to know if any others feel it should be deleted (I don't want to work on something that's just going to be deleted later on). Richard001 ( talk) 10:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute whether Dysgenics and Dysgenesis should be merged. I'm hoping an expert can weight in. The discussion is on the Dysgenics talk page. -- Zero g ( talk) 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
How relevant is the research published by Clamp et al. [3] that shows humans have only 20,500 protein-coding genes? Do other geneticists agree with this lower number? Should the number cited in Human genome be revised? -- Eleassar my talk 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 512 of the articles assigned to this project, or 19.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Genetics is today's featured article on the Main page for 12 July. Members of the WikiProject may like to keep an eye on the article for today, to counteract the inevitable increase in vandalism on the page. Cheers. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 00:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Although I cannot claim to have undertaken an extensive research, I have looked around and have failed so far to locate any signs that the guideline here is justified (there isn't even an example there, the only use lacking one). Are gene names really supposed to be italicised? If yes, this should be applied; if not, the guideline should change. Waltham, The Duke of 14:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see now how we could automatize the process of changing the typo of gene names. Any idea? NCurse work 08:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
As a general rule, gene nomenclature is a big mess. In some cases, there are logical gene names carried across species, but I've found that the more distantly related the species are, the harder it becomes to tell which are the real orthologs. There are certainly databases of orthologous genes, but it seems pretty difficult and possibly disruptive to try to make changes automatically. Better that interested parties check things as carefully as possible. Medical geneticist ( talk) 19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/Assessment isn't showing how many unassessed articles there are, an important piece of information. Perhaps the bot has put the banner on the wrong pages sometimes, but I think we should still count these; we can always delete them if the article is not related closely enough to genetics. Richard001 ( talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
People may want to express an opinion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanzee.
Kww (
talk) 15:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC
Editors and members of this project should be aware that Humanzee has been nominated for deletion. You may go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Humanzee if you wish to make your views known. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to access the following article: Modell, B. and Kuliev, A. M. (1989) Impact of public health on human genetics. Clinical Genetics. 36: 286-298. Does anyone else (with access to this journal) have the same problem? If you can tell me how to access it or send me a copy of the article I would be grateful. Richard001 ( talk) 07:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is Lampbrush chromosomes really not found in mammals?(check lampbrush) I wikied for it because in
"Processed Pseudogenes are more abundant in human and mouse X chrommosomes than in Autosomes, Guy Drouin, Mol. Biol. Evol. 23(9):1652-1655, 2006"
He refers to the "human and mouse" therefore mammalian lampbrush stage of these species I'm going to ask him tomorrow personally about his mammalian "lampbrush" stage...I don't have science books in English so I don't know the correct translation therefore can't find it in my books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meghan R ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
A wanted article: Sex chromosome disorders (a MeSH term). Would someone here care to create it, possibly as a disambiguation page? -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Mobilome is currently defined as "the total of all mobile genetic elements in a genome", with these being classified into (a) elements that move within the genome (suggested synonymous with transposable elements and (b) elements that move between genomes (examples given, prophages and plasmids).
Mobile genetic elements, however, are defined as "a type of DNA that can move around within the genome" - i.e., only (a) above - but transposons, plasmids and bacteriophages are all given as examples.
This is an inconsistency, but I can't correct it because I don't know which is right. The smallest change that would make it consistent is probably to change the definition of MGE to say "within or between genomes" rather than just "within the genome". Possibly the root cause of the problem is that the word genome itself is used differently in different contexts, so that what is "within" a genome by one definition is "between" genomes by another? Still, it's very confusing to a novice like myself - please someone sort it out! 81.86.145.28 ( talk) 15:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone here either help improve the article titled Occurrence-in-subtuple problem, or create links to it from other appropriate articles? The person who created it was around for only a short time and it is unclear whether he or she will be back. Also, I suspect the existence of counterpart articles in one or more other languages, but I don't know which ones. Mainly this results from some evidence that the person who wrote it is not a native speaker of English (although that's not as much in evidence in the most recent version as in earlier ones). At any rate, if it exists in some other language, there should be interwiki links between the two articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There has always been a very long discussion of the genetics of Berber people in this article. Since 6 December 2008, there appears to be a huge duplication of material on Berber genetics under Genetic evidence and under Influence on Europe. The duplication extends even to identical subsection headings in these two sections. Could someone knowledgeable from WikiProject Genetics please have a look at the material in these two sections and make an expert judgment? Thank you in advance. -- Zlerman ( talk) 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Please contribute to this discussion. Regards— G716 < T· C> 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
The original proposal for the project can be found here Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals#Genetics.
Now that the project has been started, there's plenty of work that needs doing. To get things rolling, I'd like to set up a project banner for tagging articles. I think that some of the articles within our scope – e.g., DNA, Genetic engineering, Human Genome Project – could potentially be included in Wikipedia:Version 1.0, so I'd also like to set up an assessment department (which sounds more formal than it really is) to help the V1.0 Editorial Team keep track of them. Comments welcome. Cheers. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 02:21, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Assessment page is up and running. I'd appreciate some feedback on the importance scheme, but if everyone thinks it's okay, we can start tagging and assessing articles in earnest. Cheers. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 03:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
article | pageviews in 4/08 | proposed importance |
---|---|---|
DNA | 302,886 | Top |
Genetic engineering | 93,799 | Top |
Gregor Mendel | 58,190 | High |
Allele | 41,989 | High |
Epigenetics | 30,046 | Mid |
Kay Davies | 303 | Mid |
Impalefection | 198 | Low |
X hyperactivation | 45 | Low |
Was thinking of tagging genetic code as top importance - it is one of the few genetics articles included on the Wikipedia:Wikipedia CD Selection, but moving to top importance requires a second opinion ... LeeVJ ( talk) 15:50, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The AfD for an "intro to PCR" article has me thinking about this again. I've been unhappy with the link to Introduction to Genetics placed at the top of Genetics, which now has FA status. The intro article is poor quality (but started when the main article was also poor quality, so understandable). Should we be guiding readers to this article from the main article? Should it even exist? Would anyone like to improve it? What should be done with it? Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I think Simple English is a lot lower than the level you're looking at for 'introduction to' articles. Simple English is for people who don't speak much English or are a bit left of center on the bell curve. 'Introduction to' is more for people that don't have much or any specialist knowledge in the area concerned, so introduction to genetics would be more for an adult who has never studied biology, except perhaps at high school. The way things are at the moment I think an AFD wouldn't be a bad idea, unless someone(s) wants to set out what they want to article to achieve, how it's going to be different from genetics, and actually start doing it. Richard001 ( talk) 07:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
I revised the project banner and added some project categories. Additionally, I expanded the project page with some headings typical of a WikiProject. Also, you might want to check these pages and these pages to see whether the project banner should be posted on the article talk page (if not already so done). That same list can be used to tag the article page with one or more genetics subcategories (if not already so done), many of which can be seen here and otherwise are subcatetories of Category:Genetics. GregManninLB ( talk) 22:00, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
Discussion at
Wikipedia:Bot requests
WikiProject Genetics is a new WikiProject. Would you please have a bot tag the talk pages of all the articles in
Category:Genetics stubs with {{WikiProject Genetics|class=Stub|importance=Low|imageneeded=|imagedetails=|unref=|nested=}}. If the bot can determine that the article is unreferenced, please have the bot use |unref=yes as well. Thanks.
GregManninLB (
talk)
01:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Help me ensure these categories are in the one. A-Class Genetics articles A-Class medical genetics articles Applied genetics Automatically assessed Genetics articles B-Class Genetics articles B-Class medical genetics articles Category-Class Genetics pages Classical genetics Computational phylogenetics Cytogenetics Disambig-Class Genetics pages Epigenetics FA-Class Genetics articles FA-Class medical genetics articles FL-Class Genetics articles GA-Class Genetics articles GA-Class medical genetics articles Genetics Genetics articles by importance Genetics articles by quality Genetics articles needing attention Genetics articles needing expert attention Genetics books Genetics experiments Genetics infobox templates Genetics journals Genetics literature Genetics or genomics research institutions Genetics organizations Genetics past collaborations Genetics past selected articles Genetics past selected biographies Genetics past selected pictures Genetics stubs Genetics templates High-importance Genetics articles Human genetics Image-Class Genetics pages List-Class Genetics articles Low-importance Genetics articles Medical genetics Medical genetics articles by quality Medical genetics images Mid-importance Genetics articles Mitochondrial genetics Molecular genetics NA-Class Genetics pages NA-importance Genetics articles Non-article Genetics pages Old requests for Genetics peer review Phylogenetics Population genetics Portal-Class Genetics pages Project-Class Genetics pages Redirect-Class Genetics pages Requests for Genetics peer review Start-Class Genetics articles Start-Class medical genetics articles Statistical genetics Stub-Class Genetics articles Stub-Class medical genetics articles Template-Class Genetics pages Top-importance Genetics articles Unassessed-Class Genetics articles Unassessed-importance Genetics articles Unassessed medical genetics articles Unreferenced Genetics articles WikiProject Genetics WikiProject Genetics articles WikiProject Genetics participants WikiProject Medical Genetics participants WikiProject Medical genetics Wikipedians interested in genetics —Preceding unsigned comment added by Intelligent9876522 ( talk • contribs) 16:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Elric of Melniboné got bot-tagged as a genetics article. He's a fictional albino, albeit a very notable one, and the article doesn't really go into the genetic nature of his disorder. I'm removing the tag, but feel free to readd if anyone disagrees. Jclemens ( talk) 23:02, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that we have a lot of unassessed Genetics articles to classify, I've put together this table of pageviews together (using cumulative pageviews from 2/01/08 to 2/23/08) so we can see relative importance: User:Madeleine_Price_Ball/Genetics_counts The table has some colors assigning "top" to the top 6.7%, "high" to the next 13.3%, "mid" to the next 26.7%, and "low" to the last 53.3%—this hasn't actually been done, it was just so I could visualize which articles were where...
Here's some articles that jump out at me as maybe shouldn't be tagged Genetics...
Well I'm a little bored of going through it, I'll leave you all to vote on these questions. Please vote and sign right below each question, try to keep it short so we can all read it.
Madeleine
✉
✍
23:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Can we please improve heredity? That page is necessary, but sort of incoherent in places and a bit odd.
Lu na ke et 14:30, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
It looks like one of the bots started tagging general virus articles ( RNA virus, Double-stranded RNA viruses). I'm not sure if these should really be classified as "genetics" articles or not. What are your thoughts? Schu1321 ( talk) 00:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Over the last month or so there have been several edits and reversions to the article Nucleotide, especially to the "Structure" section, so much so that it is difficult to determine exactly what that section should contain. It would probably be a good idea for someone with the appropriate background to have a look at the article to confirm that the current version in correct. Thanks! -- Hennap ( talk) 02:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
Asperger syndrome got tagged into this wikiproject, and I see it was already labeled as being within Medical Genetics wikiproject. (If this hadn't been the case I would have gone ahead and removed the tag without posting here.) Are we going to include all human conditions affected by genotype, or will we limit ourselves to conditions for which a significant fraction are caused by a particular mutation (ie they have a Mendelian inheritance pattern)? With all the bot tagging, we need to guard against making the coverage of this project too broad. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 22:52, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
While I'm removing the Genetics wikiproject from Asperger Syndrome, I'll note that there's an image request for it: Need an image of loci implicated in autism. See, for example, Figure 1 in Abrahams & Geschwind 2008 ( PMID 18414403). Madeleine ✉ ✍ 23:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
The Race and intelligence article is in need of help with genetics, especially population genetics. -- Jagz ( talk) 17:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
I found this book in Wikibooks: Handbook of Genetic Counseling. Could we use some of those articles? What do you think? NCurse work 19:49, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
I do a lot of article assessments for WPMED. Most of the genetic conditions are unfamiliar to me, which makes it difficult to place them on the priority-for-improvement ("importance") scale. What I've found most helpful is when the lead has a couple of words about the prevalence of a condition. So -- purely as a personal plea from me -- if you are working on an article about a medical condition and happen to know whether it is "uncommon", "rare", "very rare", or whatever else seems appropriate, could you please add a keyword or two for me? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks, WhatamIdoing ( talk) 16:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your replies. I've forgotten which couple of articles prompted this note, but I'll post here (or at MEDGEN) when I run into complicated articles in the future.
LeeV, I don't actually care what standard you choose for designating the epidemiology: there are several perfectly reasonable definitions. It's just that if you can give some sort of indication about prevalence (or anything else that helps establish the context), it's really helpful to me. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
I have created an article Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations. One editor felt it didn't meet the notability guidelines, and has since decided to let it go, but I would like to know if any others feel it should be deleted (I don't want to work on something that's just going to be deleted later on). Richard001 ( talk) 10:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute whether Dysgenics and Dysgenesis should be merged. I'm hoping an expert can weight in. The discussion is on the Dysgenics talk page. -- Zero g ( talk) 19:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
How relevant is the research published by Clamp et al. [3] that shows humans have only 20,500 protein-coding genes? Do other geneticists agree with this lower number? Should the number cited in Human genome be revised? -- Eleassar my talk 12:09, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Currently, 512 of the articles assigned to this project, or 19.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. -- B. Wolterding ( talk) 18:06, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
This project's subject has a page in the set of Lists of basic topics.
See the proposal at the Village pump to change the names of all those pages.
The Transhumanist 10:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot ( Disable) 21:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Genetics is today's featured article on the Main page for 12 July. Members of the WikiProject may like to keep an eye on the article for today, to counteract the inevitable increase in vandalism on the page. Cheers. – Liveste ( talk • edits) 00:50, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Although I cannot claim to have undertaken an extensive research, I have looked around and have failed so far to locate any signs that the guideline here is justified (there isn't even an example there, the only use lacking one). Are gene names really supposed to be italicised? If yes, this should be applied; if not, the guideline should change. Waltham, The Duke of 14:28, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see now how we could automatize the process of changing the typo of gene names. Any idea? NCurse work 08:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
As a general rule, gene nomenclature is a big mess. In some cases, there are logical gene names carried across species, but I've found that the more distantly related the species are, the harder it becomes to tell which are the real orthologs. There are certainly databases of orthologous genes, but it seems pretty difficult and possibly disruptive to try to make changes automatically. Better that interested parties check things as carefully as possible. Medical geneticist ( talk) 19:30, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Genetics/Assessment isn't showing how many unassessed articles there are, an important piece of information. Perhaps the bot has put the banner on the wrong pages sometimes, but I think we should still count these; we can always delete them if the article is not related closely enough to genetics. Richard001 ( talk) 09:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
People may want to express an opinion at
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humanzee.
Kww (
talk) 15:27, 24 August 2008 (UTC
Editors and members of this project should be aware that Humanzee has been nominated for deletion. You may go to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Humanzee if you wish to make your views known. Thor Malmjursson ( talk) 15:53, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't seem to access the following article: Modell, B. and Kuliev, A. M. (1989) Impact of public health on human genetics. Clinical Genetics. 36: 286-298. Does anyone else (with access to this journal) have the same problem? If you can tell me how to access it or send me a copy of the article I would be grateful. Richard001 ( talk) 07:41, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Is Lampbrush chromosomes really not found in mammals?(check lampbrush) I wikied for it because in
"Processed Pseudogenes are more abundant in human and mouse X chrommosomes than in Autosomes, Guy Drouin, Mol. Biol. Evol. 23(9):1652-1655, 2006"
He refers to the "human and mouse" therefore mammalian lampbrush stage of these species I'm going to ask him tomorrow personally about his mammalian "lampbrush" stage...I don't have science books in English so I don't know the correct translation therefore can't find it in my books —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meghan R ( talk • contribs) 23:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
A wanted article: Sex chromosome disorders (a MeSH term). Would someone here care to create it, possibly as a disambiguation page? -- Una Smith ( talk) 17:02, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
Mobilome is currently defined as "the total of all mobile genetic elements in a genome", with these being classified into (a) elements that move within the genome (suggested synonymous with transposable elements and (b) elements that move between genomes (examples given, prophages and plasmids).
Mobile genetic elements, however, are defined as "a type of DNA that can move around within the genome" - i.e., only (a) above - but transposons, plasmids and bacteriophages are all given as examples.
This is an inconsistency, but I can't correct it because I don't know which is right. The smallest change that would make it consistent is probably to change the definition of MGE to say "within or between genomes" rather than just "within the genome". Possibly the root cause of the problem is that the word genome itself is used differently in different contexts, so that what is "within" a genome by one definition is "between" genomes by another? Still, it's very confusing to a novice like myself - please someone sort it out! 81.86.145.28 ( talk) 15:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone here either help improve the article titled Occurrence-in-subtuple problem, or create links to it from other appropriate articles? The person who created it was around for only a short time and it is unclear whether he or she will be back. Also, I suspect the existence of counterpart articles in one or more other languages, but I don't know which ones. Mainly this results from some evidence that the person who wrote it is not a native speaker of English (although that's not as much in evidence in the most recent version as in earlier ones). At any rate, if it exists in some other language, there should be interwiki links between the two articles. Michael Hardy ( talk) 14:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
There has always been a very long discussion of the genetics of Berber people in this article. Since 6 December 2008, there appears to be a huge duplication of material on Berber genetics under Genetic evidence and under Influence on Europe. The duplication extends even to identical subsection headings in these two sections. Could someone knowledgeable from WikiProject Genetics please have a look at the material in these two sections and make an expert judgment? Thank you in advance. -- Zlerman ( talk) 05:10, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Please contribute to this discussion. Regards— G716 < T· C> 20:10, 27 December 2008 (UTC)