Talk:List of notable genes
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since i am not logged in. i am posting this link to support the edit in the front page and hopefully avoid it being purged. wkm Quote " They found that the HLA-B*35-Px gene linked to rapid progression from HIV infection to Aids is "two-and-a-half times" more common in Indians than a protective gene called HLA-B*35-Py." Source [1]
Contents |
[edit] BTK
Unless somebody is willing to write an article about BTK the gene, the BTK link should be de-link-ified, as it currently points to Dennis Rader a.k.a. BTK a.k.a. Bind Torture Kill - a serial killer, not a gene. N0YKG 02:55, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
- Probably better to link to BTK (gene) ?? --WS 00:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Divide and conquer
Honestly, I'm not sure if this is really a useful list for anyone to maintain. A list of genes which have been been found to be important in some biological process would be overwhelming, and is not that helpful as a list alone to anyone, layman or researcher. I think a better strategy would be to have sub-lists which concentrate on important genes for certain processes, i.e. "List of notable genes in:" followed by: "Development," "Apoptosis," or "Cancer." Each one of those sub-lists alone would be dozens, if not hundreds, of notable genes. That's why this list should be broken up. Anyone on for the challenge? Let me know. Mr.Bip 07:03, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
- I agree, and I think the word 'notable' shouldn't be included in the article title - it sounds a bit silly when it's referring to genes. Maybe 'important' would be better? - ulayiti (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
- I second the motion. This list would be much more friendly and overall more educative if we had even a hint of each of the genes' 'notable' functions. As it is, the list is merely useful for a bunch of people who already know the name of the gene they would like to look for and what it does (i.e., genetists and the like, not average users looking for wisdom). Kreachure 23:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
-
- I can see where you are going, but I don't agree that, this information is only necessary for the experts. See, there are people who are going into this industry and an accessible articles may act as stepping stone for them. This is an electronic facility where space is not limited. If someone wish to offer his or her knowledge, I don't think we should put a barrier just because only a few will ever require it or because a particular gene is not that important. Oh, this gene SPRN6 is rumoured to be related to malaria. [2]
[edit] Notably sad list, that is.
Yes, this is worse than I thought. There are way too many items in the list that link to pages with the initials of their names, but that have nothing to do with the genes themselves! Most are disambiguation pages, which makes things worse (trying to look on the lists there for an actual gene page, which actually doesn't exist in the first place!). This page needs an urgent reboot. Kreachure 23:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
- Kreachure - clearly, I agree. Want to start a new set of lists? Let me know. I'm up for the challenge. Mr.Bip 00:32, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Removing items
Does anybody object if I remove the entries that don't yet have Wikipedia entries? --Arcadian 14:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
- I've removed the entries that have only a redlink for a Wikipedia entry, taking it down from about 600 to about 200. However, I have not yet gone through each of the rest to confirm that it is refering to the gene and not to something else. (Assistance in this would of course be appreciated.) --Arcadian 22:40, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
