Talk:Conserved non-coding sequence
Latest comment: 1 month ago by Genome42 in topic Delete this article
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||
Delete this article
There is nothing in this article that isn't covered in Non-coding DNA and other articles. I intend to delete it in one week unless there are objections. Genome42 (talk) 18:24, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
- Formally, the easiest process for this is to consider it a WP:MERGE, move any useful info to non-coding DNA (your post suggests there's nothing worth moving; I haven't looked into it) and redirect this article there. That has the additional benefit of leaving the contents of this article publicly viewable in the page history if anyone wants to go back and try to salvage something. I agree that conserved non-coding sequence is probably not a great article topic. Ajpolino (talk) 14:57, 21 July 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed, should consider opening a merge proposal and determining whether there's information that is not covered in Non-coding DNA that should be transferred — 🪫Volatile 📲T | ⌨️C 03:29, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
- The only important part of a merge proposal is the discussion on this page so let's consider this a merge proposal. I propose to delete everything and leave a stub with links to other articles. Here's the stub.
- Coding DNA accounts for a large proportion of bacterial genomes but only a small proportion of most eukaryotic genomes, especially those that contain large amounts of junk DNA. There are many functional elements that are not coding sequences and, as expected, those functional elements are conserved. (See Non-coding DNA.)
- Genome42 (talk) 18:52, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's not really how we do things here. If you don't think there should be a separate encyclopedia article for "conserved non-coding sequence" (which I agree with), then we should either delete this page per your original proposal, or have this page redirect an interested reader to a more appropriate topic (e.g. non-coding DNA). At that page, the reader would learn precisely what you're attempting to communicate in your proposed short paragraph. Ajpolino (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- I'm happy to delete the entire article and redirect to Non-coding DNA. My only concern is that this will trigger a response from numerous editors who will tell me that that's not how we do things here.
- I'll wait a few days then make the change. Genome42 (talk) 16:11, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- Sure, the process is outlined at WP:BLAR. Ajpolino (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2025 (UTC)
- That's not really how we do things here. If you don't think there should be a separate encyclopedia article for "conserved non-coding sequence" (which I agree with), then we should either delete this page per your original proposal, or have this page redirect an interested reader to a more appropriate topic (e.g. non-coding DNA). At that page, the reader would learn precisely what you're attempting to communicate in your proposed short paragraph. Ajpolino (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2025 (UTC)
- The only important part of a merge proposal is the discussion on this page so let's consider this a merge proposal. I propose to delete everything and leave a stub with links to other articles. Here's the stub.
- I object to a blank and redirect for this topic. How well noncoding DNA elements are conserved, across types and across species, and the noncoding elements that are found to be CNEs, is a notable topic. Non-coding DNA doesn't even mention conservation, except to point to this article for more information on the topic. I think this is fine as a standalone topic as evidenced by refs below. Merging in all the content related to conservation and evolution of noncoding elements is also a possibility; although it looks like the Non-coding DNA editors have at some point already decided this content is better as separate article. But blanking simply gets rid of reliably sourced material that is not in the target article. Here are some recent reliable sources that talk about CNEs that show CNEs are a topic unto themselves: [1], [2], [3]. And here is a paper about dbCNS, a database of CNEs [4]. --
{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk}20:44, 24 July 2025 (UTC)- Read the introduction. It defines conserved non-coding sequences as regulatory sequences and transcription factor binding sites. There's no mention of conserved non-coding elements (CNEs) but there is a section on "Untraconserved regions." I agree that there should be an article on CNEs but not this one.
- Other than ultraconserved regions, what other material in this article isn't covered just as well in another article? Regulatory sequences? Transposable elements? Pseudogenes? Introns? UTRs? Genome42 (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2025 (UTC)