Talk:Chromosome

message: This article should be semi-protected. Over 5% of the edits are vandalism, and a lot of vandalism has been occuring recently.
Jerry Zhang 00:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Protect This Article

message: Isn't the following line wrong?
"In eukaryotes a small circular DNA molecule may be called either a plasmid or a small chromosome." Shouldn't it be prokaryotes instead of eukaryotes? 
85.224.171.23 14:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, eukaryotes can also have small circular cytoplasmic chromosomes. This is rare in 'typical' organisms, but is seen in more unusual species, see trypanosoma brucei for an example. - Zephyris Talk 22:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okey, but shouldn't the page note that both eukaryotes and prokaryotes have plasmids?87.96.132.194 13:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eukaryotes/Prokaryotes 

message: Why not use the more conventional term "metaphase chromosome"? JWSchmidt 15:58, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: The term "metaphasic"

message: Does anyone have an updated source for the human chromosome table with the number of genes for each chromosome, with the new data trimming the genes to 20,000? - Thanks - Jerryseinfeld 12:15, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I did that just now. Openpaul  11 April 2016
Does anybody know the reason of the relative decrease of the number of genes and the bases they contain while shifting from the 1st to the 22nd chromosome? I suspect it has an explanation within the evolutionary process but a brief explanation by an experts or a link would be great. barfly 03:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Are you asking why the chromsomes are all different lengths? Or are you asking why the chromosome numbers are in the same order as their size? David D. (Talk) 03:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The numbers of the chromosomes were assigned in the order of their size, so by definition they should decrease in size. The X and Y size difference does have an evolutionary  significance. There is good evidence that they were once the same chromosme but the Y is slowly getting deleted over time. See the following: Y_chromosome#Origins. David D. (Talk) 15:35, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can chromosome aberrations lead to positive traits such as super athleticism, super intelligence instead of the syndromes and illnesses that are studied? 81.129.179.21 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi 81.129.179.21! The talk page of articles is actually for discussing the article, not for asking questions. I recommend you ask your question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science instead. I'm (almost) sure some people there will try to answer you. Lova Falk talk 08:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human Chromosomes 

message: The "Chromosomes in bacteria" section states
: Bacterial chromosomes initiate replication and one origin of replication.
This does not make sense for me.  Is this by chance supposed to read "... initiate replication at one origin ..."?  --Jochen 11:56, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromosomes in bacteria 

message: Sorry if this isn't the right place, but I can't find a molecular biology or genetics wikiproject.  As a layman, I've found a few things missing from our coverage of molecular biology (maybe they're there, I just can't find 'em):
* a lot of the genes listed in list of notable genes refer to the locus of the gene, but locus points to a disambig page.  I think we should make an article called something like genetic locus or chromosomal locus (or whatever is appropriate) into which most of that disambig line goes, and which explains better the 11q23.1 type notation (ideally with one of the band diagrams, as in ).
***I've split it out into Locus (genetics) --Arcadian 17:09, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests for enhancement

message: It´s written:
"A chromosome is a singular piece of DNA".
But, if DNA is just ONE molecule, how is it possible that a chromossome is a piece of it? If a molecule is broken into 2 parts, one gets TWO molecules, and not TWO PIECES of a molecule. Does the entire DNA molecule exist somewhere, so that one can say that a chromossome is just a piece of it? Or, if a cell has 22 chromossomes it means that it has 22 different molécules (DNA1, DNA2 etc)?
--161.24.250.2 (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Each piece of DNA contains two strands (two molecules) in a double helix. A piece of DNA can therefore be pulled apart into two pieces. These two strands are copies of each other. Therefore if you have 22 chromosomes, you have 22 pieces of DNA but 2 copies of each - 44 molecules in total. See introduction to genetics for more. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Can someone write a section on chromosomes for idiots? the above is too tricky to understand for someone who has no idea what is going on.
:It's amazing to the layman to read these scientific articles where it's all so obvious to the editors with their backgounds but totally mystifying to the rest. I come from a military background and the military folks do the same thing. SimonATL 19:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say the introduction needs to be rewritten for everyone (including biologists) not just idiots. There is massive amounts of terminology and discussion in the introduction that does not even appear in the article! For example, histones, mitosis, p arm and q arm, kinetochore, tubulin are all in the introduction.  Even the alpha and beta subunits of tubulin, with respect to the microtubules/kinetochore interaction, are mention but absolutely NOTHING in the article.  It's supposed to be a summary of the article. The current introduction needs to be scraped (some of it could be incorporated in to the main text) and we should start from the ground up. David D. (Talk) 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  For Idiots 

message: The old chromosome image... - Zephyris Talk 21:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just in case anyone wants it 

message: The recent edits by unregistered users seem to have removed a lot of useful content from the page.  I suggest a reversion to this version, which will put back all the information.  I, for one, like the picture...  -- Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs  05:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I've just reverted to the old version.  Let me know on my talk page if I shouldn't have done this.  Since there was no discussion about taking this information out of the article on this page, and the edits were extensive by an unregistered editor, removing useful information, I feel no problem.  Again, let me know if this is wrong.  -- Tuvok^Talk|Desk|Contribs  05:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fine to me! there was a lot of relevant and useful info in the stuff which was removed - Zephyris Talk 11:12, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: Dear all, I have recently refurbished the Chromosome article in the German Wikipedia. In the process, I have uploaded several images you might want to make use of also for the English article. All of them are on Commons, including an English legend. For an overview over these images, either have a look at the German aricle or at the gallery on my user site on commons here. If there are details you wish to discuss with me, please do it at my discussion site at the German Wikipedia which I check much more often than the one on commons or on the English site. edit is "Seite Bearbeiten", preview is "Vorschau" and save page is "Seite speichern"   --Dietzel65 19:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chromosome images

message: How many Chromosomes are there in each cell? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.138.162.200 (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on the organism. Human has 46 chromosomes. However cat has 38, sheep has 54, dog has 78 etc.  (Copsi 18:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  chromosomes 

message: As i was trying to cite a few things on the table showing the amount of chromosomes per species of animal, iaccidently screwed up the chartFatdelear 22:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did the same thing when I added the ref for dog. You forgot to close the ref tags, that's all. Easy mistake. And FYI, you don't need to put brackets around the ref text. Hope this helps you avoid the same mistake next time! — Tuvok[T@lk/Improve me] 22:59, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Chromosome table

message: I read over most of the page, and I can't seem to find the real function of chromosomes. It tells everything about them, but not what they do. It's like the wiki page for cars saying what kind of engine one might have, that it has 6 windows, that it seats 8, and not even mentioning it's a method of transportation. Let me know on My talk page if you can help me. Thanks, Ard0 (Talk - Contribs)  18:17, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I can't even find.. 

message: This article is full of mistakes,it has to be renewed also.Some of the pictures are old.But the biggest mistake is in the first lines saying: there is circular DNA in eukaryotic cells.It has to be removed immediatly, it will lead other people to confusion.
Doctor
:The mitochondrial genome, as found in the vast majority of eukaryotic cells, is almost universally circular. - Zephyris Talk 01:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Full of mistakes 

message: The wording suggests that that only chromosomes in eukaryotes are nuclear, mitochondrial and some (relatively ill-defined) cytoplasmic chromosomes. It doesn't actually say that these are the only chromosomes, but a reader might reasonably expect such a list to be complete!  Shouldn't chloroplast chromosomes be included somewhere in this list as all(?) photosynthesising eukaryotes have them? SamTheCentipede 11:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chromosomes in eukaryotes: what about chloroplasts? 

message: This article should have more information added on the structure of the chromosome. It now only bluntly exhibits two lines describing the structure in sequences, yet not the actual structure of the chromosome itself.--Yowizman 21:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Info on Structure 

message: So, did anyone ever look at a random WP article and think to themselves, "I bet this is how Skynet started out"? Or is it just me? :P --Cuervo, not logged in @ 76.212.161.251 03:13, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uh. 

message: Is there a term for the structure consisting of all the chromosomes together?  For example, we say: "humans have 23 chromosomes."  What is the structure comprising the 23 chromosomes called?  e.g. "the human _______ consists of 23 chromosomes."  Is "genome" the word I'm looking for?70.57.120.23 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Terminology for the Greater Structure

message: The table gave the chromosome number for butterflies as 380, and someone had marked it with a fact template. Google searching seems to show many counterexamples, e.g., http://www.fmnh.helsinki.fi/english/zoology/entomology/research/ithomiinae/index.htm --76.81.180.3 04:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: butterfly

message: Hi,
Check the Telomere talk page; I left a note there about fascinating new research that seems to show that telomeres contain RNA as well as DNA.  Unfortunately I don't have time to check it out properly and include it in the article. --Slashme 08:13, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RNA in telomeres! 

message: A double helix of DNA contains two molecules of DNA associated through hydrogen bonds. I've therefore reworded the piece in the lead about chromosomes only containing a single molecule of DNA. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Single molecule

message: The term chromosome includes the whole shbang, including histones, centromere, the works. That's the whole point of the term. If you use it merely as a synonym for DNA, you are definitely misusing the term, and also creating confusion amongst the readers. The evolution from prokaryotes to eukaryotes is probably the second greatest evolutionary advance; in addition to fusing two or more prokaryote forms, some structures are new to eukaryotes! Chromosomes are an excellent example of this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naked DNA doth not a chromosome make 

message: External links on Wikipedia are supposed to be "encyclopedic in nature" and useful to a worldwide audience.  Please read the external links policy (and perhaps the specific rules for medicine-related articles) before adding more external links.  
The following kinds of links are inappropriate:
*  Online discussion groups or chat forums
*  Personal webpages and blogs
*  Multiple links to the same website
*  Fundraising events or groups
*  Websites that are recruiting for clinical trials
*  Websites that are selling things (e.g., books or memberships)
I realize that some links are helpful to certain users, but they still do not comply with Wikipedia policy, and therefore must not be included in the article.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: External links

message: This article has been extraordinarily vulnerable to vandalism, and a thank-you for those protecting it is well merited. Macdonald-ross (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: I have uploaded this picture about chromosome territories to which there is no page, yet. (the image is messed up (fonts), but I have asked why does that happen and will get it fixed when I get a reply). --Squidonius (talk) 11:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, it happens because Wikipedia doesn't have the font you used when you created the SVG. Let me know what solution someone recommends, I'd like to hear it, since I've had the same problem. Madeleine ✉ ✍ 13:27, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I used the "Bitstream Vera Serif" font following some advice I read that Wikipedia has that font. My one effort was  (although I saved it from Inkscape as "plain SVG" due to my uncertainty about the best format). That font is freely available on several platforms. You can use any font, provided you convert "Object to path" (big problem: no one can edit the text, because it has been converted to a graphic). Johnuniq (talk) 07:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  chromosome territories

message: I've never been able to figure out whether the long and short arms of one chromatid lay diagonally across the centromere or whether each were on one side of it... 92.3.188.202 (talk) 19:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can anyone clarify the structure of a chromatid? 

message: Shouldn't the article mention Heinrich_Wilhelm_Gottfried_von_Waldeyer-Hartz, the person who coined the term "chromosome"? aibyou_chan (talk) 01:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Person who named the chromosome 

message: Is there a reference for the origin of this term? I’m in expert in bacterial genetics and have never seen this term before. Lol. Nor does there seem to be any need for it. The WikiDefinition of “Chromosome” is “an organized building of DNA and protein that is found in cells”. This definition is appropriately applicable to the DNA complexes in all cells: bacteria, archaea, and eukarya alike.  Jragon (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What’s a Genophore?  

message: I was doing some homework for biology, and it occurred to me in the process of researching that it might be nice to include a brief mention of what a chromatid is in the overview section, linked to the respective article. In fact, as the chromatid article is very short (no more than half a dozen paragraphs) it might even be plausible to merge it into this article and create a redirect. I'm going to refrain from making any changes myself because I'm no expert on why things are where and don't want to make an idiot of myself screwing around with the status quo. I just thought it would be nice for people to have a really brief definition of the term, as vocabulary (while taken for granted) is often one of the most difficult things to learn for any amateur.
Bronsonboy (talk) 01:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mention Chromatid(s)? 

message: Would someone clarify the distincution between "chromatid" and "chromasome" as here:
Second sentence "It [the chromosome] is a single piece of coiled DNA containing many genes,"
Surely the chromosome (as in the diagram) is a pair of chromatids and is therefore two pieces of coiled DNA!
Drmikec (talk) 16:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  And also 

message: Please add years or dates to the events described in the History section. -Pgan002 (talk) 02:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: add dates 

message: The article states that those who survive their first year can live healthy afterwards. There is no source for that, and information in the Edwards Syndrome's wiki article does not back it up, actually quite the contrary. Frohfroh (talk) 18:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edwards Syndrome 

message: They way I understand it, a chromosome is not composed of two sister chromatids.
The two sister chromatids are more like two identical chromosomes formed after replication of one chromosome.
Could someone please confirm this?
If true then the following only confuses the reader into believing that a chromosome is composed of two sister chromatids.
"Diagram of a replicated and condensed metaphase eukaryotic chromosome. (1) Chromatid – one of the two identical parts of the chromosome after S phase. (2) Centromere – the point where the two chromatids touch, and where the microtubules attach. (3) Short arm. (4) Long arm."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.219.201.54 (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Strictly speaking, an unreplicated chromosome doesn't have any chromatids. A chromatid is one of the two copies of a replicated chromosome before it is separated into daughter chromosomes. --Khajidha (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can someone please clarify? 

message: The lede is pretty lousy. Prime example:"In the case of archaea by homologs to eukaryotic histones, in the case of bacteria by histone-like proteins." Here is a hint: Capitalizing the first word of a phrase and ending the phrase with a period (full stop) does NOT magically create a (correct English) sentence. The above example also lamely says something about homologs (noun) in the prepositionary phrase "by homologs", I'd guess that these "homologs" actually have a name, and that anyone coming to this article needing information at this level (introductory) will NOT KNOW WTF a "eukaryotic histone" is. I also question the claim that histone homologs or histone-like proteins "pack" the chromosome. (The link to "histone-like proteins" should be removed until that stub contains useful information, as of now it does not).) The same blunder/confusion occurs in the lede of the Histone article. In order for a histone to "pack" or "package" DNA, it should be an (active) agent. Acting as a substrate on which the DNA arranges itself in a compact form is not "packing" it. (Many protein assemblies actively assist in various metabolic and reproductive functions, whereas the histone is simply a 'cradle' which provides the place for the DNA coil to compactly set.) Other examples of why I think this is poorly written and not very useful are:
1."A chromosome is a packaged and organized structure containing most of the DNA of a living organism." WRONG. The SET of chromosomes in a living organism contain "most of the DNA". (Except, is this right?)My point here is that one chromosome may or may not be "most of" a cell's DNA, and that many cells have a dozen or more chromosomes, and therefore there is no one which is "most of" the DNA).)
2."It is not usually found on its own..." Really?? Who wrote this?! You mean not found without surrounding molecules (such as water)?? What a useless thing to say. ANYTHING IN A CELL IS NOT "found on its own", by definition. Wow. I suppose the author meant "exists independently in solution". The sentence goes on, turning into a ramble about histones and transcription factors which are "usually" found with the chromosome except when they are not. More babble. I'm no microbiologist, but it might be useful to point out that in a metabolically active cell, a chromosome is (almost always?) being accessed for transcription at some locations and packed onto some histones at (most?) other locations. An analogy might be useful here (to say Amazon's web pages or to a restaurant's chairs (at any one time only some are being used, many are "packed" in close to the tables).
3.  The rubbish about whether its visible or not should be removed from the lede and repositioned somewhere else; visibility is hardly important enough to merit the kind of treatment its given in the lede.(Might be useful to point out why most microphotographs show a chromosome in the classic figure-8 state).
4. The lede should answer the following: What?, why?, where?, and who and when?. Perhaps "how?" should be explained later in the article. What it is: it is the main way a cell's DNA is structured. Why: because this structure allows it to function as needed in the cell, including reproduction and transcription, while minimizing its 'footprint'. Where: depending on domain (eukaryote or not) its found in the nucleus (eukaryotes) or floating in the cytoplasm (Archaea and Bacteria). Who and when: although known as cell components by the mid-1800's, their function was first understood in the early 1900's by Boveri and Sutton (see Boveri-Sutton Theory).216.96.77.203 (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede as of April 2015 

message: The chart with the 23 Chromosomes listed has a category on the far right side titled "cumulative" . This designation in relation to the numbers makes no sense, as in the "X (sex chromosome) 	800 	154,913,754 	151,058,754 	99.1%"  gets a value of 99.1 percent. I am deleting the word in the graph chart.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The first thing I noticed was the Y chromosome was listed at 100% , then another 100% below it.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:50, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know why you think "cumulative %" doesn't make sense, or why you think changing it to simply "%" is better.  Changing the heading for the column doesn't change the contents of the column, and the entries in the column are the cumulative percentage of sequenced base pairs as one proceeds down the table. Naturally, the percentage reaches 100% with the last entry since all base pairs have then been included in the cumulative amount.  I'll restore the heading since it accurately describes the contents of the column. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 04:35, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph-Chart

message: I propose to delete the cumulative column located on the far right. All it serves is the first (arbitrary) chromosome on the list. The rest of the numbers in the column have no merit to that particular chromosome.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 12:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Before seeing this, I went ahead and deleted the cumulative column and added a simple % columm (using nucleotide counts).  I did this in part because of the discussion here and on my talk page. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Great improvement thanks!--Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Graph-Chart column deletion

message: How come Nettie Stevens isn't listed in this article? Would it be appropriate for us to work together to properly credit her? She could at least be mentioned in the list of contributors in the history section before a more significant accounting of her contributions is incorporated.
75.174.107.92 (talk) 15:05, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nettie Stevens 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Chromosome. 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/20131215103947/http://blogs.saschina.org/pudongtok/files/2010/03/Problems-with-authority-in-Science.pdf to http://blogs.saschina.org/pudongtok/files/2010/03/Problems-with-authority-in-Science.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chromosome. 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/20090531182950/http://hopes.stanford.edu/basics/dna/b0.html to http://hopes.stanford.edu/basics/dna/b0.html
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) 23:18, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Chromosome. 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/20081120000502/http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/traits/predictdisorder/ to http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/traits/predictdisorder/
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) 19:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The section Structure of Eukaryotic chromosome was added by an unregistered user in 2017 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/116.193.132.130, and was that user's only contribution.  It has no sources cited or links to other wikipedia articles, is written in a format inconsistent with the rest of the article, and is positioned in a bad location, between the interphase and metaphase sections.  All the information in the section is either redundant or can be found in the article Eukaryotic chromosome fine structure.  When I read the article I found the position of that section jarring and redundant.  I believe the article is better off without it, so I'm deleting it.
Pmokeefe (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed section:  Structure of Eukaryotic chromosome 

message: I believe most everyone agrees that petite aka p was used for the short arm. But I am not 100% sure queue was the main explanation for the longer arm; what I read was that q was using simply because it was the letter following "p". I can not say whether this is correct or not, but perhaps we could use additional verifications for the origina of the p/q nomenclature. 2A02:8388:1602:6D80:C080:419D:679D:C9F8 (talk) 16:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  petite versus queue 

message: The table at the human chromosomes (the overview table there) has a link to this:
"Below is a table compiling statistics for the chromosomes, based on the Sanger Institute's human genome information in the Vertebrate Genome Annotation (VEGA) database."
Which in turn shows "last updated in 2008". I think the numbers in 2022 are no longer completely correct. Could someone perhaps:
a) update the table, in particular how many genes are on each chromosome exactly, if possible
and
b) also mention directly within the table or paragraph before, when that table was last updated?
Right now we may have a bit outdated information. For instance, I think chromosome number #1 may have more than 2000 genes. 2A02:8388:1604:F600:A023:1A46:73DC:AD2 (talk) 05:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last update 

message: The first sentence in the article must clarify the term by revealing what the term was needed to sort out in the structure of things.  What is it that this term was needed to identify in the structure of things???  State it explicitly in the first sentence.  If a chromosome is a chain of several thousand DNA links and is separate from other chains and every cell contains two chains, then man, we got a definition. Until then, I remain totally confused. Rtdrury (talk) 14:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the first sentence is just about perfect the way it is ("A chromosome is a long DNA molecule with part or all of the genetic material of an organism.").  The problem is the rest of the opening paragraph.  The stuff there now should appear in a second or later para of the intro.  The rest of the first paragraph needs to be filled out with other generally applicable points (and not dive down into eukaryotic histones).  The range of the number of chromosomes is probably a good thing to cover in that first para (it's rarely "two"). --R. S. Shaw (talk) 21:16, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarify immediately the purpose of this term 'chromosome' 

message: No 43.242.177.76 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  How chromosomes remain constant from generation to generation..? 

message: The "Aberrations" section only reflects chromosome aberrations in humans. I suggest two solutions to this:
# Make a "Chromosome aberrations" section in which there are different subsections "In plants", "In animals", and "In humans", etc. Or:
# Make the "Human chromosomes" subsection an independent one, outside of "Eukaryotes", since the focus of section "Eukaryotes" seems to be more about the characteristics of eukaryotic chromosomes as a whole and it doesn't really fit there. Then, move "Aberrations" intto this new "Human chromosomes" section. ☽ Snoteleks ☾ 13:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requesting edits for this article 

message: I'm confused.
"A human DNA can have up to 500 million base pairs with thousands of genes." (description of the first image)
"Human chromosomes" (section) -> "Total base pairs" (bottom of table) : 3,079,843,747 .
So which is it? 500 mil. or 3 bil.? Or... both?
5.12.56.150 (talk)  — Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  number of base pairs