Talk:F-ATPase
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Untitled
editF-ATPase is ATP synthase and there are articles under both headings, they need to be condensed. If no one objects in either field I will do so and redirect one into the other.
The worked of the Cell by Becker, Kleinsmith and Hardin has a good chapter on ATPases. I’ll up date this article from the information with in and fix the above problems soon if there are no objections.
Jasoninkid April 16, 2006
Proposed merge of ATP synthase with F-ATPase
editATP synthase only talks about the F-ATPase. Since it is most of what the F-type enzyme does anyways, we should merge the two pages. Artoria2e5 🌉 08:40, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
There will be minor differences either found, or will be found, in the future. Bacterial and eukaryotic differences are fundamental. Please don't merge the pages and update both of them as more is discovered DarkMage2k (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
- This is nonsense. Both articles talk about all taxa, none of the article is specific. Both titles are the same so please merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SCIdude (talk • contribs) 10:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
- What SCIdude said. Also, no crystal-balling. Working on phrasing for the merge. --Artoria2e5 🌉 05:56, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
- Do not merge! There are many more ATPases than only F-type ATPases. Thus relevant info should be moved from ATPase here and ATPase article should include information on the many other types of ATPases. HlTo CZ (talk) 15:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- @HlTo CZ: Yeah, I too realized merging can be very hairy as the symmetry of articles would perfer merging a larger and more important article (synthase) into a smaller one (F). Also, A-ATPases are a thing. That said, what should we do with the Evolution paragraph of ATP synthase? It applies to all rotary ATPases, so there is an argument for moving it; but on the other hand the synthase article is still more popular. The whole structure thing should ideally be under F too. --Artoria2e5 🌉 20:50, 29 September 2020 (UTC)
- Closing, given that there is no consensus for any particular change and that discussion is stale. Klbrain (talk) 09:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)