Talk:Melanocortin 1 receptor

message: Subject line says it all - this article uses Mc1r, but some of the references at least use MC1R - which is correct? Rachel Pearce (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mc1r v. MC1R 

message: I have removed the image of the map of human skin colours over the globe as it is misleading and irrelevant to the topic (we're discussing the 1-4% of the population with a dysfunctional MC1R variation, not the evolution of skin colour in the general population). 
There is however a more relevant image of the distribution of red hair in the United Kingdom at http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/images/map_of_red_hair_in_England.gif (the HTML it's used in is http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_1.htm) that maybe should go in its place. The image is "reproduced with permission from Cambridge University Press.  From E. Sunderland, "Hair-Colour in the United Kingdom," The Annals of Human Genetics, Vol. 20, p. 327, 1955-56", the original article can be found here: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-1809.1955.tb01286.x/abstract but you have to pay to see the whole thing.
Can someone either get permission and upload it, or tell me how to go about it. Tobus2 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics image 

message: I believe the prevalence of people with MC1R who have a GREAT deal of pain during dental procedures is relevant to this article (apparently it confers immunity to anesthetic).
http://jada.ada.org/content/140/7/896.abstract
http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-30/health/redhead.pain.dentist_1_red-hair-thermal-pain-redheads?_s=PM:HEALTH
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outcomes_Research_Consortium#Red_Hair_and_Anesthesia  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dianaramadani (talk • contribs) 09:40, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dental pain in humans 

message: Right now there is Citation Needed tag in the lead of this article that has questionable function. Here is the section of policy that defines this issue...
Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations
Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article.
Here is the sentence that is requesting a citation. 
MC1R has also been reported to be involved in cancer (independent of skin coloration), developmental processes, and susceptibility to infections and pain.[citation needed]
I completely grasp that this sentence falls under the purview of "challengeable material." However, the last four subsections of the Functions section - which is directly below the lead - contain more details on all these reported effects of variations of the MC1R gene, and there are ample citations on each of those subsections. It seems to be that adding multiple citations to that one sentence in the lead would be highly redundant and 'out of balance'. 
For this reason I think the tag should be removed. But because it's something that should have editorial consensus, I felt it was important to open it up to discussion. CleverTitania (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation Needed - Editorial Consensus 

message: If you haven't been following this conversation previously, the section above called Red hair and freckles will give you the backstory details. However because I am now suggesting a restructuring of the page, I am moving this discussion into its own section. 
I went to make the changes agreed to above, and realized that the entire last paragraph in the Coloration in Mammals subsection needs to go, for two reasons. 
#As we've determined, the facts in the latter part of that paragraph have no source at all. And the information I was going to replace them with, from the abstract of the study cited, is already in the Pigmentation genetics section of this article. 
#The source in the first part of the paragraph, claiming that 25% of the population has the mutated MC1R gene, is a website that sells at-home MC1R gene testing kits. And the numbers quoted from that website have no further reference on their website I can find - so they could've been invented for marketing purposes. In fact of the three links that are on the webpage in the citation, two are links to this Wikipedia article, and the third is broken. So that is not remotely a reliable source.
I understand why the Coloration of Mammals subsection is under the Functions section, and why someone tried to include information about human coloration in that subsection. But it's basically giving us two separate Pigmentation genetics areas on the page, both of which cover other animals and humans. I feel like the only wise solution is to merge all of that information into one place. But if you move everything in the Pigmentation genetics section into the Coloration of Mammals subsection that will be pretty long for a subsection. So I was trying to think of simple ways to fix this problem, that didn't require a major restructuring of the article. 
My solution: We create a section just below the lead, titled something like, "Pigmentation and Coloration Functions." All the information about pigmentation and coloration would go there. Then below that would be a section titled "Additional Receptor Functions," which contains the other subsections currently found in the Functions section. That seems to be the smoothest and most organized way to fix this. But I am of course open to other suggestions.CleverTitania (talk) 22:26, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that's a very sensible solution. I've seen something heading structures in other gene/protein pages. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:21, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Restructuring Suggestion 

message: Melanocortin 1 receptor Asp294His should probably be merged into this page rather than sitting separately. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mutation merge in 

message: The section entitled "Pigmentation genetics" characterizes the Out of Africa hypothesis for human origination and migration as debunked, whereas neither the Wikipedia article on this topic nor the citation give adequate evidence to this effect, much to contrary, conceding that OOA represents the current scientific consensus, and has remained so despite the ongoing revisions to the details.
Suggestions should be eliminated that the recent African origin of modern humans is not scientific. Epl (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Africa "debunked"