Talk:Plasmodium falciparum biology

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
	This redirect is supported by the Genetics task force.
	This redirect is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force.

Article Quality

Considerable improvements seem to have been made to the article recently and the page is now a very detailed and well-referenced resource. Some improvements in layout would make this an excellent article, it is already very good. If others agree I would suggest increasing the article quality assessment above the current 'B' level. :- Thomasf2811 (talk) 15:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Size split?

Support - Article is over 100 kB, and should be split out starting with "Cell biology". Thoughts?--Jax 0677 (talk) 13:08, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Article length per se is not a criterion. This has been previously explained to editor Jax 0677 when he suggested splitting the article on the Roma Empire on the same basis. The length criterion was suggested when browers and download times were much slower than currently. Much of the length of this article is in the references rather than in text.

All this having been said subdividing the article into smaller articles is a reasonable proposition. The difficulty is how to do this intelligently. The proposed split does not does this. For this reason I am reverting the edit made by editor Jax 0677.

If editor Jax 0677 can outline his/her reasons for splitting this article into sub articles for reasons other than length I for one would be most interested to read them. My own feeling is that to do so intellegently will take a considerable amount of editing of the content and this will probably be quite time consuming. This is similar to the problem faced by the editors of the Roman Empire where there has been a similar discussion. DrMicro (talk) 17:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - OK, let's leave "toolong" and "split-apart" in the article for now until the article is reduced tactfully.--Jax 0677 (talk) 19:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree completely with editor Jax 0677. DrMicro (talk) 10:05, 21 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an opinion on whether it should be split, but it looks like it's halfway through happening, or something? The page Plasmodium falciparum cellular biology seems to contain little or nothing besides a big chunk copy-pasted from this article. Should the same parts of this article be deleted or condensed to a much briefer summary, or something? CarrieVS (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made Plasmodium falciparum cellular biology a redirect back here until a way forward can be found. The last thing we need is for that article to be edited and we get a brach. Op47 (talk) 20:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This article should be split into two sections. This article is too long and too technical. Technical parts should not be removed but put into their own articles, with this pages referring to the sub-articles. I suggest one of two splits:

Plasmodium pathobiology (i.e. biology whilst in and affecting the human) and Plasmodium biology (involving the schistozoite stage).

or

"Molecular Biology of Plasmodium falciparum", "Pathogenesis of Plasmodium falciparum infection", "Biology of Plasmodium falciparum Schistocyte." and so forth. LT90001 (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not discuss the pathophysiology of infection. I for one would love to have a decent article here on this difficult subject. Be warned: such an article will be very long if it is to be any use at all. Anyone here feel brave enough to try writing it?

The problem with dividing out (say) the schizont stage (there are no schistocytes in this life cycle) is that there is considerable overlap between gene expression and usage between the various parts of the life cycle. Remember that as far as the parasite is concerned there are no separate stages: these are purely a human creation to simplify out understanding of its biology. The underlying problem here is that our present understanding of the life cycle is very much incomplete and patchy. This makes it very difficult to currently suggest a sensible division of its biology. To illustrate this point please note that there is quite a bit of overlap between sections here already: for example the clag genes encode an anion transport channel but are also surface exposed proteins that have been subjected to natural selection. DrMicro (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone looking for a less detailed overview of the parasite's life cycle and biology would be better going to the page Plasmodium where a outline is given. DrMicro (talk) 10:48, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size and coverage is great alltogether

It's a great pain to switch between artificially split articles. Lets leave it intact and appreciate that we have quite few articles of such great work. BTW I use it while touchtyping (as preformatted 100k-size books). 100k is really is not a book. One couldn't even doubt of "100k is not a book" as larger real-world ones as voluminous books in volums exist. They are times and times greater. Splitting and dissolving a large article will have a large impact as a precedence not to improve existing ones as simply large or "exceeding size". Not only it is desctructive to wikipedia quality of connected material - it breaks non-relevant materials into other articles or creating non-linked (very ofted) and disconnected stubs or junks.--94.76.98.84 (talk) 10:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted to an earlier version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Text entered in [1] duplicated at least in part material from [2]. Other content added by this contributor may have been copied from other sources and has been removed in accordance with Wikipedia:Copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. Content added by other contributors subsequent to the introduction of this material can be restored if it does not merge with this text to create a derivative work. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ----MER-C 12:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. Chhandama (talk) 07:04, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsed - yes, this seems like a classic duplicate article. One article on all aspects, not one summarising 'recent findings'. Blythwood (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I'd suggest merging under the name of the Plasmodium falciparum article. A lot of information is duplicate and can be collapsed down. Also the Plasmodium falciparum biology article is overly verbose at points, and has several short and empty sections that can be combined into single paragraphs (e.g. #Cell Biology). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 01:07, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - many of the Plasmodium articles are like this for some reason (highly verbose and repetitive). I spent some time trimming the Plasmodium article a while back. If there's no objection to the merge, I'll get around to starting it some time in the coming weeks. Ajpolino (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This page is best to merge into Plasmodium falciparum because it is merely a repetition of the information. The writeup itself is of a textbook style, not at all encyclopaedic. The main content "Life cycle" can be trimmed down to half of its current size. Other miscellaneous info need copy editing and thorough revision. Hence, the entire content can nicely fit into the parent page. Chhandama (talk) 07:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.