Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal anatomy

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Epipelagic (talk | contribs) at 01:15, 8 November 2014 (→Reproductive system?: as in fish reproduction). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject Animal anatomy
Main project talk
Assessment statistics
Traffic statistics
Resources talk
Project subpages
Members
Requested animal anatomy articles talk
Things you can do
To-do list
Assessment
Unassessed articles
Expand stub class articles
Other
Article alerts
Showcase
Categories
Subpages
Mindmap

Resources section

Seeing as this is the first posting on the Talk page of this project, I will take the opportunity to say "well done" on setting it up. It looks terrific and the images are stunning! I have just added a searchable database I have often found very useful, although it is not exclusively anatomy. Is this the type of "Resource" we want? If not, feel free to delete it. If it is to be retained, what format should we use?__DrChrissy (talk) 10:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion about this project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all,

I've added a link to this project on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Related_WikiProjects

At the time, Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine was noted as a place for non-human articles (I didn't add this note!), so it might also have a lot of items about animal anatomy under the scope of this project (this used to be the case for WP:MED with human anatomy, too). Also they might need to be notified so that they know about this project (although it doesn't seem too active there)

When I was involved in starting another project (WP:PHYSIOLOGY), a useful way to batch-tag articles in categories is to make a request for a bot to do it. That saves a lot of trouble! A link is here WP:BOTREQ

I've also added the line "Articles here should also be tagged with WikiProject Animal anatomy. " to the "Animal anatomy" category Category:Anatomy articles about animal anatomy

Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:40, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that Tom, and thank you also for the helpful comments you made at WT:ANAT. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should Category:WikiProject Animal anatomy be a subcategory of Category:WikiProject Anatomy?

@Epipelagic: I noticed that the first category is not a subcategory of the second category, even though WikiProject Anatomy is relevant to both human and non-human anatomy. Jarble (talk) 17:33, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jarble, the gang at WikiProject Anatomy were pretty rude to Epipelagic when Epipelagic suggested a distinction between human and non-human anatomy; apparently humans are the only animals welcome over there... sigh. But I suppose you can ask them. I'm not holding my breath. Montanabw(talk) 04:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
During that discussion, Epipelagic was involved in heated interactions with CFCF, as noted by the "Archived" bit shown lower in that section. So I don't see how it can be stated that "the gang at WikiProject Anatomy were pretty rude to Epipelagic" during that discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:19, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was left with the distinct impression that animal articles were not welcomed within the scope of the project. Perhaps I was mistaken? Montanabw(talk) 06:18, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As was shown in that discussion, I repeatedly pointed to the fact that non-human animal coverage was/is a part of WP:Anatomy. However, non-human animal content did not/does not have prominent space within WP:Anatomy because of changes that were made in early 2014. In the aforementioned discussion with Epipelagic, Epipelagic and others felt that WP:Anatomy does not give enough space to non-human animal material. When WP:Anatomy was in agreement with giving non-human animal material more space, Epipelagic shut that discussion down and created WikiProject Animal anatomy. It's not like he had no choice but to create WikiProject Animal anatomy. Flyer22 (talk) 06:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarble: It's up to WikiProject Anatomy to decide what it wants its scope to be. I don't think it makes any practical difference whether one project is a subcategory of the other, or the other way round, or neither. Until a few days ago the scope section of WikiProject Anatomy said "This particular project supports all articles on human anatomy". The animal anatomy project was set up on that basis, as a project that would cover the anatomy for the non-human animals that WP:ANATOMY wasn't interested in. Flyer22 changed that somewhat inaccurately to "This particular project supports all articles on human anatomy, though it also covers non-human animal material. For the WikiProject specifically devoted to non-human anatomy material, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy." WP:ANATOMY does not generally support animal anatomy articles unless they are essential for an understanding of human anatomy. Nor is it the case that WP:ANIMAL ANATOMY supports article on plants and fungi.
For reasons I do not understand, Flyer22 keeps lecturing me and trying to derail this project. It would be nice if the project was given a bit of breathing space. I'm sure it will have a lot to offer editors who are interested in non-human animal anatomy, and I don't see that we are interfering in any way with what the editors at WP:ANATOMY want. There are, I'm sure, better solutions, and I would hope the matter can be revisited further down the track, when an optimal solution should become more apparent. I'm recovering from surgery right now, and have (plenty of time) but a limited ability to focus for a while. --Epipelagic (talk) 07:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. And yet more bad-faith accusations, similar to what I mentioned here. None of what I stated there or above is "lecturing [you] and trying to derail this project." When someone mischaracterizes matters on this topic or any topic, really, I am likely to comment on that, as I did above regarding Montanabw's comment. And I can comment at this WikiProject as much as I want to, or even "officially" join it if I want to (just like you did at WP:Anatomy before delisting yourself there soon afterward). You are the one who appears incapable of playing nice as far as these matters go, with your passive-aggressive posts and the like. You've again mischaracterized what basis WP:Anatomy was set up on, and how it operated; despite the "This particular project supports all articles on human anatomy" portion that you love to point to, WP:Anatomy never excluded non-human animal content. WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy shows that and so do the changes that were made in early 2014. Therefore, my "though it also covers non-human animal material" addition to the WP:Anatomy page is not inaccurate; the "specifically devoted to non-human anatomy material" part can be considered inaccurate when one takes "non-human" to include plants as well, but that can be fixed at that page; clearly, my edit summary was inaccurate, when I removed the "animal" part from the "non-human" bit that I originally added, but it's not like I can change that. Flyer22 (talk) 07:51, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current scope of WP:Anatomy reads "This particular project supports all articles on human anatomy, though it also covers non-human animal material." This clearly implies/states non-human material is a second cousin of human material. If that project is to be as inclusive as seems to be suggested, why can the scope not be "This particular project supports all articles on animal anatomy, and covers both human and non-human material"?__DrChrissy (talk) 11:49, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That project isn't that inclusive, and I never stated that it was (unless one counts my questioning its inclusiveness in the aforementioned early 2014 discussion). And why it is not that inclusive was already thoroughly addressed in the Human anatomy discussion. And lower in that discussion, there is this matter, which shows that WP:Anatomy was on the verge of being open to "all articles on animal anatomy," like it was before. But, well, we know what happened after that. Flyer22 (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, as was stated at WP:Anatomy, there is nothing stopping a WP:Anatomy editor from editing a Wikipedia article that is solely about non-human animal anatomy; nor is there anything stopping a person who is interested in non-human animal anatomy from posting at WP:Anatomy and seeking the help of a member there. We are not going to turn away such a post simply because it concerns non-human animal content; at least, I wouldn't. Flyer22 (talk) 12:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the categories should be independent, mostly for because it is easier and would reduce confusion.

Also I have a couple of resources on comparative and equine anatomy that I will be making available soon, will post about it here in case anyone wants it. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think the last 2 replies to my suggested change of the stated scope to WP:Anatomy speak volumes; material on non-human animals is simply not/less desired by that project.__DrChrissy (talk) 17:59, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I agree with this sentence "Well I think the last 2 replies to my suggested change of the stated scope to WP:Anatomy speak volumes". Flyer22 has stated that there's likely to be some crossover editing, posts are welcome from her point of view, and it was her feeling there was consensus for animals to be included in WT:ANAT's scope (before the discussion was terminated), and CFCF will make available available some public domain sources for future editing. I hope this sort of collaboration continues into the future. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of scope or parentage issues, my answer to this question would be no - but purely on category hierarchy/maintenance/cleanup issues. In the not-to-distant past, I had performed a major cleanup of all of the health-related WikiProject categories, and reorganized them all into a much more "clean" structure. If you look through the sub-categories within Category:Health WikiProjects, there are no WikiProject categories that are sub-categories of another WikiProject (which could imply some degree of parentage or ownership). Each project has its own clutter-free eponymous category to do as it pleases with. If all of the items within a WikiProject's category are created and maintained by that specific WikiProject, then it makes it much easier to organize and maintain the project's category. I believe most projects have moved away from the parent/child terminology, but categorization of WikiProjects within others still does exist in other areas (which end up having very cluttered categories). --Scott Alter (talk) 22:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


I must confess, I'm a bit perplexed as to why it all matters? This project overlaps pretty heavily with WP:Organismal Biomechanics due to the functional significance of many anatomical features, but my attitude is "screw it, as long as someone helps fix the articles, I don't care who, why, or under what banner", especially as my free time has dwindled. HCA (talk) 15:57, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reproduction in animals

I'm finding the arrangement of articles on reproduction in animals very confusing. Here seems like the best place to go. My statement is this:

Which article should be the 'end' article that stores the information about sexual reproduction in an animal? I ask this because I've been perusing sexual reproduction per the discussion: here and keep getting in circles of redirects. Some examples:

  1. Reproductive system and Sexual reproduction are separate, yet Canine reproductive system redirects to Canine reproduction
  2. There doesn't seem to be a clear rule on how articles are structured. For example, we have Canine reproductive system and Human reproductive system (as of today) but not the critically important Mammalian reproductive system, which in fact redirects to Mammals#reproductive system
  3. On Sexual_reproduction#Mammals hatnotes link to Stallion#Reproductive anatomy and Horse anatomy#Mare but not Equine reproductive system (which has a hatnote in Reproductive_system#Mammals but actually redirects to Horse anatomy)

So in conclusion... what are the opinions of other users how to structure this suite of articles? Should reproductive system of animal X be in Animal X#Reproductive system, X anatomy#Reproductive system or X reproductive system, X reproduction? I will try and reflect whatever discussion emerges in the confusing system of hatnotes currently. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For further examples of why this is confusing to a lay reader (me), see here: Carnivora#Reproductive_system (7 hatnotes) or Sexual_reproduction#Mammals (over 20 hatnotes). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List

Template:Sexual reproduction in animalia Here's a list I've compiled. I've moved this discussion from WT:ANAT to keep it centralized.

Italicised articles are redirects and strikethrough means I've tried to redirect all hatnotes to the correct place (unless there's logical reasons otherwise). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one of the top of my head, my favorite invertebrate sexual reproduction mode. Also, do we want to include or incorporate eggs in some way? They're separate in some ways, but can constrain earlier events (shelled eggs prevent external fertilization). And should there be an article of oviparity, viviparity, ovoviviparity and the various evolutionary transitions between them (as in snakes and skinks, in particular)? HCA (talk) 22:23, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it's up to you? I'm just finding the current situation very confusing. Every article redirects to another which redirects to another, so it's never clear which is the definitive "main" article... it is like a circle of people who give you their opinion on something and then say well, actually you really should ask the opinion of X, who suggests Y, who suggests Z, and so on. Very confusing! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:09, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a bit confusing, partially because articles on animal reproduction are often a mix of both anatomy and physiology. If you look at the (very incomplete) Fish reproduction article, it has a section for Anatomy and another for Physiology. Topics such as oviparity, viviparity and ovoviviparity are included under "physiology". Perhaps they should be categorized as "behaviour" or "strategy". --Epipelagic (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably impossible to create any kind of hard and fast rule, as there are thousands of species and often multiple articles within WP on many of them. Each species may have to stand on its own Montanabw(talk) 02:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This is a mess. I just typed in Mammalian reproduction and got redirected to Sexual reproduction where I had to wade through bacteria, fungi and plants, to be greeted with a rather unusually titled sub-section "Male placental mammals". I am not sure I can add anything terribly constructive here other than support for sorting it out. I had thought about helping to differentiate between the behaviour of an anatomical structure or the behaviour of the mammal itself, but even this very soon becomes blurred. I was thinking of using ovulation as the example. In most mammals, this is the behaviour of the anatomical structure and the animal is totally unconscious (I presume) it has ovulated. However, in domestic cats, it is the act of mating which causes the female to ovulate...the behaviour of the mammal. hmmmmmm. __DrChrissy (talk) 10:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the reproduction articles seem disorganised pretty much everywhere. I've been looking at the "Reproduction" group in {{diversity of fish}} lately and wondering what should be done about the mess there. Another key article to do with animal reproduction, but not included in the list above, is spawning... an article that does not fit well with the model that animal anatomy and physiology is somehow just a shadow imitation of human anatomy and physiology. Reproduction is a multi-disciplinary area which covers much more than just anatomy, and while I'd like to see this discussion continue, the issue seems larger than the scope of this project. --Epipelagic (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have reexpanded Mammalian reproduction and moved content there. Per one of the many wikipedia policies, I've left Sexual reproduction as a more general overview of sexual reproduction in various classes, with a hatnote pointing to the article itself for readers. I think this structure is more logical and reduces fragmentation. Mammalian reproduction is quite a notable topic and deserves its own article. With regards to anatomy, the reproductive system is an anatomical structure present in humans and animals. Reproduction is the method of using that system to create more of same. So I think there is some justification for having this discussion here and notifying some of the other projects as needed. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have also added a template, which is a work in progress. For users that don't know, I like to create sidebars where there are a series of articles that I think users are likely to view in sequence. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Why is the template called "Sexual" reproduction? Is it your intention to exclude asexual reproduction? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Regarding the template: Please see the existing Template:Animal sexual behavior, and my concerns about its placement and utility on the talk page--Animalparty-- (talk) 23:13, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Animalparty, I wasn't aware of that navbox and it makes the sidebar I created somewhat superfluous. I've added your navbox above. Your concerns are:

For this template to have maximum practicality, the scope and limitations should probably be clearly defined, lest it become unwieldly clogged with arbitrary links to every conceivable animal's paragraph on reproduction. Some suggestions:

  1. Perhaps only full article level links should be included (e.g. no links to "MyFavoriteAnimal#Reproduction"). Examples include Lordosis behavior or Seabird breeding behavior.
  2. Perhaps species-level links should be omitted, with only general links to reproduction discussion of family-level or higher taxa , e.g. only Canine_reproduction instead of arbitrary inclusion of Gray wolf, Golden jackal, Domestic dog, Red fox... (why no Raccoon dog or Gray fox??)
  3. Perhaps only individual species with notably distinct reproductive modes (compared to related species) should be included. That is, if closely related species differ primarily only in age at reproduction or clutch size (such as the rhino species) they may not warrant individual entries, but notable departures (such as the unique female anatomy of Spotted hyenas compared to brown hyenas) may be more informative to highlight. In this way, the diversity of Animal Sexual Behavior can be made more visible, rather than becoming a cluttered dustbin for animal factoids.

--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've recently added links to general topics (under the heading "Mating systems"), and expanded bird, fish, and herps. I still believe the mammal section can be selectively pruned to achieve more equitable balance, and invertebrates are for now still omitted.--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Animalparty, I completely agree with your statement that the template should only not include "species-level" comparisons, otherwise we are just going to end up with a very long list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reproductive system?

One question I do want to ask is this: For animals, should information about reproduction and the reproductive system, if in a separate article, be at Mammalian reproduction or Reproductive system of mammals (using as an example). There is a fair amount of variation in articles above. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My own thought here would be to have Mammalian reproduction and include Anatomy/Physiology and Behaviour. If we have the word System in the title, my mind is instantly swayed toward thinking about an anatomy/physiology article (although with a second thought that a harem could be a "Reproductive system of mammals").__DrChrissy (talk) 12:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, why use the word "system" at all? Insect reproductive system and Reproductive system of planarians seem mainly about anatomy, while Reproductive system of gastropods seems mainly about behaviour. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So would you support renaming the articles to 'reproduction' with subsections (something like anatomy and behaviour)?--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as in fish reproduction. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ordering

When dealing with an article in animal anatomy, some articles use the order Plants/Fungi/Mammals, others visa-versa. I personally like a very structured approach to editing, as I think it (1) looks more professional (2) is more effort to deploy, but in the long run saves a lot of discussion and thought (3) points to areas that are missing in articles. Do users of this project have thoughts about what order articles about multiple different kingdoms/phylum are presented? --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is a question for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:11, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Digital models

Is there any good, free source of reliable 3D models of animal skeletons? I've long wanted to illustrate Manx cat with a comparison of the spinal differences between that breed and more typical cats. I know there are all kinds of Poser (etc.) models available of people, and common animals in general, like horses, but their reliability would be questionable. Wondering if there's some kind of academic clearinghouse of suitably licensed models that are based on rigorous measurements?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  22:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animal_anatomy&oldid=632900063"