Talk:Fallopian tube
This level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Proposed merge of Oviduct into Fallopian tube[edit]
The Fallopian tube in female mammals is also known as an oviduct (citation 8 on the main page specifically mentions it as such); the description that an oviduct refers specifically to nonmammalian vertebrates is incorrect. DeemDeem52 (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
- Somewhat oppose. DeemDeem52, regarding this that I reverted you on? The text stated, "In non-mammalian vertebrates, the equivalent of a Fallopian tube is an oviduct." It didn't state that the term oviduct never refers to mammals. I changed "In non-mammalian vertebrates" to "In other animals." But, regardless of all that, the term Fallopian tube is human-centric and the term oviduct isn't used nearly as much for humans as Fallopian tube is used. That is why this source you referred to states, "Animal oviducts and human Fallopian tubes are a part of the female reproductive tract that hosts fertilization and pre-implantation development of the embryo." and "In mammals, successful fertilization requires that sperm should survive the extremely harsh environment of the female reproductive tract and reach the site of the newly released egg(s) in the oviduct (or Fallopian tube in humans)." Notice how it keeps using the term Fallopian tube in reference to humans only?
- I'll alert WP:Anatomy to your merge proposal. I only somewhat oppose because, again, the term Fallopian tube is human-centric. And because of this, it may be best for readers to have the oviduct material in a separate article. That stated, the Oviduct article is small and could be merged into this article as an "Other animals" section...in a comparative anatomy way. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:19, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Oppose as per Flyer22's rationale. There appears to be a separate term primarily for use in zoology and another mainly used in human and mammalian anatomy, both are notable enough to have their own articles and merging I think is likely to lead to unnecessary confusion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly support. The terms are used interchangeably for human anatomy. It would be appropriate to use content from Oviduct to make a new "Other animals" section, linking the topics. Bibeyjj (talk) 11:21, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Support the use of oviduct is often used for human anatomy. An Other animals section would be enough.--Iztwoz (talk) 14:41, 27 November 2020 (UTC)
- Strongly Support changing the primary article title to Oviduct with forward for Fallopian tube to Oviduct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.17.126.204 (talk) 06:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Use of name[edit]
Suggest using fallopian rather than Fallopian throughout - having evolved a common status - most refs looked at use the lower case Iztwoz (talk) 06:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
Categories:
- C-Class vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class level-5 vital articles
- Wikipedia level-5 vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class vital articles in Biology and health sciences
- C-Class Anatomy articles
- High-importance Anatomy articles
- Anatomy articles about organs
- WikiProject Anatomy articles
- C-Class Women's History articles
- Low-importance Women's History articles
- All WikiProject Women-related pages
- WikiProject Women's History articles
- C-Class women's health articles
- High-importance women's health articles
- WikiProject Women's Health articles