monicacecilia
commented
9 years ago golly, this is so philosophical. good question. Short answer: yes, they should have their own name.
Historically -because of current behaviour- I have advised curators to rename these features as soon as they place them up. Usually the community reaches a consensus on a prefix to name these, but Apollo is not automatically keeping track of how many of these have been created so there is no count.
In an ideal world, what I would like to see is as follows: we could give the option to admins to create a name that includes the word "repeat" and then the species name (e.g first three letters of genus + first three letters of species like we do for i5K), and some numbering system that keeps track of how many of these have been annotated throughout the instance. That is, a repeat created in for the genome of Apis mellifera would have a name that looks like this: repeat_apimel_xxxxx
And something similar would happen for the transposable elements.
does this make sense?
nathandunn
If I create a repeat region or other non-transcript element it gives it an implied unique name. Is this correct (with the realization that we need a better naming strategy) or should it give it the same name as the evidence it is being named for (if it is the only thing in the region).