From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

File:Fetus amniotic sac.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Fetus amniotic sac.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Fetus amniotic sac.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Separate Fetus (human) and Fetus (biology)[edit]

I support this separation, because Fetus (biology) is comprehensive enough to justify being a separate article from this one, while this article is almost entirely about the human fetus. Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:16, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I can see the propser's point. A more practical option would be to rename this article to Foetus (Human) and create a parent article Foetus. The parent article would have a link to this article and any general foetus content will be moved from this article to the parent article. Op47 (talk) 18:49, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Foetus is a relatively recent mispelling, a bastardized "Greek" spelling of Fetus, and is used primarily by the British press. Medical sources do not use this spelling. This has been discussed many times in the past. See Talk:Fetus/Archive_1#foetus, for example. Remember that we pick one spelling and stick with it. KillerChihuahua 16:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
Since I am British then I just automatically used the spelling that I knew. Apart from slagging off my spelling, can you please make a constructive comment about the matter in hand (i.e. splitting the article) please! Op47 (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Apologies, I meant no insult or rudeness. I misread your post to suggest we not only split the article but also change the spelling. I disagree with separating the articles, I think we should be considering merging more than splitting again. Humans are mammals and there is no appreciable difference between a human fetus or any other mammal. I suggest instead we trim the human-specific bits, and bring the article more in line with a general overview of fetuses. We already have Prenatal development for the human-specific content, as well as Embryo which also shows a human-other imbalance. KillerChihuahua 15:32, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon of baby/fetus in stomach[edit]

I propose the removal of the cartoon baby/fetus as it is unscientific. It is an artists conception of a very well developed fetus. It looks too much like a baby.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 15:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

  • Support removal, agree with rationale. KillerChihuahua 16:05, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
    • "Articles listed are normally discussed for at least seven days" says Wikipedia guildlines, so in seven days?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 20:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No argument to keep the cartoon , and it has been a week so I am removing it.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Right proportions[edit]

The claim, in section Weeks 17 to 25, that "At week 19 [...] The arms and legs are in the right proportions to each other and the rest of it’s body." is not supported by the source given. It is also inherently unverifiable – what are the "right proportions"?

Should be removed. --Maryna Ravioli (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

YesY Done I Checked and this is not mentioned in the source in any way. KillerChihuahua 03:18, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
I checked the history, and the editor who added that also added a lot more OR and poor writing. I've restored the text which existed prior to those edits, removing OR falsely sourced. KillerChihuahua 03:41, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Had that feeling as well, but my developmental biology background is decades old and I am a bit fuzzy on detail. The one sentence just struck me as carrying no factual information whatsoever. Maryna Ravioli (talk) 13:27, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Oh, it was even worse than that, once I started looking at the edits, at one point they added verbiage describing the fetus at another stage of development as "more normal" and the word "baby" was used at least twice, which only applies post delivery. So thank you so much for posting that here, I missed all those non-encyclopedic edits, and apparently everyone else who watches this page did too! KillerChihuahua 13:32, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

The topic of this article is ambiguous[edit]

The hatnote at the top of this article explains that this article is specifically about human fetuses. However, the lead section of this article seems to imply that the article is about both human and non-human fetuses, even though this contradicts the hatnote at the top of the page. Should this article be renamed to "Human fetus" so that this article's topic will be less ambiguous, and there will be no confusion about the scope of this article? Jarble (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

A brief mention/implication concerning non-humans, or even a few mentions/implications concerning non-humans, doesn't make humans any less this article's focus. But if you are that worried about such mentions/implications, which it appears that you are, one solution would be to alter the hatnote so that it uses the word "primarily," as in "This article is primarily about the stage of human development." What I think of such moves has already been stated in the discussion you started at the Pregnancy article. I've informed WP:MED of this fetus discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
wp:MOSMED skirts the issue somewhat by deferring to TA, but we are inconsistent about whether or not to give precedence of title to the human-focussed article over the more general alternative. Hence we have Human brain, Human heart, Human leg, Foot and Arm as human-focussed articles. These show various hatnotes as appropriate.LeadSongDog come howl! 13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the problem, actually. The first sentence tells you what the word means. Everything after that is about humans. We don't need to absolutely exclude all mention of non-human fetuses to have people figure out the subject of the article. In fact, a well-written article would include some comparative embryology. Sure, you'll have to read a couple of sentences or glance at the table of contents to be absolutely certain that the article is about humans, but this isn't a serious problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, when I made my above comment, I was thinking the same thing about comparative anatomy, which Wikipedia:MOSMED#Anatomy mentions. But "comparative embryology" is more accurate in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
I think I made some improvements here. If not, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
Not needed, per that edit summary, responses to Jarble above, and similar responses to Jarble any time Jarble wants an article to be less human-centric. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Legal Issues needs balance[edit]

I'm not here to get into debates about abortion, but the Legal issues section seems slightly biased towards the legal aspects while ignoring the illegal aspects; neglecting the fact that large parts of the world have substantial legal restrictions on abortions, as clearly seen in this image: File:Abortion_Laws.svg. The piped redirects seem a bit misleading as well: leading with a blue link saying "Abortion of a human pregnancy is legal..." can be more honestly stated without the sneaky link. (Read an equally correct alternate: "Abortion is largely illegal in many parts of the world with various exceptions...") A simple Main articles: Abortion law and Fetal rights hat redirect would be more neutral and transparent. If abortion is to be discussed at all in this article, for the sake of balance the following text might be added, and then leave it up to the other articles to explain in depth:
"Abortion is generally illegal with various exceptions for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, and/or fetal defects in Africa, West Asia, Southeast Asia and South America, and is illegal in nearly all cases in Chile, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Dominican Republic, and Malta" --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)