Template talk:MtDNA

Haplogroup Z twice in the table
Haplogroup Z appears twice in the table. I guess that the one that is direct descendant of M is wrong, but I know nothing about it, so I don't change it myself. --84.150.201.189 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that! I've updated the template per this image. — Reinyday, 23:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Formatting - problems solved?
I think the main reason why so many "formatting fix" edits have been done on this template is because the formatting was coded in a way that made appear differently in different browsers. There seems to have been a particular problem with the borders. Consequently, I've totally changed how the table was laid out, with the consequence the troublesome "rule" variable is now no longer needed. Hopefully, the table should something like this (screenshot in IE). If you have a non-IE browser, could you post here to say whether or not its OK? Tompw 12:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Tompw. The branching version of this template was an improvement which allowed it to match Template:Y-DNA.  I'm not sure what browser problems you're having, but it you could mention them, then I could try to fix them for you.  Your latest version is huge (it formats much wider in my browser than it does in your screen capture; I'm using Firefox on a Mac), and no longer allows the templates to sit side by side reasonably as they do in Template:Haplogroups.  Let's see if we can fix the problem and retain the branching format. — Reinyday, 06:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * OK... in IE, it now looks like this. I must confess I was unaware of the Y-DNA template (oddly). It was not aparent to me that this template was meant to be in a "family tree" style. Consequently, my main issue with how the template stands is that it is not obvious it is a family tree. For instance (in IE at least), it's obvious what the parent group of R is, nor the A/I/W/X group, nor M... you hopefully see my point here. What I like about the version given below is that is instantly obvious what group comes from which. With regards to the width issue: is the table below now a more compact size? (The total width is now given at the start, rather than just via the cells). Also for me, IE, and Human genetics, the MtDNA and Y-DNA templates side-by-side are too wide, so I have to scroll sideways. (I think this could be solved by tweakign the Y-DNA template... reducing the gap between A and B, and between B and C would be sufficient. One final comment: I definately like the extra links to related articles, and I'm not particularly fussed about putting them at the top or bottom.


 * First, yes, the width is better in that version. However, I'd really like to try to keeping the branching format that matched Y-DNA.  So I've made a tweak that I think will make the lines display properly in IE.  Now I think the only problem is the width of "pre-HV", right?  I'll work on that... — Reinyday, 09:45, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * After my most recent edits, it now looks like this:
 * [[Image:Mtdna-screenshot1.png]]
 * Does it look similar in your browser? — Reinyday, 09:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

L0
I am sorry, but who is saying that L0 is extinct? says that L0 has a frequency of 25% in Mozambique! And what is a "most distant common ancestor"? The first RNA molecule? It appears, from that L0 is simply the first offshoot off the tree rooted at mt-Eve. Please restore the template accordingly. dab (&#5839;) 07:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This is really confusing, but some people are using L0-L5 to indicate haplogroups currently found in Africa (I put links to these in the external links section of the L0 page), and some are using L0 to indicate an extinct haplogroup, which I believe was found in some ancient human remains (mtDNA can be extracted from the bone and teeth of ancient remains). I think showing it as not extinct (your change) is better, and the confusion can be discussed in the L0 article itself.  As for your other question, the "most distant common ancestor" would be the oldest femaile ancestor from whom all living people are descended.  Other women alive at her time may have had many offspring, but eventually all lines resulted in only males having descendants. — Reinyday, 11:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * that doesn't answer my question. The "oldest female"? Is that the oldest human female, or hte oldest mammalian female, or the oldest female altogether, which poses the question of emergence of sex itself? dab (&#5839;) 16:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The most recent common female-line ancestor. Take any person alive today, and make a list that person's mother, mother's mother, mother's mother's mother, etc.  The matrilineal MRCA is the first individual who appears in every one of these lists (for every living human). --Saforrest 00:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with U and pre-HV
The template makes it appear that pre-HV* is a descendant haplogroup of U, when in Macaulay's haplogroup skeleton it is clear that pre-HV* is directly descended from R*. I'm a bit reluctant to touch the template as the formatting rules are rather hard to comprehend. --Saforrest 23:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting, and this Map by John Walden shows there's a haplogroup UK (parent of U & K) descended parallel to haplogroup B; but it also says Y is descended directly from R & not N. Interesting... of course, that map you posted is dated '02 and this John Walden one is dated '03, which has been a lot of time considering the progress of typing these groups. But who knows, there isn't a lot of good information on this subject online outside of wikipedia. Nagelfar 06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It looks like you're right, haplogroup pre-HV is also known as "R0" Nagelfar 06:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I changed it, but I didn't do a very good formatting job; I don't quite completely understand it myself. I'm wondering if "UK" should be added with U & K under. Thought it seems to be getting harder & harder to piece together neatly. Nagelfar 07:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, if pre-HV is aka R0, what does that define pre-JT? It can't also be R0. Though according to the family tree DNA website it claims pre-HV to be the 'former' name and R0 to be the current proper name. Nagelfar 23:41, 17 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I've tried to fix the template. It looks fine on my machine but I don't know how it renders for others.  Please let me know if I can be of further help. — Reinyday, 05:04, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks great in Firefox 1.5.0.11 in WinXP on my system. Nagelfar 22:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for fixing this. --Saforrest 05:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I is downstream to N1
And even shares two basal mutations with N1a,. I have corrected it in the I haplogroup and other higher level pages but the template should be corrected too. --Sugaar (talk) 11:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm unsure how it relates to the supposed macroHG "IWX". Is that a new name for N1? Haplogroup Y is also downstream of Haplogroup N9. There is a lot of confusion in the template, mostly because the mtDNA HG tree is very convolution. The placement of CZ and UK are also not intuitive. Nagelfar (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Different permutations of the page.
Each of my last two revisions  seem to be equally preferable in their own way. Maybe an additional change of adjusting L2 to be over next to L4 while putting the branches coming down from L3 off to one side of the chart, rather than splitting the above clades over either side of it, may aesthetically make it read better. I'm open to suggestions. Nagelfar (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * If I can nitpick, CZ is not centered over C and Z. UK is not centered over U and K.  I would put A to the left of R, mostly for clarity of spacing.  I would move L0 more to the left so nothing is underneath it.  But small stuff aside, it looks great, and thanks for your work keeping it up to date.  It's fun to be interested in a science that is so fast moving.  — Reinyday, 23:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree and was about the suggest the UK movement myself, this link writes UK as "Uk" and I don't know if it is a mistake, but being that the compound haplogroup K is subordinate to U in the compound "UK" haplogroup, maybe it should be moved under U or removed entirely or such. 71.59.220.46 (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I know the UK/KU and such should be edited, but I'm not sure how to express the delineation of the succession of haplogroups on a tree and still show the proper hyperlinks. As for 'A' coming before 'R', I don't think it's necessarily because the mtDNA haplogroups do not follow an alphabetized order themselves. I would too like to make each branch not terminate parallel to another vertically but if I extend the table too far to the right some kind of glitch makes artifacts appear, I could do this on the left however:, though I do not think it is a thorough-going template if this rule is followed for the left side of the template/chart and not the right. The HGs L4 through L7 still appear over & parallel to A, S, Y & IWX where they terminate as branches in this revision. Nagelfar (talk) 18:56, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

tip for editing
I tried to update the spacing of the top rows. I believe the width numbers still need to be modified to add up at each row but I made sure the column and row totals added up. A tip for editing: change border="0" to border="1" in the top row and leave that on for editing to visualize columns and rows more easily. — Reinyday, 17:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)