Talk:Phenome

message: Just a request, I've stumbled into this area by accident, and I'd like to do what I can to calm things down a bit. Could we not force the redirect for the time being, and have some further discussion? I don't have a sense as to whether the redirect is a good or bad idea, but this is approaching an edit war. Thoughts? --Nuujinn (talk) 19:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  A request 

message: First of all, I've archived the prior discussion here, just for housecleaning purposes. There is a lot of good information in there, it's worth reading through.
Second, I'm not an expert in this topic--my prior field of study was philosophy of language and literary criticism, and I work in IT. So I'm very familiar with jargon.
In terms of defining the problem, I believe we have two basically independent issues to consider:
*Is Phenome essentially a synonym of Phenotype?
*Is Phenome in wide enough use to justify an article on it?
I note that User:Colonel Warden has made some edits, and found a reference that dates to 1949, so it is clear that the term has a long history. I also note that User:Crusio has made some compelling arguments in the archive that the term is essentially jargon, and really just a synonym  of Phenotype. There's also a third related term, Phenomics, and from what I've read, it seems that there is justification for that article, if only for the reason that there are now centers and groups using that term in their titles.
I also think at this point we have three main options:
*Redirect this page to phenotype
*Maintain this page and improve it
*Change this page to a disambiguation page linking to Phenotype and Phenomics
Given User:Colonel Warden's recent edit, my inclination is to maintain this page and improve it. What does everyone else think? --Nuujinn (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I feel strong sympathy to his position as well. In terms of denotation, I think they are synonyms, but I also see that folks are trying to distinguish the two. My impression is that as a term, phenome is at this point just really jargon and not well defined, but will become more entrenched over time, and hopefully a clearer distinction will emerge. Such shifts are not unusual--I see the same issues with Bioinformatics as a term, for example. But in any case, whatever our opinions, it's the sources that count, so anything sourced is welcome. Feel free to bring material here to discuss additions, or be bold and put anything referenced in. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:33, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it common usage, but I'm not at all sure it's well defined or all that distinct from Phenotype. But ultimately that doesn't matter, feel free to bring in additional sources or restore older ones if you think that will improve the article. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep, Redirect, or Convert 

message: *This article is still a mess. there is (not unsurprisingly, I think) no clear definition of phenome. As the set of all characteristics displayed by an organism is its phenotype, there's some overlap here. In addition, a phenotype is an "observable characteristic" and as such it is difficult to speak about the "phenotype" of a species... --Crusio (talk) 14:25, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy