Talk:Channelomics

Merge discussion
Following the discussion at Articles for deletion/Channelomics, I propose that we merge Channelomics into Channelome. The target page would also need a lot of improvement, and I suggest that any discussion of a merge instead to a broader page topic be postponed until future page revisions have taken place, and it is clearer whether or not this topic can stand alone. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me. Worth considering: currently glycomics is more developed than glycome, lipidomics more than lipidome, and proteomics more than proteome. On the other hand, kinome is crap, but kinomics doesn't exist at all. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for starting the merge discussion. I'm coming round to the concept of merging to one page (either Channelomics or Channelome) rather than merging all to Proteomics. As others have noted elsewhere, the terms are out there ... and the Proteomics reads quite well as it is, and might be better not tampered with. As for the direction of the merge, I'd be tempted to ignore the current state of development of the pages and go with what might be the most appropriate long-term solution. I'd recommend the general approach of maintaining Channelomics/Gycomics/Lipidomics/Kinomics, as it seems to me that what is new is the experimental approach (the application of technique in proteomics and genomics to the study of ...) rather than the postulation of an idealised (Platonic?) Channelome/Glycome/Lipidome/Kinome. The conceptual ideas can of course be discussed on the relevant pages (having specific subheadings).Klbrain (talk) 09:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The reason I stopped short of suggesting "main articles should be at -omics" is that I have never heard anyone seriously describe their research as "kinomics". Sounds like puffery. Forget grants; add a y and an x and maybe drop a vowel altogether and we'll be ready to start fishing for venture capital instead.
 * For the present case, though, sounds like merge and redirect channelome to channelomics is the best plan? Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be fine with me to do the merge in either direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Google search results for channelome=4,520 hits; channelomics= 1,220 hits. So, maybe, despite my arguments above, the channelome wins? I suppose that that would also help with a similar (subsequent) proposal for kinome and its colleagues. I'm relaxed about merging in either direction.Klbrain (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, that is a valid argument for going the other way. I feel pretty neutrally about the direction, and I'll go along with what other editors think about that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinged the MCB project in case anybody there is more decisive than anybody here :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge under channelome I'd say. It is the more common term. I would prominently identify channelomics as a related term though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:15, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I also think it should be merged under channelome. Channelome is the more fundamental concept. Channelomics is the study of this subject. It is more natural to add a channelomics section to the channelome article than to add a background section on the channelome to channelomics. Boghog (talk) 09:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you to the additional editors who have responded here. I think that the consensus is emerging to merge with Channelome as the target page. I would like to leave the discussion open for a total of at least seven days, in case there is more input, but I'm inclined to see it this way at this time. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Just to add to support for merge as proposed. --Iztwoz (talk) 21:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I think we have an unambiguous consensus. I'm going to go ahead and make the merge now. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2015 (UTC)