Talk:GloFish
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 part of WikiProject Fishes, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to Fish taxa. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Fishes. This project is an offshoot of the WikiProject Tree of Life |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. |
Yorktown Technologies calls their product GloFish (TM). Should we change the article capitalization? RickK 00:21, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The Centre for Food Safety And Nutrition is a subsiduary of the US FDA, and should not be confused with the CFS mentioned above, an environmental group similar in some ways to Greenpeace.
Isn't this a useful clarification? Also, suggestions for rewording, please; I acknowledge it could be seen as POV.
Mr. Jones 14:46, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Would it be possible to include a photograph? Sennheiser 13:15, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Aren't these zebrafish merely expressing BioGlo (p-GLO)? Can someone find a source on this? 139.84.48.249 15:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] California
The article says that "the State of California Department of Fish and Game" found the fish safe (implying legality), but later in the article it is stated that the fish is still illegal in California. If it's illegal, someone needs to add why. OzLawyer 00:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC) I have added a discussion of this aspect. -- Stewart
[edit] propose merge to Zebrafish
I propose this article be merged with Zebrafish. Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 06:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- DON'T MERGE Too much unique information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tactik (talk • contribs) 09:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC).
- Don't merge In constrast to leopard danio, the first gmo to be marketed as a pet is well worth its own page. It is of much broader significance, eg to anyone interested in the public's acceptance of biotech (who might not be interested in zebrafish per se). Also, all this would overwhelm the rather short article we've got on zebrafish. A short section summarising this on the zebrafish page might be a nice addition, though. –Adrian J. Hunter 10:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
- Don't merge Merging the articles would be a bad idea. As the first biotech animal, this fish is extremely significant in its own right. Combining this with the zebrafish page would discount that fact and be like placing Dolly, the first cloned sheep, under the Sheep page. It would also be a great disservice to those seeking information on this specific fish vs. zebrafish in general. Last, this article dates back to November of 2003 and has hundreds of edits - there does not seem to be any reason to merge the two articles now, and extremely good reasons not to do so.
