Talk:Cytology

message: Is there a difference between Cytology and Cell biology? --romanm (talk) 22:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, It should be the same. The cytopathology is spin of it. (As it is branch of both the pathology and cytology) --Reo On  |  +++ 01:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I re-disambig'ed the article.{diff}  If you search Google for cytology, it is evident that the usage is most frequently in the context of diagnosis. Nephron  T|C 06:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit unclear to me what the difference is between histology and cytology. I know the former is more "tissue" focused, but if you read the wiki page on it it just talks about cell structures.  Would be good to clarify one or the other.  Julia 70.124.65.33 (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, cytology is the study of cells, so a vague equivalence to the broad topic Cell biology is correct.  However as alluded above, the word cytology is most frequently used in connection with cytopathology, which practically speaking is medical diagnosis by examining a sample of loose cells on a slide through a microscope.  This is in contrast to histology or histopathology where samples of tissue from a biopsy are examined under a microscope, including their cells.  I think one can say that, as a practical matter, cytology is a study of cells, whether normal of not, that supports cytopathology.  I think this should be expanded on in this article, instead of a mere disambiguation page.  H Padleckas (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Historically, cytology was mainly concerned with visualising the structure of cells and tissues. Now, with modern labelling techniques, it is just as active in visualising cell processes. It's a speciality often used by a wide range of molecular and cellular enquiries. A lab working on cell biology problems often has a cytologist on tap. The range of techniques, stains and fluorescent and radioactive labels is so huge now that a cytologist is a useful person to have in the lab. Considering also the point made above by Padleckas, I think it deserves a page of its own, and the lack of a good one is a defect. Histology is a sub-discipline of cytology, and Cell biology is, of course, a more synoptic term. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The definition I've learned is that cytology entails the study of cells on their own, without needing to look at tissue. For example cytological samples are collected for example from fluids. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I.e. that definition is the other way around; cytology being a sub-speciality to histology (depending on definition of histology, either as study of tissues or as micro anatomy, which is the definition used in the article on WP).CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:54, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re-disambig 

message: This article is a good start; however, it is very vague. A good start implies there are no distractions or obvious errors, the links are valid /work, and is neutral. More information is definitely needed. Try adding more information about the history and creation of Cytology. Elaborate on the discovery of cells and how the science has grown since then. There could be photos added of cells or even the man that discovered them. Include more fields of science that are related to Cytology; for example, microbiology or genetics. Possibly use the "Cell Biology" wiki article as a guideline to improve. More structure and information is definitely needed. With that, this page can be upgraded from a "stub". Thank you for you time and consideration.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolinejoyce99 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits and clarification  

message: The wikipedia article "cytology" has an academic purpose of bringing awareness to Cytology, the study of cells. The biggest problem I see here with this article is the lack of information. It appears to be somewhat incomplete and vague. To fill in the gaps I would recommend adding more information on the history of the study and maybe how cytology has evolved from the older days to modern days. I would also add information on research projects and studies that might have helped lead to advancements in this field of study. Incorporating the pages/links in sentences that explain their correlation to this article (Cytology) instead of just listing them is another recommendation. I checked each link and they do work, so that is one thing that does not have to be altered. The methods and format used to convey this information is not ideal for wikipedia; I would recommend cleaning up the presentation of this page to make it easier to navigate in order for readers to extract information from this article once more information is added. There are no problems with the way that this article cites information. The sources that are cited in this article seem to come from reliable sources, so that is another good thing I would not change. Another way to strengthen this article would be to add images and/or videos. I would recommend an actual photo of a cell that can be refrenced in the article to talk about cell structure. I would even mention related studies or theories, maybe even mention "Cell theory." This article is very vague and it has the room to narrow in on a lot of great related topics. One thing I will compliment this article on doing is refraining from bias statements; all information is completely factual. All in all, this article has a good start but it also needs a lot of work in order to expand and strengthen it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmckn001 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Critique 

message: I added more information to this article because it was really lacking in that department prior to my contribution. I categorized this information into two sections, History and Cell Structure. I focused very heavily on the history section. I named some historical figures that contributed to the beginning studies of the building blocks of life, cells. I made sure to link these names and certain subtopics that were mention to its related page on wikipedia. I thought that would be helpful seeing that of course, I could not explain everything so in depth. So its nice for readers to get a deeper understanding of things via the links to other pages. I checked each link and they do work! "Cell Theory" was a very big focus of mine as well, I found it essential to mention it and how this theory has evolved. I also made sure to cite almost every sentence. All of my references were added to the reference section that was already made prior to my contribution. I tried to insert a photo to the cell structure section of this page however, I was having difficulties doing so. I will try again, hopefully it works because it will def make the page more visually attractive. (UPDATE: it worked) Lastly, I just added a simple section highlighting the different branches of cytology. It is another way to link this page to some more popular pages.
 
Tmckn001 (talk) 23:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Description Of My Edits

message: As remarked more than a decade ago in this talk page "Cytology" and "Cell Biology" are synonyms.https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cytology
Even the cell biology article affirms that cell biology was "formerly called cytology". I propose to merge this page to the "cell biology" one. ATPhosphate (talk) 22:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge proposal

message: Since cytology and cell biology are synonyms I am going to merge the "cytology" article to the "cell biology" article. Since "cytology" is an older term for "cell biology" and this article lacks lots of information, I am going to redirect this page to the "Cell Biology" page.
ATPhosphate (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge