Talk:Complete glucose breakdown
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BabyBale.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 19:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment edit
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 15 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): EllesaNaito, GerenWijaya. Peer reviewers: GerenWijaya.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Untitled edit
There's much more to be added in this article. Also, this temporary definition is unclear. I shall work on it. --Enigma 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Merger with Glycolysis edit
I think it would be a good idea to merge this page with Glycolysis. Because this page covers almost the same content, I think it would be a good idea to merge this page into Glycolysis. Any non-glycolysis-related data will be merged into TCA Cycle and Electron Transport Chain. Iwill not do the merge until someone comments for it.
Littleb2009 (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Littleb2009 --- I see what you've done, and why you may have thought it a good idea: there's a lot of overlap. However, "Complete glucose breakdown" is NOT a synonym for glycolysis, but for glycolysis + Krebs cycle. The first bit is anaerobic and yields little energy; the second is aerobic, and yields a lot. So the redirect to glycolysis is wrong and misleading. I agree that the article, as it was, was pretty hopeless: it summarized glycolysis, followed by the briefest of mentions of the Krebs cycle, when the latter should have had at least equal weight. So I think we need a different redirect target, i.e. CGB = G + KC. We do in fact have an article on that topic, it's the surprisingly-titled Cellular respiration. I think I shall WP:BOLDly go and change the redirect now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
- Sure. --littleb2009Have a chat? 02:38, 1 June 2021 (UTC)