Talk:Single nucleotide polymorphism

From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Revision as of 21:09, October 11, 2019 by Kmdenmark (talk | contribs)

Article outlines -- notjusttired (talk) 17:58, July 14, 2019 (EDT)[edit source | reply | new]

Please use MEpedia:Article outlines when creating new stubs, it saves a lot of work later. notjusttired (talk) 17:58, July 14, 2019 (EDT)

Delete?[edit source | reply | new]

User:Pyrrhus I saw you renamed this, but I have been thinking of deleting it due to lack of content, and just adding to the Terminology page so people get get a pop up explanation instead. ~Njt (talk) 10:31, October 6, 2019 (EDT)

Njt I think you raise an interesting question. This page represents an essential idea needed to understand any genetics studies, so this term must be described for readers. But should it be described in its own separate page, or in a glossary/terminology entry? This question could be asked of many many other pages as well. If there is a future section of this page that will be related to ME, it should definitely get its own page. But if there will not be any section on the page directly related to ME, maybe it would be better described in a short glossary/terminology entry, with links to "learn more". I would be interested to hear other people's opinions. User:Kmdenmark User:JaimeS User:JenB User:Hip User:Malcx User:Sisyphus Thoughts?
Pyrrhus (talk) 18:59, October 6, 2019 (EDT)
It's the same issue with a number of stubs, Antibody and Tachycardia for example. Bradycardia is already only in the Terminology page. There are many stubs from years ago with not enough content / significance to justify a separate page in my view. Most that is relevant to Tachycardia for instance will on the POTS page. ~Njt (talk) 20:23, October 6, 2019 (EDT)

Re: Delete? -- Hip (talk) 19:08, October 6, 2019 (EDT)[edit source | reply | new]

I believe the idea of MEpedia is that it is hope it will grow slowly, so many pages may start out as stubs, but hopefully gather volume over time. If you look at Wikipedia, this is exactly what happened: in the early years articles were very minimal, but they slowly expanded over the years. So stub articles on important subjects I think should be kept. Hip (talk) 19:08, October 6, 2019 (EDT)
I'm in favor of leaving the page as is, also. This page may blossom as more genetic research in ME/CFS is done. Kmdenmark (talk) 17:35, October 7, 2019 (EDT)
OK. What about Antibody, an entirely blank page, and Tachycardia (one line) - both are now in Terminology. ~Njt (talk) 06:14, October 8, 2019 (EDT)
I think it would be better to delete the pages and have them in terminology only. Kmdenmark (talk) 15:57, October 8, 2019 (EDT)
Interesting. Would be willing to explain your rationale Kmdenmark? What made you change your mind, if you changed your mind? When should a page without any section related to ME get its own page? When should a page without any section related to ME be put in glossary/terminology only?
Pyrrhus (talk) 22:49, October 10, 2019 (EDT)
When should a page without any section related to ME be put in glossary/terminology only?: Some pages/articles were made solely to define a term used in other pages/articles and they only had one or two sentences. I think they are perfect candidates for the Terminolgy page.
What made you change your mind: When the Terminology template was added, it seemed an easier way to fulfilled the need to define terms used on other pages than creating separate pages for each. It also solves the headache of finding the term in other articles and adding a hyperlink.
When should a page without any section related to ME get its own page? That's a hard call. I personally think that every page should relate to ME or the reader's understanding of science to better understand ME, but I know some people want the site to be more expansive. Some pages about other illnesses serve the purpose of comparing/contrasting with ME, so I believe they have relevance. Whether a page has merit as a stand-alone page depends on the editors currently involved at the time of the decision-making.
After working on MEpedia for three years, I've seen editorial decisions made, reversed, and made again by different groups of contributors, so I think that things end up working themselves out. Some editors take the discussion to our Facebook page to get consensus.
What is your preference regarding what merits placement on the terminology page vs having a stand alone page? Pyrrhus and Njt Kmdenmark (talk) 17:09, October 11, 2019 (EDT)