Talk:Southern blot

Regarding the "blot" articles "mission" position - I'd say they are at least, very good articles. I'd vote to keep them. (Where's the Western blot?) human  23:34, 27 December 2007 (EST)


 * Very good articles (smell like copies to me). Still: Mission? 193.113.235.182 23:39, 27 December 2007 (EST)
 * Well, N. blot does seem to have sprung full to life. Why not ask the editors?  They may have been papers they wrote.  And as far as mission?  We have a zillion science crappy stubs.  Why delete a good science article?  The summaries pretty much tell what they are for the layman?  Anyway, yes, if they are copies from WP or some place, then, well, that's silly.  Keep in mind, these are the opposite of our "science overview" articles or whatever that template was - they are in-depth.  And where a handful of our editors are in schoolz, we might see this stuff.  By the way, as I recall, Western blot is an STD test of some sort.  Which kinda plays into our mission.


 * To sum up, you really should put the reason you think something is not "mission" on the talk page when placing the template - ie, why you think it should go, not asking why it should stay. It's here because someone put it here, and it ain't exactly crap.  Anyway, it looks like TimS was the primary author, is he still around to ask if they are original? human  00:54, 28 December 2007 (EST)

I agree it is a very good and (as far as I've been able to check on t' web) accurate article but What The F has it got to do with anything in RW's mission. It's not even encyclopædic. It reads more like a primer for forensic scientists or some such. An article on Public transport in North Nottinghamshire (say) could be written but would it be RW material no matter how good? Goodness =/= mission. 193.113.235.182 01:59, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Actually, I agree to agree with our IP. It looks like one of those sciency things which we put up before we decided what it was that we wanted to do, and it doesn't really do much (OK, anything) for our mission. Still ..... I suppose it's got some historical value as it shows where we might have gone. So I'd be inclined to make an exception and keep it, perhaps with a disclaimer at the top explaining why it exists. Good compromise?--Bobbing up 03:58, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * Sounds good to me, Bob. If you make a template, try to keep it short, though.  I hate the way WP slobbers messy templates all over their articles and talk pages ;) human  15:13, 28 December 2007 (EST)
 * I first drafted a quotebox saying what I think we mean between us. I guess if you guys approve (with or without emendments) one of you will copy it over to Northern blot. human  15:18, 28 December 2007 (EST)

Mission update
As RW has since expanded, I have removed the mission and questioning templates from both Southern and Northern blot articles. I have also removed the massive amounts of data explaning the procedure as these really don't have a place here by any stretch of the imagination.  A rmondiko V  User_Talk:Armondikov 09:42, 29 January 2009 (EST)