This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biophysics, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BiophysicsWikipedia:WikiProject BiophysicsTemplate:WikiProject BiophysicsBiophysics articles
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply