Talk:DNA: Difference between revisions
imported>Chris day |
imported>David Tribe No edit summary |
||
Line 51: | Line 51: | ||
::I disagree with both of you and really like the long detailed article. You just hit cntrl+f or apple key+f and you can find whatever you want in the article. Why not make a simple version as a separate article? [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 01:57, 12 February 2007 (CST) | ::I disagree with both of you and really like the long detailed article. You just hit cntrl+f or apple key+f and you can find whatever you want in the article. Why not make a simple version as a separate article? [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 01:57, 12 February 2007 (CST) | ||
::: I think what David is suggesting is a primer version, although I don't what to speak for him too much. In my opinion the two could definitely co-exhist. We can have our cake and eat it. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 02:02, 12 February 2007 (CST) | ::: I think what David is suggesting is a primer version, although I don't what to speak for him too much. In my opinion the two could definitely co-exhist. We can have our cake and eat it. [[User:Chris day|Chris Day]] [[User talk:Chris day|(Talk)]] 02:02, 12 February 2007 (CST) | ||
:::: Im not wanting to be dogmatic and don't want to throw anything out just (thinking of) putting some of it elsewhere. | |||
Top priority is to find a way to create an article that novices will learn a lot of important stuff easily. | |||
Lets keep talking to discover whats the best strucure that achieves this and whether for instance thats with a primer plus a big article. | |||
In important topics like DNA a separate primer maybe a good idea. Maybe we can start a tradition of primers, maybe not. Larry might have some argument that its bad. | |||
One way is to have a little link at the top saying DNA primer for those who need the simplestest essentials. Unforntunatly DNA primer by itsaelf has a special meening so we could call it DNA for beginners. waadya think? [[User:David Tribe|David Tribe]] 03:47, 12 February 2007 (CST) |
Revision as of 03:47, 12 February 2007
Copyright violation?
This looks like just a rip of a Wikipedia article... can someone fix it? Shanya Almafeta 15:28, 11 February 2007 (CST)
We should all edit it. Before the unfork, we had all the WP articles, and as they became different we made them CZ live. I see your concern, but it is legitimate to import articles and then work on them. Nancy Sculerati MD 15:33, 11 February 2007 (CST)
Proposition:
This article is far too big.
Lets identify 1. the corere sections for a coherent comprehesnive introduction to understanding the key biological roles of DNA
2. Packages that form the nuclues of other vitasl biology topics.
I'm talkin' RADICAL SURGERY HERE.
Che?
David Tribe 01:33, 12 February 2007 (CST)
Here is the current content:
- 1 Physical and chemical properties
- 1.1 Base pairing
- 1.2 Sense and antisense
- 1.3 Supercoiling
- 1.4 Alternative double-helical structures
- 1.5 Quadruplex structures
- 2 Chemical modifications
- 2.1 Regulatory base modifications
- 2.2 DNA damage
- 3 Overview of biological functions
- 3.1 Transcription and translation
- 3.2 Replication
- 4 Genes and genomes
- 5 Interactions with proteins
- 5.1 DNA-binding proteins
- 5.2 DNA-modifying enzymes
- 5.2.1 Nucleases and ligases
- 5.2.2 Topoisomerases and helicases
- 5.2.3 Polymerases
- 6 Genetic recombination
- 7 Uses in technology
- 7.1 Forensics
- 7.2 Bioinformatics
- 7.3 DNA and computation
- 7.4 History and anthropology
- 8 History
I have bolded what seem to be fundamental and should be kept at some level for a primer article. Feel free to add or subrtract from this initial cut. Chris Day (Talk) 01:44, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- I disagree with both of you and really like the long detailed article. You just hit cntrl+f or apple key+f and you can find whatever you want in the article. Why not make a simple version as a separate article? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:57, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- I think what David is suggesting is a primer version, although I don't what to speak for him too much. In my opinion the two could definitely co-exhist. We can have our cake and eat it. Chris Day (Talk) 02:02, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- Im not wanting to be dogmatic and don't want to throw anything out just (thinking of) putting some of it elsewhere.
- I think what David is suggesting is a primer version, although I don't what to speak for him too much. In my opinion the two could definitely co-exhist. We can have our cake and eat it. Chris Day (Talk) 02:02, 12 February 2007 (CST)
- I disagree with both of you and really like the long detailed article. You just hit cntrl+f or apple key+f and you can find whatever you want in the article. Why not make a simple version as a separate article? -Tom Kelly (Talk) 01:57, 12 February 2007 (CST)
Top priority is to find a way to create an article that novices will learn a lot of important stuff easily.
Lets keep talking to discover whats the best strucure that achieves this and whether for instance thats with a primer plus a big article.
In important topics like DNA a separate primer maybe a good idea. Maybe we can start a tradition of primers, maybe not. Larry might have some argument that its bad.
One way is to have a little link at the top saying DNA primer for those who need the simplestest essentials. Unforntunatly DNA primer by itsaelf has a special meening so we could call it DNA for beginners. waadya think? David Tribe 03:47, 12 February 2007 (CST)