Talk:Karyotype

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A summary of this article appears in chromosome.
Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject This article is within the scope of the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject. To participate, visit the WikiProject for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Signal transduction.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within molecular and cellular biology.

Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Karyotype article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.

Article policies

More details about karyotyping and its use in finding diseases and such are welcome. Grandmasterka 09:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger from Chromosome banding

Contents

[edit] voting

  • no, don't merge. I think rather move spectral karyotype section from karyotype and just link from there to the main article, as they are two different whole subjects, even while it seems there isn't any content or someone to add or support any of them.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Caue.cm.rego (talkcontribs).

Comment: What about putting Chromosome banding and the section on SKY technique in an article called Karyotype visualisation techniques? --apers0n 08:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be a better solution. NCurse work 14:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On the contrary

No, not completely. You can have a splurge in there for SpecKaryotyping, but also have a main article on the subject, and link the two.

Halberdier25 23:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reverting history

I don't have any idea which is the correct version - the original version, or the version with the changes that 68.116.197.195 added. 212.219.232.85's changes clearly were vandalism, and only one of the two edits got fixed before 68.116.197.195's changes, which Samsara reverted. I'm assuming that Samsara knew what he or she was doing in removing the intermediate changes, and that, as a result, the proper version is the January 25 one. If that's true, then the most recent substantive contribution was Cohesion's Dec 31, 2006 edit.--Rkstafford 16:27, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Revision

It says that R-Banding is the opposite of C-Banding but R-Banding is the opposite of G-Banding not C-Banding. I just learned about this in my Human Genetics class and asked my professor to ensure that I am correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 204.52.215.116 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2007 (UTC).