Talk:Genotype

message: The Sub-headings Genotype and Mendelian inheritance and Genotype and genetics have the same material. I propose we remove one of them, and put in internal links that are not common to the two duplicates.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.25.18.164 (talk) 19:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duplicate/Repeating Material 

message: Moved inappropriate tone flag from main page to here:
* I'm not sure why  added this. Unless there is further description here on the discussion page, I propose we remove this tag? JetheroTalk 01:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate tone 

message: I added an introductory paragraph that's a more accessible version of the original first few sentences.  I don't know how to remove that 'too technical' box, though, and I'm not sure if it's warranted. OsamaBinLogin 20:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too Technical 

message: *propose we merge genotyping into genotype.
** both articles need to be greatly improved, and there will be significant overlap (snp, technology, definitions, dna, etc...)
** people interested in genotyping can look at a section called one of: 'genotyping', 'determining genotype', or 'genotypic assay'
** existing genotyping page can redirect directly to this section rather than the top of the page, so navigation is not a problem. Searching for genotyping will also pull up this article.
** genotyping is rated stub and not rated for importance, while genotype is rated top importance
JetheroTalk 04:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oppose, topics have not much in common from a user's perspective. One is about a method to detect genetic variability, the other article is about such variability itself. Genotyping should be improved but kept separate, they are already interlinked. Cacycle 17:34, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rebutal - Many other topics have a single article for a range of related topics. dying disambiguates to death, burning to burn, walk to walking.  Although at a technical level these are all different things, like genotype and genotyping, they are closely related.  [Magnet] and [Magnetism], however, are different articles, both with considerable effort put into them but still lacking feature article status.  They seem to have much overlap (physics, equations, >25% of the links) and magnet has a list of 'types of magnetism', while magnetism has a list of 'types of magnets'!  So genotyping and genotype may end up having much overlap. Instead, they might be better understood as a whole, then perhaps 'split' if it becomes clear we can't find a cohesive explanation for the both of them.  Do you think we could do both topics justice under one heading? JetheroTalk 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  Improve then merge - The description of "genotyping" is not advanced enough. There should be an improvement in the section of "Genotyping" before merging with "Genotype", but I do agree that they could be merged.  (post-signed by JetheroTalk 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  possible - It may be possible to merge the topics, however, people are often only interested in genotyping, as a process, because it is widely referred to within news releases related to research.  If you hide genotyping within genotype, you'll make it much more difficult for people to get to what they are looking for -- though I don't know if that is actually a consideration for Wikipedia. Obviously, genotyping would immediately lead to genotypes, genetics and wide variety of technologies involved in genotyping.  As stated above, this section is horribly deficient at the current time.  (post-signed by JetheroTalk 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Good point. Perhaps then the article 'genotyping' should be the flagship article, with a section that discusses 'genotype'? JetheroTalk 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

text:  comment - Also, the fact that Genotyping is very technical so it's like fighting fire with fire.  (post-signed by JetheroTalk 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not sure what this means, but I agree both articles might benefit from some toning down on the technical language. JetheroTalk 01:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge [[Genotyping]] into [[Genotype]] Determining genotype section

message: I think this whole article should be gone over and heavily edited, it is very confusing and often does not make sense or is factually incorrect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.38.36 (talk) 22:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sort it out 

message: Substituted at 15:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Genotype. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070613163939/http://www.softgenetics.com/T-RFLPapplicationnote.pdf to http://www.softgenetics.com/T-RFLPapplicationnote.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716101810/http://www.softgenetics.com/MethylationDetectionApplicationNote.pdf to http://www.softgenetics.com/MethylationDetectionApplicationNote.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070923015910/http://www.softgenetics.com/MSIApplicationNote.pdf to http://www.softgenetics.com/MSIApplicationNote.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728174600/http://www.softgenetics.com/Trisomyapplicationnote.pdf to http://www.softgenetics.com/Trisomyapplicationnote.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070728174036/http://www.softgenetics.com/LOHapplicationnote.pdf to http://www.softgenetics.com/LOHapplicationnote.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Genotype. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628213758/http://www.keygene.com/home/index.php to http://www.keygene.com/home/index.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As part of a Wiki course, I plan to make the following updates to this article:
# Clean up references: add additional references to basic introductory materials throughout the article and remove excessive references to primary articles
# Simplify opening section: remove detailed examples and discussion of more tangential topics and concepts (eg, somatic mutations; history of term genotype)
# Rename and restructure "Phenotype" section: change title to "genotype-phenotype relationship" or something similar and reorganize it to flow more logically
# Combine sections on "traits involving multiple genes" and "polygenic traits" under non-Mendelian inheritance, as these refer to similar concepts, and remove text that appears to be directly copied from an uncited source
# Remove or reposition dihybrid cross table, as this is typically used as an example of independent assortment in Mendelian genetics, not non-Mendelian inheritance patterns
# Restructure the "determination" section so that it is organized by type of information that can be gained from the test (eg, detection of structural or large-scale changes vs detection of single nucleotide polymorphisms) and include links to topics such as exome sequencing
Storyminusthes (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed updates as part of wiki course 

message: Lead
The lead section is concise and clear to follow. Key ideas are introduced at an appropriate level of detail. The first introductory sentence is pithy.
Suggestions:
remove the last sentence "term genotype was coined by .." or move to earlier in first paragraph
a brief overview of the contents of the article would be beneficial
Content
The content of this article is appropriate. Genotype is a very general term; therefore, keeping this article focused is a good idea. There are lots of link to other articles for related topics. That is great!
Key related concepts of inheritance is covered. I like that it is split into mendelian and non-mendelian inheritance.
The section title "Determination" seems a bit vague. Why not just change to genotyping.
I don't know if the "Evolutionary origin of genotype" is necessary. The origin of genotype is really a story of the origin of genetic material and the mechanisms of inheritance.
Suggestions:
Maybe give penetrance and expressivity a subsection of their own under Mendelian inheritance.
maybe provide some example of the above two concepts
Tone and Balance
Overall, I think tone and balance in this article is great.
Genotype is not inherently controversial, so I think this article doesn't have issues with that
Overall I think the language is accessible to a non-expert audience
Sources and Balance
This article has a lot of sources. While there are some primary sources, many are secondary sources. Moreover, many sources are drawn from encyclopedia or general genetics texts. I think is is advantageous so that a general audience member can follow up as necessary.
I think the sources are current, thorough and comes from a diverse set of authors.
Since genotype is a fundamental topic in human genetics, I am sure there are tons of other sources out there. However, I don't think more citations are necessary and, given the quality of the current references, I don't think any more need to be added.
A spot check of the links suggests that there is not a lot of dead links.
Organization
Overall, the article is well-organized. The language is easy to read while not lacking key genetic concepts. The descriptions of these concepts are accurate. A great strength of this article is how concise the writing is given how broad a topic like genotype is. There are no grammatical errors that I noticed while reading. Content is well organized into sections and sub-sections.
Aa2021dna (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review 

message: The definitions in the respective Wikipedia pages do not appear to differ between genotype and genome. This is also evident in most definitions I found. Is there a difference? Clarification would help - and perhaps a mention in the Introduction to Genetics article (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_genetics).
“The genotype of an organism is its complete set of genetic material”(https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genotype). There is a somewhat different definition of genotype from the NHGRI at NIH (https://www.genome.gov/genetics-glossary/genotype).
“a genome is all the genetic information of an organism” (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genome)
It would also be informative to discuss the genetic information of the entire population of an organism. Does it have a name? How many more genes are present in the population of an organism than in a single individual? Presumably unknown but the current academic thoughts (or lack of) would be interesting. QuietJohn (talk) 16:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genome, genotype and genes of an entire population 

message: Genetic nomenclature 404 Not Found (sdsu.edu) https://www.sci.sdsu.edu/~smaloy/MicrobialGenetics/topics/mutations/nomenclature-v3.pdf 180.150.112.179 (talk) 17:05, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link PDF broken