Jump to content

Talk:Calvin cycle/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Move request

(from WP:RM)

Dark reaction → Dark reactions

Move onto top of a redirect. Target makes more sense for content of article. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • Object - isn't wikistyle usually to have articles in the singular, with redirects at the plural, unless the singular does not make sense? Since dark reaction means one of the dark reactions listed there, why can't we leave it where it is? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • The article is about the dark reactions: carbon fixation and the calvin cycle. It is extremely rare to have just one referred to as "a dark reaction". --Whosyourjudas (talk) 00:07, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    • Dark reactions is a redirect to Calvin cycle. Would it not be a good idea to have one article that contains all of the information spread between dark reaction, Calvin cycle and carbon fixation? Or could it all be included in photosynthesis?-- ALoan (Talk) 13:36, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)
      • Photosynthesis links to dark reaction as a "main article". Calvin cycle is a very specific reaction, as is carbon fixation; each deserves its own article. Dark reactions should be a semi-disambig, then, along the lines of dark reaction right now - and photosynthesis should link to it. Hence the move request. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:10, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
        • Well, I'm not a biochemist, so I'll take your word for it, but it is a little hard to reconcile what you say with the text of the articles:
          • dark reaction says that there are two dark reactions, carbon fixation and the Calvin cycle, but then goes on to say that C3 carbon fixation is the first step of the Calvin cycle, and C4 carbon fixation and CAM supply carbon dioxide to the Calvin cycle;
          • C3 carbon fixation says "this reaction occurs in all plants as the first step of the Calvin cycle";
          • C4 carbon fixation is not terribly helpful either way;
          • Crassulacean acid metabolism says "the carbon stored during CAM eventually enters the Calvin cycle", which implies that CAM is not a part of the Calvin cycle, but rather precedes it;
          • carbon fixation says that it occurs "when the three carbon dioxide molecules taken in each time there is a turn in the Calvin cycle in the dark reactions of photosynthesis", which seems to imply that carbon fixation occurs as part of the Calvin cycle;
          • Calvin cycle says "this set of reactions is also called carbon fixation", which again implies that the Calvin cycle and carbon fixation are synonymous, and, indeed, the first reaction lists there seems to be the same one as is included in C3 carbon fixation.
        • This all leaves me a little confused as to which reactions are separate and which are parts of other things. You seem to be saying that carbon fixation precedes the Calvin cycle, but these articles seem to imply that they are synonymous (or, at least, one it part of the other). In any event, I'm still not convinced that dark reactions (plural) is better than dark reaction (singular) is the right place, from a WP:MOS point of view. -- ALoan (Talk) 11:41, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
          • Dark reactions is fine, as it implies both Carbon fixation and the Calvin Cycle, each of which also comprises many smaller reactions, and this term has been in quite common use already.
          • These articles all need some TLC, which I am slowly providing. Carbon fixation refers to any reaction that builds CO2 into a larger carbohydrate. C4 and CAM precede the Calvin cycle and provide their products to it again as CO2.(These are best explained with diagrams, which I am working on.) The Calvin cycle is a form of carbon fixation, specifically C3 fixation. C4 and CAM precede and supplement the Calvin cycle. So: the Calvin cycle is a form of carbon fixation, but other forms of carbon fixation exist that are dark reactions in their own right. Thus the "dark reactions" are carbon fixation (esp. C4 and CAM) and the very specific, important form of it, the Calvin cycle. And we haven't gotten anywhere; we are discussing two distinct reactions, but one is a form of another. I feel that they are thus "dark reactions" - and the article title should reflect the fact they are two unique reactions generally referred to together. As the example at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (pluralization) says, if someone asked me, "What is a dark reaction?", I would say "The dark reactions are...", not "A dark reaction is...". The plural is the common reference. I have also seen the reactions referred to as the "carbon fixation reactions" - the sum total of all the reactions, preceding and including the Calvin cycle. But even in this case they are plural "reactions", not the "carbon fixation reaction" or "dark reaction". --Whosyourjudas (talk) 05:00, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Renaming

I suggest this article should be renamed to carbon reactions, as "light-independent reactions" is simply wrong. GD333 14:30, 20.02.2017


I've moved this to light-independent reaction from dark reaction as dark reaction implies that it only takes place in the dark (compare light reaction only occuring in the presence of light).

Talrias 12:02, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  • This article seems unnecessary given the articles on Calvin cycle and Carbon fixation. It is also inaccurate on several points. The term light-independent reaction is obsolete because it is inaccurate. The Calvin cycle and carbon fixation are not light independent. They use the energy produced by the light reactions so are dependent on light. They also occur in the light except for the initial, temporary carbon dioxide fixation in CAM photosynthesis. Plantguy 02:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
The energy plants use to drive carbon fixation is derived from light, but that is not the only paradigm that nature has designed, Some bacteria are ChemoAutotrophs, carbon fixers that use chemical power and not light power. I don't believe that wikipedians gave these reactions there names, I beleive we should follow the themes that science has designed. Adenosine | Talk 05:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)



dark reaction light independent phase it starts w/ the carbon dioxide fixation where in carbon dioxide which is a 1 carbon sugar is added to RUDP(ri-bulose di-phosphate) which is a 5 carbon sugar which is equal to 6 carbon sugar which is unstable because you are only required to have 5 carbon sugar molecule to be stable we need to divide 6 by 2 so it will become 3 carbon sugar and other 3 carbon sugar is called pga or phosphoglyceric acid.the product of the first pga is nadph(nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate hydrogen) we will remove h so the resulting formation is nadp(nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate).the product of the second pga is atp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.213.177.178 (talk) 04:51, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Article revamp

I revamped the article to include the light-dependent regulation and metabolic coupling, and also to fix some common misconceptions about CAM metabolism and "dark" reactions. I will add more references tomorrow.(Potsdamsc (talk) 04:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC))

Merge into Calvin cycle

This article should be merged into Calvin cycle—they are almost the exact same thing.—Kelvinsong (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

The image Calvin-cycle4.svg is incorrect

Calvin-cycle4.svg
Calvin-cycle4.svg
Calvin cycle.svg
Calvin cycle.svg

There seems to be an error in the Calvin Cycle image. The image indicates that 3-phosphoglicerate would be the product of the Calvin Cycle. However, the article says that the product is Glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (G3P). The sources I have found also tell the same. I am currently translating the picture into Finnish, so I would like to know if and how it should be modified. --PauliKL (talk) 11:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, another picture used in this article, Calvin cycle.svg, indicates that it is GAP (=G3P) that is taken out of the cycle. --PauliKL (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Recent page move

@EditSafe: May you revert the title back to "Carbon reactions" please? This needs an RM. --George Ho (talk) 11:07, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by EditSafe (talk • contribs) 22:24, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Too much disambiguation, EditSafe. I don't see why "(photosynthesis)" is necessary. "Carbon reactions" is clear enough. --George Ho (talk) 22:29, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Carbon reactions could refer to several different things, in fact if you search carbon reactions into google search engine, you will find pages like this as the top results https://www.webelements.com/carbon/chemistry.html http://www.elementalmatter.info/carbon-reaction.htm www.chemistryexplained.com/elements/A-C/Carbon.html https://www.reference.com/science/carbon-react-9af044c956cbe8da which have nothing to do with photosynthesis, in fact I can find very little that even says that this term for the reactions is commonly known as carbon reactions. I think it would be best to move it back to "light-independent reactions" or "carbon fixation" or some other name that is more common, but if we are keeping it at this name we should atleast include that it is referring to the cycle, not to general reactions involving carbon. EditSafe (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 9 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved although the article title may be refined later if the scope of the article becomes clearer — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Carbon reactions (photosynthesis) → Light-independent reactions – This article underwent changes without discussion and title changes without proper, formal RM discussion. I realized it was moved several times: "Light-independent reactions" → "Carbon reactions" → "Carbon Fixation" → "Carbon reactions (photosynthesis)". George Ho (talk) 22:56, 8 March 2017 (UTC) --Relisting. -- Dane talk 17:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
The article started as "Dark reaction(s)" but then shortly became "light-independent reactions". George Ho (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I agree with anthony. This article was moved without discussion and without a need. EditSafe (talk) 03:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It's a mess

For example, Calvin cycle redirects here but there's no section on it, you have to dig to find a brief description that links back to the redirect! Some of the redirects have the wrong R templates... it just goes on. Andrewa (talk) 23:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

The alternatives

The article and/or its predecessors have been at Calvin Cycle, Calvin cycle, Carbon reactions (photosynthesis), Carbon reaction, Carbon FĤixation, Light-independent reactions, and probably others I've missed. Light-independent reactions (photosynthesis) has also been suggested, and both dark reaction and dark reactions redirect here. Who's !voting for which, and why?

Suggest:

  • Identify your faourite title, and breifly why
  • List any others that are acceptable
  • If you wish, list any that are particularly bad in your opinion

and perhaps we can sort this out! Andrewa (talk) 02:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

After the move

Whatever happens to the move, there's some refactoring required to the article. As a start we should make sure each of the redirects that points here either points to an appropriate section or is mentioned and bolded in the article lead. If to a section, then it should either be the section heading (or close, dark reaction and dark reactions can just point to the same heading for example) or the redir should be mentioned and bolded early in the section. We're a general encyclopedia, remember, and try to respect the principle of least astonishment. Andrewa (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I just saw the note from George Ho at WT:MCB. Sorry I don't have time to work on this article myself now, but from a quick look I can offer a few suggestions:
  • The outcome of the page move was a tad unfortunate, as "Calvin cycle" would have been a much better name. It's the more common term both in the academic literature and on the web in general, plus it has the advantage in a general encyclopedia of not being misleading – these reactions are not light independent at all as they rely on energy and reducing power from the light dependent reactions, and cannot occur in the dark.
  • The end product of the Calvin cycle is, uncontroversially, glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate. The article currently names glucose as an end product, which is incorrect (for the Calvin cycle at least; I'm not sure what is meant by "carbon reactions"). I think what happens to the G3P varies by plant, but that's not part of the Calvin cycle.
  • The lead should not be as "plant-centric" as it currently is, as the Calvin cycle is not specific to plants, but occurs in all photosynthetic organisms, including algae, cyanobacteria, and some protists.
  • The focus of this article ought to be essentially what's depicted in File:Calvin-cycle4.svg. A bit of info about chloroplast structure, the light reactions, the fate of G3P, and CAM photosynthesis is appropriate for background and context, but it should be clear where the Calvin cycle itself begins and ends. Carbon fixation is a distinct concept; it should be mentioned as part of the Calvin cycle, but it should also be clear that it can occur by other means. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 00:55, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light-independent reactions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:17, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Copy the whole article to Wikiversity?

Andrew and Mr. Hunter, is it okay for me to copy the whole article to Wikiversity? Original research is allowed there, so anyone can easily edit it there and be more creative and original, while editing this article in this project... isn't easy due to the rigidity. Well... copying the whole article to there would make the Wikiversity copy a mess at the start, but I hope an expert on the topic can easily fix the whole page. Thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

That's really a matter for Wikiversity. It does raise an interesting question in that if (as I assume) this relies on our Creative Commons licence, the validity of that would depend on someone preserving the edit history, and I can't see how Wikiversity can rely on Wikipedia doing that under our current deletion policy. But again that's really a matter for Wikiversity. (I must explore Wikiversity myself.) Andrewa (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
Deletion policy shouldn't pose any legal problem for re-using Wikipedia content, or no-one could ever re-use anything from Wikipedia. But it's not clear to me why you want to copy the article. What do you mean by being "creative and original"? Are you referring to pedagogical aids, like questions for the reader, analogies, mnemonics and so on? Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:16, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@Andrewa: Here's our CC-BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Here's Wikiversity's own license, which matches ours probably.

@Adrian: For reasons to copy the article, I was thinking that someone else there can rewrite the whole copy of the article at Wikiversity. The whole content looks probably like an original research. Also the titling of the article here is a mess and reeks of possibly original research. When I said "creative and original", I meant someone with original thought and mind can rewrite the whole thing, then research the whole topic, then interpret reliable sources in a very original way, and then... I don't know. Nonetheless, I'll also take your suggestion about pedagogical aids, questions, analogies, mnemonics, etc. Still, I think the topic can be well treated at Wikiversity better than at Wikipedia. --George Ho (talk) 01:28, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@Andrew: After some further research from Wikipedia:Transwiki log and v:Special:Log/import, I found that w:Space (mathematics) was copied into v:Space (mathematics), the latter which was changed recently. --George Ho (talk) 02:00, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
@George Ho: The original research policy shouldn't stop anyone from researching a whole topic and interpreting reliable sources. Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information may be helpful, particularly "Compiling related facts and information from independent sources is part of writing an encyclopedia. ... Those sources must then be combined to produce a cohesive, comprehensive, and coherent article. ... Organizing published facts and opinions that are based on sources that are directly related to the article topic—without introducing your opinion or fabricating new facts, or presenting an unpublished conclusion—is not original research." Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 03:03, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
Okay, now I understand. I just... I just hope, after the titling mess, the article quality improves here, while the quality of the proposed Wikiversity version of this article improves as well. Don't you think so? --George Ho (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I went to v:Wikiversity:Import and found out that the request is to be made by only those wanting to work on the article. Adrian, do you know someone willing to work on it? Hmm... Alternatively, it can be transferred to Wikibooks at b:Wikibooks:Requests for import. --George Ho (talk) 20:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

@George Ho: No, but you could leave a message at WT:MCB. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 11:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Came here via the message at MCB, but I don't really get it - if you want to make a copy at Wikiversity, and their rules say someone needs to be willing to develop their version, then surely you'd want to recruit people at Wikiversity?
Anyway, in terms of the local version, I think the RM above was unfortunate and should probably be re-run; that is what should've been advertised at MCB (and probably other places where biologists might be found), because this topic has a variety of names, but by far the clearest is Calvin cycle. Considering this is a well-covered topic in textbooks and other sources, this article is really bad. Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:11, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh... Opabinia regalis, didn't know you're part of the MCB WikiProject. Anyway, yeah. The local (Wikipedia) version was poorly written, badly organized, and awfully titled. However, I'm not concerned about it (yet). Actually, I was hoping that you can work on the proposed Wikiversity version of it. However, if you can't, then... I can go to Wikiversity and ask someone else to work on the copy. Indeed, I can't be the one working on the page a lot because I'm not an expert on the topic and because I don't know how to express an original thought on the topic. Also, I have other priorities and don't have much time to work on the article. --George Ho (talk) 08:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Well, the Wikiversity coverage of the topic is even worse, so yes, someone there should work on it. But I don't have time to start editing other projects; I barely have time for this one at the moment. Someone who has time might want to try another RM, though :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:13, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Rename to Calvin cycle?

The title is confusing: it suggests a review of multiple pathways, but this is not done; the multiple pathways are reviewed in the carbon fixation article. This article seems to be almost entirely about the Calvin cycle ... is it seems it should be renamed? 67.198.37.16 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It's worse than just confusing. Anything on the web that mentions the Calvin cycle with a link to the Wikipedia article on the subject ends up at seemingly the wrong article, even though the body is about the Calvin cycle. Since moving it back is a no-brainer I'll do that now, and the defenders of the name "light-independent reactions" can propose arguments in support of their strange renaming. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 17:53, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I did the move but it was promptly reverted by User:Lithopsian. Maybe he has a better way of preserving the talk page at the original (Calvin cycle) site than how I did it. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
Not quite. You deleted a bunch of text from one article and added it to a different article. This messes up the history trail and is strongly discouraged. There are ways to fix this, and it was apparently done once before on this article, but that's no reason to make things worse. If you want to move/rename an article, then actually do that. Probably you won't have the rights to do this on your own, so visit WP:RM and follow the instructions. Lithopsian (talk) 19:39, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sentences regarding light-availability make no sense

The following makes zero sense: "This process occurs without light availability. Plants do not carry out the Calvin cycle during nighttime."

Rather it should be something like this:"This process does not directly require sunlight. However, because ATP and NADPH, which are produced only in the light-dependent reactions of photosynthesis, are required, plants do not carry out the Calvin cycle at night."

Right? Like it is now, it means: The Calvin cycle occurs without light being available, i.e. IN THE DARK. (which is wrong!) May I change the text accordingly?

--Felix Tritschler (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

You are right: this non-sense was due to multiple vandalisms. In the meanwhile, it has been corrected. Shinkolobwe (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Not to rename Calvin cycle

Dark reaction is right Tpswain (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Moves etc

The history of this page is littered with previous RMs, merges etc.. Hopefully this will now be stable! Andrewa (talk) 08:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 2 April 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


Light-independent reactions → Calvin cycle – In the article "calvin cycle" is used a lot more than "light independant reactions"(26 mentions for "calvin cycle", 2 for "light independent reactions"). The redirect page Calvin Cycle has significantly more internal links than the primary page with 22 links for light independent reactions, many of which are to avoid redirects while not appearing in prose, compared to 89 directly to "Calvin cycle" not including "Calvin Cycle" and "Calvin-Bensson cycle" or other calvin cycle derived names. To avoid confusion and better follow WP:LEAST this page should be moved to "Calvin cycle". )) Trialpears (talk) 08:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

  • Support. Pubmed gives 235 hits for "Calvin cycle" in the last 5 years (and 32 for ""Calvin-Benson cycle"), but only 15 for "light-independent reactions". (I get different numbers searching from home or uni, but the trend is the same.) My 2015 biology textbook (Campbell Biology) uses "Calvin cycle" as the primary term. I also prefer "Calvin cycle" because the current title is misleading, given that these reactions depend on NADPH and ATP from the light reactions, so are not light independent. Pinging Tpswain who commented above, and Opabinia regalis who I'm sure has commented on this before. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 06:45, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Good to see this! Sorry, I saw the ping awhile back but forgot to follow up. Anyway, belated +1, just in case this issue comes up again in the future. Has been needed for awhile now. Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:18, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zain1k99.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Calvin_cycle/Archive_1&oldid=1151828225"