. There's general agreement that the current targets are not ideal. Two other, reasonable targets were suggested but neither has consensus that it's unambiguously the correct one. The argument made by the later participants in favour of deletion - that this title is simply too broad to have a correct target - ultimately ends up being supported by the lack of consensus for an alternative, and the conclusion that these fall on the side of being unhelpful redirects. ~ mazca talk 20:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The current target of this redirect is rather surprising/astonishing since it's not about the actually subject of "DNA experiments", leads to a subject named "DNA experiment", or a list of experiments using DNA. I would have to believe there's a better target, but I'm not sure what. Steel1943 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
::Nomination updated with text in italics. Steel1943 (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- Nominator comment: For reference, a search for the term "DNA experiment" (DNA experiment doesn't exist) returns several examples of experiments that utilize DNA. In regards to an actual retargeting option for this redirect, what seems to be the best option I found is List of experiments#Biology, but even that does't seem to be good enough since the section includes several experiments not directly related to DNA. Possibly deletion would be the better option here so the search results are not hidden by an existing redirect forwarding readers to a specific page. Steel1943 (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
{{Collapsed top|Information posted by redirect creator. (Collapsed for simpler discussion reading, and to clarify that this was all one comment.)}}
;Reply
:The DNA experiment in The Double Helix is the crucial experiment in a series of empirical investigations beginning with Gregor Mendel. As late as 1952 the fact that DNA is the genetic material was disputed. But a critical mass of results as noted below reframed the role of DNA. The DNA experiment redirects, in this case to Scientific method, as one more piece in a larger structure. Just as "Science is built of facts the way a house is built of bricks: but an accumulation of facts is no more science than a pile of bricks is a house” (Henri Poincaré)", it is the insight from the Scientific method that gives experiment its significance. I paraphrase from the Scientific method (Question, Hypotheses, Prediction, Experiment, Analysis) article:
:*Question "Previous investigation of DNA had determined its chemical composition (the four nucleotides), the structure of each individual nucleotide, and other properties. DNA had been identified as the carrier of genetic information by the Avery–MacLeod–McCarty experiment in 1944,{{sfn|McCarty|1985|page=252}}{{efn|name= avery|1= The Nobel committee, in retrospect, expressed regret that Avery had not been awarded the Nobel Prize.}} but the mechanism of how genetic information was stored in DNA was unclear."
:*Hypotheses "Linus Pauling, Francis Crick and James D. Watson hypothesized that DNA had a helical structure."
:*Prediction "If DNA had a helical structure, its X-ray diffraction pattern would be X-shaped.[{{harvnb|McElheny|2004|p=43}}: June 1952 — Watson had succeeded in getting X-ray pictures of TMV showing a diffraction pattern consistent with the transform of a helix.][{{harvnb|Judson|1979|pp=137–138}}: "Watson did enough work on Tobacco mosaic virus to produce the diffraction pattern for a helix, per Crick's work on the transform of a helix."] This prediction was determined using the mathematics of the helix transform, which had been derived by Cochran, Crick, and Vand[Cochran W, Crick FHC and Vand V. (1952) "The Structure of Synthetic Polypeptides. I. The Transform of Atoms on a Helix", Acta Crystallogr., 5, 581–586.] (and independently by Stokes). This prediction was a mathematical construct, completely independent from the biological problem at hand."
:*Experiment Rosalind Franklin used pure DNA to perform X-ray diffraction to produce photo 51. The results showed an X-shape.
:*Analysis When Watson saw the detailed diffraction pattern, he immediately recognized it as a helix.[{{harvnb|McElheny|2004|p=52}}: Friday, January 30, 1953. Tea time — Franklin confronts Watson and his paper – "Of course it [Pauling's pre-print] is wrong. DNA is not a helix." However, Watson then visits Wilkins' office, sees photo 51, and immediately recognizes the diffraction pattern of a helical structure. But additional questions remained, requiring additional iterations of their research. For example, the number of strands in the backbone of the helix (Crick suspected 2 strands, but cautioned Watson to examine that more critically), the location of the base pairs (inside the backbone or outside the backbone), etc. One key point was that they realized that the quickest way to reach a result was not to continue a mathematical analysis, but to build a physical model. Later that evening — Watson urges Wilkins to begin model-building immediately. But Wilkins agrees to do so only after Franklin's departure.][{{harvnb|Watson|1968|p=167}}: "The instant I saw the picture my mouth fell open and my pulse began to race." Page 168 shows the X-shaped pattern of the B-form of DNA, clearly indicating crucial details of its helical structure to Watson and Crick.]{{efn|name= nextItemToSettle|1= In the Scientific method, questions are raised, and settled. The questions have explanations which are settled by empirical evidence, such as experiment. DNA experiment is thus only part of the picture. Watson and Crick have found the secret of life.}} He and Crick then produced their model, using this information along with the previously known information about DNA's composition, especially Chargaff's rules of base pairing.[{{harvnb|McElheny|2004|pp=57–59}}: Saturday, February 28, 1953 — Watson found the base-pairing mechanism which explained Chargaff's rules using his cardboard models.]
:The discovery became the starting point for many further studies involving the genetic material, such as the field of molecular genetics, and it was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962. Each step of the example is examined in more detail later in the article.
:In other words, the experiment becomes more than data, but reveals the significance of a finding through analysis. It's the crux of the Scientific method. (In this case, it was James Watson who realized the importance of the finding — see Footnote 6: his jaw dropped,and his pulse began to race.)
:--Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
{{talkref}}
;Notes
{{notelist}} Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 20:56, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
{{Collapsed bottom}}
- ...Umm, not sure how that addresses any part of my concerns with the redirect, but okay, thanks. Steel1943 (talk) 21:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- :Also, this redirect targeting where it does reminds me of a RFD I started a few years back for a redirect titled "Other liqueurs". (See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 26#Other liqueurs.) The redirect targeted the section List of liqueurs#Other liqueurs, which was essentially just the name of a section header in List of liqueurs, but not about a subject called/named "Other liqueurs". I feel the same is the issue with this nominated redirect: It targets a section titled "DNA-experiments", but it's not actually about the topic of the redirect, but rather the term's use in respect to the subject of the article where the section is placed ... which is unhelpful if a reader is attempting to locate information about the subject of the redirect. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- ::So the RFD idea/purpose is not about the significance of the term in a context, but about the term per se? Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- :::(edit conflict) {{Ping|Ancheta Wis}} From my understanding over the years, that's the goal in most cases. (Editors' opinions may vary.) I added a bit to my nomination rationale that may goes a bit further into this reasoning; I fault myself for not being clearer with my rationale initially. Steel1943 (talk) 21:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- ::::I found a short article which has a context section: Shot/reverse shot#Context Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 11:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- ::I thought a redirect was supposed to aid in finding a topic. For example if Soldiers have an informal name for an Army topic, wouldn't it be helpful to create a redirect for the informal name? Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- ::So if a redirect to a page such as DNA experiment (scientific method) would satisfy the requirement? I could then create an anchor to the appropriate place in Scientific method. Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:52, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- :::If any content were to be added anywhere to satisfy a basic helpful functionality for this redirect (with as little effort possible), it would probably be to add a subsection at List of experiments#Biology by separating the ones listed there which involve DNA, and possibly even add some more "DNA experiments" to that subsection that are not currently listed at List of experiments#Biology (if more are known). Steel1943 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- ::::Actually I saw some of the experiments from the DNA story in this list. DNA is the seed topic for whole industries now. Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 22:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- :::(edit conflict) ...And in regards to a page named "DNA experiment (scientific method)", that is disambiguation. One of the basic assumed requirements of a disambiguated title is that the version of it without disambiguation exists, and presently, DNA experiment doesn't exist. Steel1943 (talk) 22:01, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- ::Thus "List of experiments in biology" resembles a disambiguation page, but might actually describe the arc of a narrative? Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 21:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- :::I hope the following answers your question: If a redirect named List of experiments in biology was created to target List of experiments#Biology, that would make sense since the redirect is targeting a location where the subject of the redirect is located. Steel1943 (talk) 22:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
- ::::So how does this redirect case RFD differ from DNA#History? What if DNA experiment were to become a disambiguation page to List of experiments on DNA; Scientific method; DNA#History ?--Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- ::::I can see how concerns about the redirect to a crucial experiment would cover up search results, but wouldn't a disambiguation page (sample above) handle this? Why can't I just start writing such a dab page? Is the rationale for this page meant to include other editors? --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 02:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- :::::So I ran the Nominator's search for DNA experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=DNA+experiment&ns0=1&ns9=1&ns11=1 , and found a useful list which could be exploited (it's actually the first time I have found the Wikipedia Search to be usable): What I refer to is the type of Narrative paradigm called a crosscut, itself a disambiguator page. There is a sport on the Internet called the Wikipedia game, in which every article in the encyclopedia seems to have a root page: philosophy. This game has led to some users to actually edit encyclopedia articles, to keep the Narrative alive. In turn, other editors intervene, to break the chain to philosophy, in a battle between good and evil, an infinite game, or the conflict continuum#Competition continuum, or the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 09:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget to Genetic engineering. I can't make sense of the above discussion or the current state of the Scientific method article, but genetic engineering, to me, seems like the obvious topic someone who entered "DNA experiments" in the search box would be looking for. Tevildo (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
- :[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Experimentum_crucis&diff=prev&oldid=1084040148 Proposed Retarget]: Added genetic engineering, and additional links, to a new target, a section Experimentum crucis#DNA, experimentum crucis, as an application of the new understanding opened up in succeeding decades, after its discovery by the scientific method. Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jay (talk) 08:24, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting to add DNA experiment to this discussion. It was created during the course of this discussion and I would think it should have the same home as the plural form.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Tavix (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
:
{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Participants have yet to decide which target is best. Is it Genetic engineering or History of molecular biology?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:54, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
- Retarget - I would also take this to 'history of molecular biology' given that scientific research on the practical side into DNA has preceded what we tend to think of as specific 'genetic eingeering'. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 13:58, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
- Delete both. "DNA experiment" is simply too ambiguous to be a good redirect. It could refer to many different types of methodologies/techniques as well as numerous historically important results. Disambiguation doesn't make sense because "DNA experiment" isn't really a specific term that could refer to multiple specific things, instead it is a plausible search term, and we should let the search function do its job, as a disambiguation page could never be exhaustive. That said, since the discussion is trending toward retargeting somewhere, History of molecular biology seems like a superior target to Genetic engineering, as genetic engineering is much too specific (lots of scientific work, past and present, that could be described as a "DNA experiment" is outside the context of genetic engineering). Mdewman6 (talk) 01:08, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete DNA experiment which was created as part of this discussion to aid as a disambiguation page, but which wound up as redirect to another target (a new unreferenced section). Delete DNA experiments as a term that can potentially target multiple targets. Both Genetic engineering and History of molecular biology are too broad. If retargeting, I would have preferred refining to Genetic engineering#Research. Jay (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and Mdewman6. Either of the proposed targets would be forcing this very general search term to a specific narrower term, which risks obscuring material relevant to a reader's query. Search results are rarely ideal, but in cases like these, it's better to be broad. --BDD (talk) 19:15, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
:The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.
