|Fetus has been listed as a level-4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as start-Class.|
|Remember that article talk pages are provided to coordinate the article's improvement only, and are not for engaging in discussion of off-topic matters not related to the main article. User pages are more appropriate for non-article-related discussion topics. Please do not use this page as a discussion forum for off-topic matters. See talk page guidelines.|
|WikiProject Anatomy||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Physiology||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
|The content of Fetus (biology) was merged into Fetus. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.|
The topic of this article is ambiguous
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)
- I think I made some improvements here. If not, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, November 29, 2013 (UTC)
- I also found the lead section pretty confusing. I'm inclined to agree with renaming based on MOS:PRECISION (particularly the part about "natural disambiguation"). I disagree that “fetus” is analogous to “pregnancy”. If someone said “let's talk about pregnancy”, I would assume they meant human pregnancy, but if someone said “let's talk about fetuses”, I would ask “Human fetuses?”. I've clarified the lead section, but still think a rename or merge should be considered. George Makepeace (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Legal Issues needs balance
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)
I suggest that the spelling ought to be foetus. To say that "The word fetus .... The British, Irish, and Commonwealth spelling is foetus, which has been in use since at least 1594" is highly misleading. It implies that the American spelling automatically overrides the spelling used in all other English-speaking countries. I realise that Americans rule the internet, but the international language is English, not American.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
- No. In this case 'fetus' is the correct spelling, and is widely used by scientists and universities in the UK. In practical use, I have recently spent a lot of time in a 'Fetal Medicine Unit' in an NHS hospital and have been for 'fetal heart scans' in another. Jon.baldwin (talk) 15:03, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Proposed merge with Fetus (biology)
- Support meaning is the same in both cases. No need to separate articles - would benefit things by centralising information and reducing needless fragmentation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Fetus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130601182944/http://pregnancyarchive.com/articles/insights-into-early-fetal-development/ to http://pregnancyarchive.com/articles/insights-into-early-fetal-development
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
You may set the
|checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting
|needhelp= to your help request.
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
If you are unable to use these tools, you may set
|needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.