Talk:Chromosomal translocation

message: The main distinction is betweeen reciprocal (no-loss) and non-reciprocal translocations. The latter are of great importance in cancer genomics, the former are mostly relevant to reproductive genetics. In reciprocal translocations, the distinction between balanced and unbalanced only becomes important after meiosis. A picture would be good here
(sorry, deep-linked for now) : http://www.newcastle-hospitals.org.uk/Reciprocal_translocation_1.jpg
The terminology is a bit ambiguous. It would be less confusing if we decided that the term '(non-)reciprocal' *only* applies to the the translocation, and that '(un)balanced' *only* applies to the genotype.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Plijnzaad (talk • contribs) 12:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introduction is misleading 

message: I checked the link at the bottom, its to a (very good) video of Inversion, a related but very different genetic anomoly
It should be removed or replaced Eipiplus1 10:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animation link at the bottom not of Translocation 

message: Janet Rowley has things to tell us. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical review 

message: According to this site, the numbers after p or q give the distance in centimorgans from the centromere. That makes more sense, because regions/bands have a different notation, with letters for bands.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.137.94.3 (talk) 12:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbers after chromosome arms 

message: I don't know how to correct the table. Can someone please do this?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.174.64.8 (talk) 07:20, 7 August 2011
:The combined deletion is associated with a better prognosis. The combined deletion is a the result of the the translocation being lost.Novangelis (talk) 14:02, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oligodendrogluona 1p 19q is a deletion not a translocation, detected as loss of heterozygosity. 

message: Is that medref tag still justified? I'm not qualified at all in this subject matter. I have the impression that the article is fine. I note with annoyance that the user who apparently applied the tag has not, himself, done any further work on the article. That always strikes me as plain laziness - slap a tag on something and walk away rather than work on fixing it. One sees it all over Wikipedia, like some endemic disease.
If that tag can come off, I think it should.
Poihths (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Many of the statements in the article and the entries on the table are uncited, so I'd say it is justified. Yes, the alternative described at , be bold and find the references is ideal, but it often impractical. The person who tags an article with unsourced statements is no lazier than the person who made the unattributed claims. If I see an article in a field for which I am uncertain of the relevant literature, I will tag and run. Identifying a problem is better than ignoring a problem, so it is not necessarily laziness. Please, do not cast aspersions on an editor whose actions were proper and motives uncertain. I'll go digging for a book after dinner and fill in some of the missing citations, but it won't be enough to kill the tag, immediately.Novangelis (talk) 23:21, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medref tag still justified?