Talk:Cadherin-1

Citation overkill
Is there anyone who can cleanup this (which has been up for over a decade)? Three citations for proving a single point might be OK, perhaps even five, but seriously, twenty-three?! (yes, I counted.) I could clear this myself, but it's physically painful to even navigate through the walls of text, let alone to check which are relevant and which are not dealing with subsequent cite errors (edited 00:37, 6 January 2021 (UTC)), and visual editing doesn't help either. Regards, 223.17.177.154 (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "E-cadherin"
I noticed that this page was moved from "CDH1 (gene)" the "Cadherin-1" with the reason being that this is the preferred protein name. It is not. The mammalian literature all refer to the protein as "E-cadherin". I agree with not using "CDH1" because it is ambiguous, but I would prefer to see each of the cadherin pages named for their common protein names; i.e., E-cadherin, N-cadherin, P-cadherin, VE-cadherin, etc., since that is how they appear in the literature. Mdonken (talk) 17:52, 9 December 2022 (UTC)