Talk:Canonical sequence

For a May 2005 deletion debate over this page see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Canonical sequence

---

About redirect to Homology (biology)

Petaholmes,

I think that using a redirect is too hard a revision here. The main reason why I'm doing this is that a) I don't feel 100% comfortable with the discussion of homology vs. sequence similarity in the Homology (biology) article (which I'll wade in on at some future date) and b) canonical sequences in the realm of gene promoters do not unequivocally imply a homologous relationship of a particular cis-regulatory sequence found in two genes in one species or in one gene across species. This is a longer discussion that I'd like to engage in here ... it would best be placed in the Homology (biology) Talk area along with introduction of a section to that article about how cis-regulatory motif patterns can provide supporting evidence (or refuting evidence) for a homology or paralogy relationship between two genes.

so in the end I'm not reverting the change but altering it ... I hope you feel ok with this.

Courtland {2005-01-27 USA ~11:15 PM EST}

First, a small warning, things never get moved to the wiktionary. Second, the problem as I see it is that there are too many words with slightly different meanings, conserved, consensus and canonical (to as lesser extent) are all applied to regions of sequence similarity, regardless of whether they are similar due to function - like the shine-delgano sequence, or because of common evolutionary origin. Ideally we could rewrite the section on homology (biology), perhaps incorporating more from sequence alignment to make the issue more clear for non-biologists. I think the redirect should stand for the time being since the article is really not very informative whereas homology (biology) at least gives some context as to its usage --nixie 04:58, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Migration to Wiktionary - self service or full service

Nixie,

You warned me about things never actually moving to Wiktionary. Good advice then for me not to hold out hopes of it happening spontaneously. The other route is 'self service' ... to post the notice that you think something should go to Wiktionary, wait a significant period of time so interested parties (like you) can give their input, then act on what most agree is the all around most beneficial course.

I've never actually moved things to Wiktionary before, myself, but I've made entries there that might otherwise have been Wikipedia entries. For instance, promoter ... I put up a Wiktionary article to serve for disambiguation rather than a Wikipedia article.

Just wanted to make a separate comment on that before diving into the sequence related stuff. I'd appreciate a nod as to whether you think my use of Wiktionary might be not along the lines of what the community might expect or accept.

Regards,

Courtland {2005-01-28 USA ~7:45 PM EST}

I have concerns about the integration between wikipedia and the wiktionary. The wiktionary doesn't work like dictionary.com, there are a number of technical requirements, take a look at portmnteau for example, my opinion is that something like a disambig, at this point, definately does not belong in the wiktionary. Plus, disambigs work well on wikipedia see Flores (disambiguation) for a decent example. Short pages and redirects also are very useful things that wikipedia is good at, for example the cannonical sequence page could, with in a few sentences be better contextualised by referring to both homology (biology) and sequence alignment (and other relevant pages).--nixie 23:51, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Merge

I've merged this into consensus sequence, which was created more recently, and is by far the more common term for the concept. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)