Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal anatomy/Archive 1

Archive 1

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)

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)

Related projects

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  22:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

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)

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

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)

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)

List

{{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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

*Why is the template called "Sexual" reproduction? Is it your intention to exclude asexual reproduction? --Epipelagic (talk) 21:53, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

*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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, as in fish reproduction. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

If an article is confined to reproductive anatomy and physiology, then I suppose it could be called a reproductive system. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Further updates

I feel some progress is being made:--Tom (LT) (talk) 21:46, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

1. I am slowly making my way through the articles, adding this navbox: {{Animal sexual behavior}} and where reasonable correcting hatnotes as I go.
2. Considering we have {{Animal sexual behavior}} and per the comments above, I'm proposing the sidebar for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_8#Template:Sexual_reproduction_in_animalia
3. For clarity I'm proposing a move of {{Animal sexual behavior}} to {{Sexual reproduction in animals}} (link here: Template_talk:Animal_sexual_behavior)
4. Per comments above, I've moved Reproductive system of gastropods, which was really about both anatomy, physiology and behavior, to Gastropod reproduction.

Scope and more eyes

Reproduction is not a small topic, but we have not yet defined its scope. The scope extends way beyond anatomy. It includes things like sexual and asexual strategies, nesting and brooding behaviours, migrations to spawning or mating grounds, and in the broader sense the development and nurture of the young and even the entire life cycle history. The ultimate reproductive success of an animal can be very dependent on things like how it protects its young. I think this is an important discussion, but it is perhaps at the wrong location. I understand Tom that you want the discussion to run its course on this page, but should we canvas for more eyes from editors who don't normally watch this page? I would not like to see the discussion conclude prematurely. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Tom, I do not agree that your sidebar about reproduction was necessarily pre-empted by the navigation template {{Animal sexual behavior}}, and neither do I agree that this template should be renamed "Sexual reproduction in animals". Is it possible you are giving too much emphasis to the role of sexuality in reproduction? I'm not suggesting that sexuality is not important. The central point of sexuality is that it allows the introduction of fresh genes when reproduction occurs. It can have profound spiritual and emotional importance, for humans at least, but it is merely one aspect of the more general topic of reproduction. I think there is a case for two navigation templates, one called "Animal reproduction" and the other (a subset of the former) called "Animal sexuality". --Epipelagic (talk) 05:06, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I disagreed with the proposed template rename here, and also stated there that I don't think that two templates are needed for that material. Flyer22 (talk) 05:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:33, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Why I don't think separate templates are needed? How is that not clear from what I stated in the aforementioned link? Why not just cover sexual behavior and sexual reproductive aspects together on that template, as has been done for quite some time now, especially given that, like you also acknowledged above, the two go hand in hand (usually anyway for non-human animals)? I think the question is: Why are separate templates needed in this case? And in any case, this debate should be had there at the template move discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrarily deciding what should go on a sexual behavior template as separate from a sexual reproduction template is not an improvement, in my opinion. And, yes, being arbitrary is unavoidable regarding this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

I see that you explained your stance there at the move discussion. I understand your point of view on this better now. Flyer22 (talk) 19:23, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your points of view, having read it I agree with what you both state, that the content can be displayed on a single template, and that sexual reproduction encompasses a wide variety of other topics. I also am coming around to the idea that 'Animal sexual behaviour' is quite a good title, as it encompasses both the behaviour and sexual reproduction topics, so what I will probably do is put that on some of the pages that it already includes within its scope, but hasn't been transcluded on. I won't close or withdraw the rename request though, as I think I should (a) own the request as I made it, and (b) give other users the chance to contribute (and disagree with my proposal!). --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

ANAN/Veterinary medicine/Animals

To confirm, when articles are cotagged with these three projects, I've seen some Wikipedians removing the other cotags and leaving just ANAT and ANAN as appropriate. Is this something we all agree on? I'll be happy to help as I bump into articles if that's the case. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

NOOOOOOO! See below. Montanabw^(talk) 04:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's harm in leaving articles co-tagged with three projects if appropriate. Having ANAN as a supplementary rather than sole project banner would buffer against project inactivity, as well as increasing visibility among the various project members. I certainly think it's a bit brash and premature to replace Vet med banners with ANAN, a project not yet 2 months old. The bannershell template is a nice way to group 3 or more banners. --Animalparty-- (talk) 23:37, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Animalparty. The bannershell is appropriate. WP:VET is a whole different subject from this one, with different goals and purposes. Ditto for animal project tags (Mammals, species projects, etc.) it is the decision of each wikiproject what articles to tag or not, it is only when you have articles with in the same "parent/child" family that removing one project in favor of another is appropriate (i.e. removing animals, replace with WP: birds, or removing mammals, replacing with dogs, etc...) Montanabw^(talk) 04:22, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, to be clear I haven't been doing this but having seen some who have been (Plantdrew) I thought it might be worthwhile asking around to see what the general feeling is. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Animalparty and Montanabw. However, perhaps WP:ANATOMY banners should be removed if the article has nothing to do with human anatomy. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, although hopefully there aren't too many such articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:02, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Animal anatomy

Template:Animal anatomy has a very narrow focus, with sections almost entirely on systems and organs of mammals. Animal/vertebrate/mammal/human confusion seems evident. It ought to be broadened to cover other animal body plans; history (comparative anatomists, books); probably embryology as well. Or we could rename it "Mammal anatomical structures" to reflect its contents. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the template could be renamed something like "mammal anatomy", or it could just be deleted. There is already an existing general anatomy template, {{anatomy}}, which has a subsection on mammal anatomy. There are also templates dedicated to animal groups other than mammals, such as {{cephalopod anatomy}}, {{bivalve anatomy}} and {{gastropod anatomy}}. Other animal groups have more general templates with anatomy subsections, such as {{birds}} and {{diversity of fish}}. I'm not sure whether a coherent general template on animal anatomy could be constructed at the moment, because the topic has been neglected by projects and some background reorganisation of articles needs to happen. --Epipelagic (talk) 18:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

While the current articles are on the navbox are limited to mammals, the implicit scope is actually huge and poorly defined, contrary to the guidelines at WP:NAVBOX, e.g. "Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles" (emphasis added). Even narrowing the scope to mammal anatomy could permit a huge array of potential articles, from fur and scrotum to sub-parts of all the aforementioned organs (duodenum, auditory ossicles, etc.) unless clear scope and limits are defined. The navbox seems especially superfluous when combined with the much more comprehensive organ-specific navboxes such as Template:Digestive tract. A navbox for a field as broad and diverse as all animal anatomy may be simply impractical: would a person reading about mammalian nervous system realistically want to navigate to an article on flatworm digestion? It seems a bit too ambitious and presumptuous to throw a large amount of tangentially related topics into a single navbox, especially if the articles in the navbox have no clear relation to one another. Any such template should be general rather than specific, with due consideration of how the articles featuring the navbox relate to one another. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, if we here don't want it, I doubt if anybody else will have much use for it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Can we can blank the template based on a consensus here, or do we nominate it for people at the template project to decide? --Epipelagic (talk) 20:03, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I think take it to templates for deletion, that way the discussion is centralised, too. I agree it duplicates a lot of scope, particularly with {{Human systems and organs}}. That said I wish {{Human systems and organs}} would be as well-arranged. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:25, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Done. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Expert attention

This is a notice about Category:Animal anatomy articles needing expert attention, which might be of interest to your WikiProject. It will take a while before the category is populated. Iceblock (talk) 19:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Box: Recent changes in Animal anatomy

Recent changes in WP:Animal anatomy

• In all project pages (+ talkpages)

List overview · Lists updated: 2015-07-15 · This box:

I have finished the Recent Changes box, you Epipelagic started.

{{Recent changes in Animal anatomy}}

With ~1000 pages in the Project, I thought it could be in one page. Any questions? -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you... that's much appreciated. --Epipelagic (talk) 22:53, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a cool box. Is there anything in the MOS on when or when not to use it? For example, we have almost 10,000 articles in WikiProject horse racing - impossible for members to have all of them watchlisted individually - so would creating a box for that projet be a good or a bad idea? Montanabw^(talk) 03:10, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

thx y'all. It is fully legal to use it, it is plain tool usage of a SpecialPage:related changes.

The basic tool is named "Related changes" (in your lefthand menu in the screen). So it's not "Recent", but "Recent changes" is the more common name used by the average + top editors. That tool checks & shows all outgoing links on that page for changes. This box's trick is: while the tool button works with the currently visible page, and this box uses another page to check & link changes in outgoing links. That 'another page' is a Wikipedia:WikiProject_Animal_anatomy/Lists of pages/Articles subpage, that smartly & simply lists and links all WP:Project pages (optionally with/wout their talkpage).

The first problem with implementation is, that today I have them build manually for a project. That is: create lists in subpages, fill them (I'm using AWB; it needs to switch pagenames from talkpage to subjectpage). Then build the project-specific box that has links to these pages, project name and page links written manually (Category:Recent changes boxes has six now). This could be described in a manual, and simplifying templates can be made. (more background: consider this: Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy/Lists of pages .../Lists of pages as the central Project page for this, where the editor meets the templates meets the list updates). Some of these steps could be automated or template-assisted.

{{Recent changes in Medicine}} is more complicated, because it is impractical & impossible to have all 30,000 pages in one list. So that one is split up by importance (Tom(LT) guided me in this).

The second problem is that the updates are done manually so far. That makes them outdated, and new Project pages (=a project template added to talkpage) are not listed. When this box setup is stable, we could ask a bot to do that regularly.

For horse racing, ping me in that Projects talkpage, it will be a manual setup again. -DePiep (talk) 10:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

• By the way, I hope someone in this Project can find a nice place for this one in the front WP:ANAN page ;-). Note that you can also put it on your userpage. -DePiep (talk) 10:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So to clarify: To do this, you have to update it manually and any new articles created and tagged for the project have to be added manually? Isn't that pretty daunting, or am I just confused? Montanabw^(talk) 05:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes for the updates of the lists (=the pages you want to follow). These lists outdate. Should be done by bot. What you'll miss is edits in newly added pages (=project template put on talkpage). (For now, one can use WP:AWB, making these Lists. It does not require AWB permission! because it is only reading. Good point is that AWB allows to switch any list from talkpage to article page).

The box building is needed only once, for a Project. -DePiep (talk) 09:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

This January I have no time to write that bot request. But when you start a talk at the horses project +pingme, I think I can find time to make an RC box. -DePiep (talk) 09:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Better not. -DePiep (talk) 11:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Epipelagic started this box and brought it very far, near working. But the setup is still very complicated and underdocumented (especially when one takes big WP:MED as the example ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Animal anatomy to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 01:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for expansion: Arm

Is lacking very basic information in several aspects. I'd like to go out on a limb and invite interested editors to flesh out the 'other animals' section... with time, hopefully there will be enough content to split the human section off, like Human leg is. I can only offer a leg-up with the 'clinical significance' section, but I don't want to put my foot in it and edit the other animals section. Anyhow please remember to toe the line so we can really nail it down. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Albino

I see I can't really link a mollusk article or image to the article albino because as usual it is only about albinism in humans, and has the usual small section tacked on the end about albinism in other animals. Does that mean we should create an Albinism in animals article? Invertzoo (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Hard to say. Wikipedia is at a crossroads now, and editors who go against entrenched social networking cliques with their non-transparent back-channel character assassination machines have a difficult road. Still, what the hell... do what you think is right. Make sure it is well sourced and we'll find a way to make it stick – in a transparent way :) --Epipelagic (talk) 14:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As you know, there are at least two other alternatives. A simple one is is to make sure that the intro of albinism explains that albinism exists throughout the animal kingdom, so that the "other animals" section does not come as a surprise. And another possibility it to create the "albinism in animals" article, and then have a hatnote on the human article directing people to that article if they are interested in animal albinism. A third alternative is to start with a disambiguation page; I suppose that is inconvenient and would not fly at all. Invertzoo (talk) 17:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps this can be solved by joining to other articles which are non-human based such as Leucism in an article generally on "animals lacking pigment" - I'm sure there must be an appropriate title.__DrChrissy (talk) 19:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Leucism is about the unusual presence of yellow pigment in animals. I don't see why grouping information on albino organisms along with info on leucism in a new article called "animals lacking pigment" would be preferable to the idea of an article called Albinism in animals. In malacology we call mollusks lacking pigments albinos or albinistic, we don't call them "mollusks lacking pigment". Albino is not a term that is restricted to medical use; biologists use it all the time. Invertzoo (talk) 20:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional alternatives include simply defining albinism in the mollusk article which obviates wikilinks to Albino, especially if the article has little relevance or context to mollusks (see WP:UNDERLINK), or if you believe the average reader will likely understand albinism without the link (WP:OVERLINK). You could also pipe to [[Albino#In other organisms]], which might eventually aid in redirecting future incoming links should a spinoff article be created. Thirdly, if albinism in malacology has a great deal of specific meaning, and you intend to link to it often, perhaps Albinism in mollusks should be created and redirected to a relevant section in an existing article, similar to Albinism in birds redirecting to Plumage. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but I don't understand why creating a more general article, perhaps entitled Albinism in biology would be a problem. A hat note over both articles would direct people to the article that they need to read, or prefer to read. This afternoon I have been working on the "other organisms" section in the Albino article. It is a decent length and ready now to move into its own space. It has quite a lot of references, many of which were already in place. That information just does not fit as an added-on section at the bottom of a medical article; it belongs in its own article. Invertzoo (talk) 21:03, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion

If contributors would like to add information to the article Albinism in biology, please feel free. And if you wish to link from another article to this article, also please feel free. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 21:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Suctorial - should we have an article or send it to Wiktionary?

I just noticed Suctorial. As an adjective it seems a bit out of place in an encyclopedia, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. I feel it would be better moved to Wiktionary, where a concise definition is all that is needed. (compare to Large for instance. Of course we could make arbitrary lists of suctorial feeding animals, with citations that verify the word suctorial is used, but is that really in the interest of an encyclopedia? Alternately, if there was an article that described, and was titled, suctorial feeding or some similar noun (althouhg not suction feeding), Suctorial could redirect. If such article was created, it would be best to cite secondary or teritary sources (e.g. review articles or textbooks on animal feeding types) rather than arbitrary papers from specific primary literature, to more reliably ensure the concept is broadly defined before specific examples bandied about. --Animalparty-- (talk) 22:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

It should probably be merged into List_of_feeding_behaviours. HCA (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Re-merge the Human tooth development and Animal tooth development content?

Editors of this project might be interested in weighing in on the following discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy#Re-merge the Human tooth development and Animal tooth development content?. A WP:Permalink for the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2015 (UTC)