Talk:Zoology

Edit without title

I'm just about to start doing something with the zoology page. Just messing about. Please feel free to ignore what I'm doing. I can lways revert the page back to its previous state if this doesn't lead anywhere. :) -- Oliver P. 07:51 May 9, 2003 (UTC)

Stupid Vandal!

Who keeps inserting the word "poop" into random spots in random articles? It's really getting on my nerves. I'm going to revert this if nobody objects. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.252.87.79 (talk) 12:22, 12 May 2007 (UTC).

Hey, no objection here, anti-vandalism is a part of Wikipedia, right? You go ahead and get rid of them. Ahahaha, it's me, Rahk_EX 12:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

this article

is just a whole bunch of random code...or is it supposed to be like that. Vikram, 5:06 (no idea what time zone) , September 11, 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.146.157.55 (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright violation

The lead in this article appears to have been a copyright violation (original source: [1]). You can compare the abstract of that Britannica article to this dif [2]. If anyone has full access to Britannica online, please note whether the lead or more of the article is a copy of the Britannica article. Justin ^chat 17:38, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The 2007 entry being referenced above originally stems from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica and as such I believe that the relevant content is Public Domain. I will pursue this line of reasoning on the Britannica discussion for a definitive answer in regards to copyright status. If removal of such content has significantly detracted from the article I'm of the opinion that restoration of the EB based contributions with reference tags may be appropriate. 99.229.239.0 22:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed the 'Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica' category is listed in the links below as well as the template in the header of this discussion which indeed verifies my initial assumption as well as suggests presentational templates. If it is insisted that such information be removed from the article for some reason other than a mistaken copyvio these templates and categories should be addressed as well. 99.229.239.0 00:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Relevant quote from the 2007 edition of Britannica Online: ... "branch of biology that studies the members of the animal kingdom and animal life in general. It includes both the inquiry into individual animals and their constituent parts, even to the molecular level, and the inquiry into animal populations, entire faunas, and the relationships of animals to each other, to plants, and to the nonliving environment."

Relevant quote from the 1911 edition: ... "portion of biology which relates to animals, as distinguished from that portion (Botany) which is concerned with plants."

It's also notable that the quote from the 1911 edition is the entire lead, whereas the modern editions use far lengthier leads. The Wikipedia entry was an exact copy of the 2007 Britannica Online which, at best, has minor resemblances to the 1911 edition. Derivative works of Public Domain words does not automatically make them Public Domain as well. Justin ^chat 01:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification, TeaDrinker also brought these differences to my attention. These observations do present reasonable doubt for the removal of such content. Arguably, one could pursue further verification of whether it meets the "fair use" policy which is granted to some content in the modern editions, but you have significantly clarified your point. I still believe page blanking is a bit overly aggressive of a solution, although I may just be unfamiliar with wikipedia's potential copyright violation resolution policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.239.0 (talk) 01:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I feel we should either remove the pronunciation /zuˈɑləʤɪ/ or at least make it clear that it is incorrect (similar to the common "nucular" for "nuclear"). Khajidha (talk) 18:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I, a while ago, changed "incorrect" to "nonstandard." I'm assuming you're not a linguist, but if you are, you should know that there is no such thing as an "incorrect" pronunciation. There is standard and nonstandard. It is arbitrary. Much love from a phonetician. 97.81.69.177 (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I am curious whether you think your view that there is no such thing as an incorrect pronunciation is a correct one or not? If so, you contradict yourself. If not, you are merely expounding the standard, but certainly not correct, relativism. It is hypocrisy. Some advice from a philosopher. μηδείς (talk) 14:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

We had:

"British English: /zuːɑlədʒɪ/ and American English: /zoʊˈɒlədʒi/"

Which is surely mixed up - why /ɑ/ for British English and /ɒ/ for American? I've changed it to /zuːˈɒlədʒi/ and /zoʊˈɒlədʒi/, and removed the US/UK tags. Lfh (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

What does this sentence mean?

Gradually, since the time of Hunter and Cuvier, anatomical study has associated itself wre superficial morphography until today no one considers a study of animal form of any value which does not include internal structure, histology and embryology in its scope and limitation. I am not sure what word or words was meant by 'wre', if anyone has any idea what belongs here please fix it. Khajidha (talk) 18:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

With. Intelligentsium 00:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

New Image

I have recently created the following collage of various animals which much better represents animal diversity (18 classes in 13 phyla) than the current image (nine classes, seven of them vertebrate, in three phyla). If there are no good reasons not too, I will substitute the image shortly. μηδείς (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Probable vandalism

Removed the sentence "Nada Halwani from lebanon wrote this article!" from the lead. Thanks 125.237.26.48 (talk) 02:39, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

On second thought, it seems this article is a popular target for vandals. A protection wouldn't go amiss here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.237.26.48 (talk) 02:42, 12 October 2011 (UTC)