Talk:XX

RFC discussion: October–November 2012
These aren't abbreviations. I think they're symbols, but I'd like other input. Also, we're missing XXY, ZW and many of the other chromosomes. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think these aren't words, so should be deleted. X and Y should have the relevant senses. Not different to rhyme formats like AABA which we don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Mglovesfun. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 06:31, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree, but because of the way sex chromosomes work, it would be tricky to come up with a description of X and Y that could easily explain what XX and XY do (never mind rarer variants). Possibly that's a matter for an encyclopedia anyway. That said, XX and XY both seem to be attestable as English nouns ("the XXs"), and possibly as incomparable adjectives ("an XY individual"). Presumably it's the same in any other language with a sizeable scientific literature, and those cases it makes sense to keep these entries. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:34, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A simple definition for "X" and "Y" would be "one of two chromosomes typically found in pairs in pairs in humans and many other creatures: individuals with XX are female, individuals with XY are male". "Z" and "W" could be defined likewise, with usage notes explaining that X and Y are used of humans' chromosomes, and those of most other mammals and some insects, while Z and W are used of birds' and reptiles' chromosomes. That said, I would definitely vote to keep these because, as Smurray writes, things like "the XXs" are attested. - -sche (discuss) 09:52, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I have had a try at cleaning these up and have added cites for adjectival senses. There may be a noun sense in there as well, I don't know, but I haven't cited it.  It is definitely not an abbreviation and I have added etymology to show that (and at X chromosome and Y chromosome. Spinning Spark  00:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not YX so I do think there is merit to the full title. Having XX and XY is also simpler than explaining how XX and XY are constructed on the pages X and Y. DAVilla 03:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)