Talk:Tail

	This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to animal anatomy apart from human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Anatomy: Animal Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to animal anatomy.

Human Tails Page

I would really like someone to make a page solely for Human Tails. I typed it in and got this.....its pitiful. I expected some more info on the subject, maybe even a pic. if anyones interested in doing it reply and say so. I won't help because I have NO idea about anatomy, or this subject. Any takers?D3t3ctiv3 (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

It seems that Tail and Tails should really be merged into one disambiguation page. They are just variations of each other, and refer to many of the same articles. Any objections? -- Nataly a 19:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think both should be combined at Tail (disambiguation), and that Tail (anatomy) should be moved here. bd2412 T 19:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. — Catherine\^talk 23:53, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto to that. It solves both problems in one step! -- Nataly a 17:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this was a bad idea. There should still be a tails differentiation page. It is wrong for [tails] to redirect to "Miles "Tails" Prower" when there is another page called "Tails (Lisa Loeb Album)" and no reason to prefer one over the other. Theoh 18:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't - Tails is supposed to redirect here, and will continue to do so absent consensus to the contrary. bd2412 T 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Okay, I cleaned it up quite a bit. Man, there was a lot of extraneous linkage on that page! My favorite was "a long braid or tress of hair is sometimes called a tail, although queue is probably a better description". Anyway, I wasn't quite sure where to stick the link to Reverse (coin), if anyone has a better idea. -- Nataly a 18:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU GOT ANY PICTURES OF THE 230MM TAIL?

YOU GOT ANY PICTURES OF THE 230MM TAIL? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.132.253 (talk • contribs)

Human tails

The article says that all human tails are just fleshy lumps covered with skin, but this site claims that there are several known cases where a skeletal structure is present. Just saying..

Tail or tail-like?

The article calls the sections at the end of all animals tails, but it also mentions "however some invertebrates have tail-like appendages", which implies for instance the mentioned scorpion example doesn't have a true tail. Later in the article there is no distinction made, everything is simply a tail. So, which is correct? Retodon8 08:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Don`t animals use tails to swat flies? Andycjp Advent 2006

There is a man with a 13 inch tail in India.

I find this sentence problematic because it's only citation is an article on ananova. Ananova is not exactly known for accuracy. Thoughts? thx1138 05:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All animals that has tails are animals.

detached but busy lizard tails and bee stingers

Dancing detached lizard tails, and continuously pumping detached bee stingers must belong to some group of autonomous items called ... what? Mention it in the appropriate articles. Jidanni 19:26, 26 July 2007

Doctors are cruel

They cut off our tails and without our tails some things get harder like balancing. If I kept my tail it would make me win a balancing game at P.E at school :'( . Please tell me why doctors cut off our tails.

Human tails are useless. They do not function the same way animal tails do. Many times human tails are signs of other, more dangerous birth defects. 71.92.222.170 (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tails

clli 7384988389012 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.114.18 (talk) 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

scorpion

Interesting that they chose a scorpion's tail for one of the 2 images in this article. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

the peacock

That's not actually the peacock's tail, so I don't think there should be a picture of it in this article [1] Stuart M (talk) 09:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, yes it is! The fancy feathers are modified uppertail coverts, which are the feathers that cover the top of the tail on all birds. Seems like that should be perfectly acceptable! (The picture you've linked to shows the undertail coverts, which are the feathers that cover the bottom of the tail on all birds. Also appropriate!) MeegsC | Talk 13:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsource information

The longest human tail on record belonged to a twelve-year-old boy living in what was then^[when?] French Indochina, which measured 22.9 cm (9 inches).^{[citation needed]}

I have move the above information here until a source is found. This part of the article is quoted all over the internet but no source exists. It's also worded suspiciously like an urban legend; twelve-year-old, so did he not have a tail when he was eleven or thirteen? Kernow (talk) 08:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bad edit summary

I see that I've left a misleading edit summary: The information about Tail#Types isn't properly a WP:MERGE from Scut; it's from wikt:scut and wikt:Talk:scut. I had the AFD on my mind, and badly expressed what I actually did. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tail End of Tail Tale Should Entail Less of a Trail-Off

Really, ending the article on the subject of human tails is rather abrupt. It leaves the whole article wagging.

173.246.35.178 (talk) 20:45, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

18 lost tail names

according to the introduction of my favorite english dictionairy. "At one time the ninteen animals chiefly hunted as game were each blessed with an individual term for the tail, but as general word for tail came into vogue,most of these special names disappeared.", then the only example it then gives is, the brush of the fox. Any idea what the other 18 tails and animals where? I'm extremely curious about it.and think it would be a good addition to the article if someone can delve it up. Bloodkith (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm...

This article says "although there have been several documented cases of tails containing cartilage or up to five vertebrae" but the reference given says nothing of the sort. This should be removed from the article, unless someone has a valid reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.83.145.169 (talk) 19:18, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Discovery Institute" link in cite

Cite num. 4 links to "EvolutionNews", part of the anti-science "Discovery Institute", and an article by non-scientist Casey Luskin. This isn't an acceptable source per wikipedia policy, I'm sure, so I'll be removing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.132.251.210 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]