Talk:Genotype
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is part of WikiProject Genetics, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to genetics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this page, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The WikiProject's current monthly collaboration is focused on improving Restriction enzyme. |
||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
||
| Top | This article is on a subject of Top-importance within molecular and cellular biology. | ||
|
Article Grading: The following comments were left by the quality and importance raters: (edit · history · refresh · how to use this template) rated top as high school/SAT biology content - tameeria 14:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) This article needs expansion/clarification, references, and images (e.g. explaining genotype-phenotype distinction). - tameeria 18:21, 18 February 2007 (UTC) |
|||
Contents |
[edit] Inappropriate tone
Moved inappropriate tone flag from main page to here:
 |
The tone or style of this article or section may not be appropriate for Wikipedia. Specific concerns may be found on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.(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)
[edit] Too Technical
 |
This article may be too technical for a general audience. Please help improve this article by providing more context and better explanations of technical details to make it more accessible, without removing technical details. |
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)
[edit] 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
JetheroTalk 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
-
- 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. 24.226.22.61 (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 64.69.104.2 (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] 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.
this is stupid this website that you can actually edit the website and put fake stuff on here but who cares —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.24.241 (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
