Template talk:Genetic engineering

Graphic in title

[edit]

Is the graphic in the title really necessary? Is doesn't mesh with the templates. Looks out of place...

DrBurningBunny (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed. AIRcorn (talk) 22:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

While I agree with some of the recent changes, in particular standardising some of the terms, I am not sure the current set up is ideal. Potato could be a parent article, but I don't see any appearing for the Rose, Moss or Brinjal. Are all the different lines of Maize, Potato, Rice, Soybean and Tomato ever likely to be notable enough for there own article. At the moment it looks like a sea of red, with generally meaningless names. AIRcorn (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed it back to its previous form, but added rice and changed the names to genetically modified ????. AIRcorn (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can say that many of them, though perhaps not all, are notable enough to maintain articles on. The list could've actually been a whole lot larger, but I opted to primarily include only those with known trade names in the agriculture industry. The reason that generic names are used in the red links is because many of the varieties follow naming conventions that easily confuse at first glance, which is not very conducive to fostering the creation of new articles.   — C M B J   21:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently only one GM Brinjal and one GM rose. It seems pointless to have a parent category for a single item. I do not think that each individual event is notable enough for an article. There are really only two potato varieties, Amflora and New Leaf. All the other events could go under New Leaf, which even though discontinued would probably be notable enough for its own article. I really don't understand your reasoning for the naming conventions. I think you may be confusing the names given to individual events with the trade names that they are sold under. They would probably fail the common name test in any case; surely farmers and suppliers would use New Leaf Potato, Herculex Maize or Roundup Ready Soybean, not RBMT21-129, DAS-59122-7 or GTS 40-3-2 etc. AIRcorn (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As far as eggplants and roses go, there are multiple events out there and we will undoubtedly see exponential growth in all categories as time passes. We could combine those two into a single “Others” row until at least a second article on each exists, if you think that would be preferable.
In the literature that I've seen, ambiguity is commonplace and it's often unclear whether, for example, “YieldGard maize” refers to MON801, MON802, MON809, MON810, MON863 or several other newer varieties and hybrid derivatives. The degree of misinformation that I've encountered in reliable sources is obscene; fundamental descriptors are used interchangeably, generalizations are routinely made without regard for specific varieties or even core mechanisms, and product whitesheets often omit the most basic of scientific information. Considering that even minor genetic changes can produce radically different effects, it is at best haphazard to attempt the synthesis of various events in this way. As such, I strongly disagree that [notable] individual events do not warrant independent articles.
With that said, I believe that you misunderstood my thoughts on naming conventions. I have no objection to eventually titling these articles based on specific, distinguished trade names—it's just initially problematic until our coverage in this area matures, because anyone seeking to start an article on one of them will have to overcome a significantly greater learning curve in order to find sources and conduct proper research. I suppose you could say it's an approach that ignores the rules, but I saw it to be a practical temporary solution.   — C M B J   21:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There is a lot of misinformation out there, from both sides of the fence. If you can access journals they are usually the best source for relatively unbiased accurate information. I guess we are both going to disagree on the notability of single events. I would think a case by case approach best, some like MON 810 and MON 863 have been well covered by independent secondary sources. I can't see many of the other single events passing the WP:GNG guidelines (maybe Bt11 due to the Monarch Butterfly issue). My approach would be to have a general Genetically modified [plant] article and expand on that, splitting out a event if/when the information becomes available. Something similar to the Genetically modified tomato article. If we want to encourage new article creation I would go for red linking/splitting Genetically modified tobacco, Genetically modified Arabidopsis, Genetically modified cotton and Genetically modified canola, or to a lesser extent Genetically modified sugarbeet and Genetically modified carnation. AIRcorn (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Genetic_engineering&oldid=1254555445"