Talk:Intercellular communication

Contested deletion
This article should not be speedy deleted as being recently created, having no relevant page history and duplicating an existing English Wikipedia topic, because... (your reason here) --Tgru001 (talk) 00:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)The current redirect of the topic "intercellular communication" to "cell signalling" is to a topic that is too narrow. "Cell signalling" has a specialist meaning and as a topic covers only a small part of known "intercellular communication" topics. "Cell signalling" is unable to appropriately cover all other forms of intercellular communication. Most of the other known forms of intercellular communication are at least partly covered in other articles but all are rather narrow in their scope so are no more suitable than "cell signalling" for a redirect. By creating a more general topic on "intercellular communication" it allows unifying and referencing the other specialist articles which come under the topic plus adding ones that are not currently covered as topics in Wikipedia. People will hopefully be able to read the more general article and then click on the links to the more specialist forms of intercellular communication they are interested in.

Old not good?
I noticed in the introduction to the article quote and the txt around the quote from Micrographia

"But I couldn't find with my microscope, breath or any other way I have tried, a passage out of one cell into another, yet I cannot conclude, that there aren't any passages that exist that the plant juices must pass through."

had been deleted. I can understand it makes the intro shorter and easier to read. However, my feeling is the article shouldn't just be the latest "scientific facts" believed to be correct listed in as short as fashion as possible. You may as well just list the latest published reviews on the topic. Older science is still part of our knowledge base. Without the person who originally discovered cells asking the question how do things get in and out of them people would still view them as closed boxes and not look further. Trying to blow into a plant stem is a valid experiment and helps put later experiments into context. So as not to make the intro longer again I've added the minimized text to the pictures caption instead. Without the text the picture is not much more than an un-necessary bit of art.

Inappropriate intercellular bridge redirection
While I appreciate the person who put in the intercellular bridge redirection it goes no-where really. The article it references mentions them once, without an appropriate reference and without any explanation as to what they are. I suspect there is confusion in that gap junctions are often referred to as bridging the cytoplasm of two cells, so forming an intercellular bridge. An "Intercellular Bridge" has a specific meaning in its own right independent of gap junctions. I'll address this issue in that article separately with whoever is looking after it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgru001 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 17 February 2023 (UTC)