Talk:History of polymerase chain reaction

Title

Wouldn't it be better to call this article History of the Polymerase Chain Reaction rather than the jargon form ? History of PCR would remain as a #REDIRECT [[]]. Just my humble opinion. --Triwbe (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought about that, but I think that more people know the term "PCR" than the full phrase (more people search for "PCR", and many more pages link to the abbreviation). I also think this page is more likely to be linked to by a click, rather than typed out in the search line. PaleWhaleGail (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that Triwbe got it right - "Polymerase Chain Reaction" is a proper noun, and is therefore an exception to the naming convention at WP:NAME and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization). Otherwise, we'd have a page for the "United states air force academy". The use of the abbreviation in the title is debatable, but I think more readers will know (or search) for this shorter version (as is the case with NATO). PaleWhaleGail (talk) 20:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, will you accept a move to 'History of the Polymerase Chain Reaction'? The present title is unclear and ambiguous. BlueValour (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Fine by me. This version will be more useful to those readers arriving from the "History of Science" category (they may not know what "PCR" refers to). The readers from the main PCR article will just click on the link there. I doubt that anyone will bother typing out this full title in the main search line. PaleWhaleGail (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Parents and children Whatever the name of the main article (X), any subsequent articles should be in the form of "History of X." If PCR is, in fact, a proper noun, then the main article should be named "Polymerase Chain Reaction." That is not an exception to the naming conventions, but a common expectation of standard English capitalization. I frankly don't care where the articles end up as long as they are consistent and accessible. I suggest that if you think the main article should be renamed, you should propose such at WP:RM. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Addendum Why do you want to include "the" in the fuller title, but not in the abbreviated title? I don't see how that makes any sense. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It is used just like NATO. You never hear "the NATO", nor "North Atlantic Treaty Organization" without being preceded by "the". PaleWhaleGail (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Proseline

Good work, but most of this page is a classic example of WP:Proseline. Please do not remove the tag, again, without consensus here. BlueValour (talk) 21:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Proseline is neither a guideline nor a policy, it is itself tagged as an essay. How can it be a "classic example" if the term itself is a Neologism? I think this article reads fine as it is. Did you seek a "consensus" before redirecting it to an incorrect page, or adding your tags ? (BTW: Polymerase Chain Reaction is a proper noun, and should be capitalized.) PaleWhaleGail (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, hum, I stand corrected, I agree that the concept of proseline is subjective and won't press the proseline concept any further. However, the other formatting points are covered by WP:MOS and would ask you to accept them. BlueValour (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Format

You'll have to tell me what "other formatting points" you are referring to - WP:MOS is pretty big. I intended this article to be a supplement to other main articles on PCR. Right now it only links from Kary Mullis, the only page the already had a link to "History of PCR". I'll eventually try and put links in the main PCR article (which is currently a mess), and a "simplified PCR" article that I am now working on. Since readers will aready have encountered the definition of PCR by the time they get to the link to this page, its shortened name should be OK. The longer names can be handled as redirects. As for "Polymerase Chain Reaction" being a proper noun, that is just one of my complaints about the main article (which I consider unintelligible to a nonscientific reader). I'll tackle that project at some later date. PaleWhaleGail (talk) 23:17, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Malljaja, I look forward to your comments concerning this article. Note that it is not intended as a main article, and does not have to define all its terms, etc. It will likely only be linked to from other articles, as it is now from the main PCR article. As for what you call a "narrative", it isn't. It's a group of over a dozen chronolologies, and if split into a single timeline, would be almost unreadable. PaleWhaleGail (talk) 20:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation PaleWhaleGail. In response to your recent reverts and your request for my comments, here are some of my thoughts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a loose article collection. So each entry is a standalone, supported (but not propped up) by other wiki articles. I've noticed that this new entry has a lot of valuable information in it, justifying its being a separate entry. You've made a considerable effort to put this together–so I can understand that you may have become quite attached to it in its present form. Nonetheless, it needs some work to beat it into shape, namely to change it from a bullet-point format to continuous prose in keeping with other entries of this sort. Toning it down a little would also be a matter of reasonable discussion; e.g., to link genesis to refer to the origin of PCR seems a little artless or else mischievous–either way this among others needs to be changed. I note that you have reverted all my recent attempts of editing the lead, rolling it back to "your" version. This is very poor form!!! I would ask you to refrain from such reverts for the time being, to give others the opportunity to make changes as they're trying to improve the entry. Thanks! Malljaja (talk) 22:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

According to MoS we need to bold the title in the lead. As an effort to find a way through this impasse, I am reinstating the edit by Malljaja but putting '"Polymerase Chain Reaction' in title case to meet PaleWhaleGail's concern. I ask both to accept this compromise. BlueValour (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

BlueValour, thanks for your efforts to mediate this issue. Could you please look for WP guidelines for placing details in 'sub-articles' and linking to them to help simplify or shorten a 'main article' (maybe in "Article size" ?). I thought it was called "outline form", but I cannot find that. I'll try to come up with some examples ::::::that don't redefine all the terms used.

(OK, I found it at Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names)#Subsidiary_articles) PaleWhaleGail (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the introduction, I am not "attached" to it (and yes, it was "mischievous" :). However, it is still incorrect. As described in his Nobel lecture, Mullis' three "Eureka!" moments preceded by over a year his joining the development group - there was no 'punctuation' involved.

Finally, Malljaja, I'll object to your objection, and ask you to judge your own actions. Triwbe asked a simple question (which is now in effect). BlueValour began moving the page and rewriting it before I had even finished submitting it. You made similar big changes without discussing them first. Your complaint that I showed "poor form" in reverting them (after I explained here) implies that your judgement (or authority) is superior. PaleWhaleGail (talk) 00:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(All for naught. Someone is busy moving this article even as I write this ....)PaleWhaleGail (talk) 00:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, no-one said mediation was easy.... Plainly we need to equalise the style between the main and History pages. Can I suggest that you start a rename discussion on the talk page of the main article? I suggest supporting your case with examples from leading authorities. BlueValour (talk) 00:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

In response to PaleWhaleGail, in my edits I'm guided by the bold principle, and as evidenced by your recent edits (also to the main PCR article), so are you, and that's all very well as it keeps things moving. I've got no problem whatsoever if someone edits my edits–what I take issue with are willy-nilly reverts aimed at retaining a "sacred" text unalloyed by external input. This is incompatible with WP. Moreover, the changes I made were anything but big, as they were confined to the lead and aimed at conforming to WP:MOS and to take out links that you yourself have now described as mischievous. Going over the edit history of the PCR entry spanning the last six months, I note that you've made no visible efforts to improve the history of PCR section in this article (which could really use some improvement). Instead you created a new article, which at present, while containing useful bits, looks cobbled together. BlueValour thanks for mediating and trying to arrive at some uniformity in style. The caps issue is a red herring though, as the main focus should be on working on content and narrative of this entry. Time permitting and depending on the response from PaleWhaleGail I'll look into this. Many thanks. Malljaja (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Unencylopedic Format

This is not an encyclopedia article. It is written more like a Medieval Chronicle - a series of bullet points by date. As such, it is not readily usable and does not provide the reader with an accessible history of the subject.

It needs to be re-written in prose/narrative format as noted by User: Mallaja.

Please rewrite into standard Wikipedia format!

PainMan (talk) 15:55, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Eureka moment?

The first sentence cites Kary Mullis' own Nobel lecture to support the claim that the development of PCR has been described as a "classic 'Eureka!' moment". Of course Mullis would say that, wouldn't he? Is there no independent, reliable source for this statement? --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)