Talk:Haplogroup K-M526

This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Human Genetic History (inactive) This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Human Genetic History, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Human Genetic HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Human Genetic HistoryHuman Genetic History articles Molecular Biology: MCB This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology 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.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles This redirect is supported by the Molecular and Cell Biology task force.

I do not know if anyone ever even looks at these pages, including the people who make them, but certainly no one is keeping them up to date, and they are all virtually identical, and very skeletal. As I have mentioned at WP:HGH ([1]) there are way too many people who think making an article split for every mutation known in the Y DNA family tree is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, but not enough people (either in Wikipedia or the entire scientific community!!) to make these articles worthwhile and up-to-date. Subjects are not better treated by having lots of stubs about them? I propose that the structure with Haplogroup MNOPS is best treated within one article. I very much doubt anyone will even respond to this?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Polynesia to the Haplogroup M and Oceania to the Haplogroup O of the phylogenetic Tree in the "Subclades" section. The main articles (and their sources) of both haplogroups state that those cultural regions have peoples carrying those haplotypes. -Ano-User (talk) 08:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could someone comment on why the name was changed? I do not think the new name is more commonly used or clear? I can't see how it can be because of a phylogenetic discovery in this case because effectively the new name is just a negatively defined version of the old name. (It focuses on what MNOPS is not, and not how it is united.) Sorry if I am missing something, but anyway it is best to record the reason in order to avoid misunderstandings.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just noticed ISOGG have changed it: http://www.isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_YDNATreeTrunk.html --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 06:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]