![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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:
--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)
Well, as I suspected (see above), this is approaching an arbitrary, indiscriminate list, and becoming ever more mammal-centric, and I apologize if my additions contributed to the mess. Every sexually reproducing animal has sexual behavior, and I think there should be discussion on the scope and purpose of this navigation box (e.g. what articles should it be placed in, and what are clear inclusion criteria?). Now that it is a navbox rather thana sidebar, its placement in the middle of certain articles is especially jarring (see
Elephant#Sexual_behaviour). Further, is there any logical reason to expect that someone reading about elephant sex would want to navigate to a section (not an article) on short-beaked echidna sex? The current scope of this template is too large and arbitrary to be practical. Per the
WP:NAVBOX guidelines: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles. The essays
WP:NAV and
WP:NBFILL offer additional tips for how navigation templates should and should not be constructed. Since @
Jarble: created the template, I'm interested in his or her thoughts on the issue, as well as anyone else's. I hate to say it, but this template may collapse under its own weight and be better off scrapped unless properly thought out.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
05:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I put some content in the article Polygyny in nature (before, it was a redirect to Polygyny). Perhaps it was better to the template to link to the article Polygyny in nature (even if mantaining the name "Polygyny" in the link)?-- MiguelMadeira ( talk) 00:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A discussion about this template and related topics can be found at WikiProject animal anatomy. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animal_anatomy#Reproduction_in_animals. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved ( non-admin closure) Biblio worm 00:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Animal sexual behavior → Template:Sexual reproduction in animals – This template relates not just to sexual behaviour, but it's clear that it also contains information about reproductive anatomy and physiology -- in fact it serves as a navbox for almost all such articles. It would be good therefore to rename it to a clearer title. Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
|
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:
--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)
Well, as I suspected (see above), this is approaching an arbitrary, indiscriminate list, and becoming ever more mammal-centric, and I apologize if my additions contributed to the mess. Every sexually reproducing animal has sexual behavior, and I think there should be discussion on the scope and purpose of this navigation box (e.g. what articles should it be placed in, and what are clear inclusion criteria?). Now that it is a navbox rather thana sidebar, its placement in the middle of certain articles is especially jarring (see
Elephant#Sexual_behaviour). Further, is there any logical reason to expect that someone reading about elephant sex would want to navigate to a section (not an article) on short-beaked echidna sex? The current scope of this template is too large and arbitrary to be practical. Per the
WP:NAVBOX guidelines: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles. The essays
WP:NAV and
WP:NBFILL offer additional tips for how navigation templates should and should not be constructed. Since @
Jarble: created the template, I'm interested in his or her thoughts on the issue, as well as anyone else's. I hate to say it, but this template may collapse under its own weight and be better off scrapped unless properly thought out.
--Animalparty-- (
talk)
05:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
I put some content in the article Polygyny in nature (before, it was a redirect to Polygyny). Perhaps it was better to the template to link to the article Polygyny in nature (even if mantaining the name "Polygyny" in the link)?-- MiguelMadeira ( talk) 00:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A discussion about this template and related topics can be found at WikiProject animal anatomy. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animal_anatomy#Reproduction_in_animals. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: page not moved ( non-admin closure) Biblio worm 00:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
Template:Animal sexual behavior → Template:Sexual reproduction in animals – This template relates not just to sexual behaviour, but it's clear that it also contains information about reproductive anatomy and physiology -- in fact it serves as a navbox for almost all such articles. It would be good therefore to rename it to a clearer title. Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)