Talk:Albinism

Requested move 21 June 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Swapping with Albinism should be a separate discussion, which I will open on Talk:Albinism. Ahecht (TALK PAGE ) 15:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Albinism in biology → Albinism (biology) – Per WP:CONSISTENCY with all the rest of the "Foo (biology)" articles. While we prefer natural disambiguations when available, this one isn't really natural, nor unambiguous. "In biology" implies "in the field of biology" not "in biological entities" or "in biological processes". — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. © Tb hotch ™ (en-2.5). 00:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. I agree that this isn't a natural disambiguator. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Unsure. I think Albinism should be displaced from the placename.  Human albinism is a subset of biological albinism.  This page would go better at the basename, and could use more prominent mention of humans.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * What SmokeyJoe said. While I could support the proposed move as an improvement, I think that the reverse treatment Albinism (this page) > Albinism in humans would be much more natural. We are a human-centric encyclopedia, but I don't think that human albinism should necessarily take over the primary role over the broader concept (contrast Talk:Swimming). That would require another RM, though. No such user (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
 * We already had this discussion a long time ago. This article used to be at Albinism, and there was a consensus to move Albinism in humans to that undisambiguated title, per the general principle that all our bio-medical articles focus on humans first and foremost. I don't strongly agree with that idea, but it has been consistently applied site-wide, so changing it would a very steep uphill climb, and it should be a big RfC not an WP:CONSISTENCY-breaking quabble on an article-by-article basis. See also all the activity-related articles: Swimming vs. Aquatic locomotion to which Animal swimming redirects; Swimming focuses entirely on humans.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I mentioned Swimming (as a counterexample) because I was the one who proposed the move of the human-centered article to the base title. Maybe I'm being subjective, but when I hear "swimming" I imagine people swimming; however, when I hear "albino" my first association is not a human, but rather a cat or like. For swimming topic, we have aquatic locomotion as an elegant workaround for an "other species" article, but for albinism, choices are just awkward. Barring the swap, I'd rather go with a WP:NDESC title such as Albinism in animals; (plants make up only a tiny section in the article and I'm not sure if such discoloration is really referred to as "albinism"). I'm not sure where are the other articles titled "Foo (biology)" you mentioned in the nom. We have cell (biology) and class (biology) because those are field-specific uses of words with broad meaning. However, there isn't symmetry here – human albinism is just a subset of this albinism, it's not really ambiguous with anything else. Also, was there a formal debate about the general principle that all our bio-medical articles focus on humans first and foremost; while I broadly concur with that principle, I more perceive it as a guideline that should be applied on case-by-case basis (and for this topic, I think it does not fit well). No such user (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and also agree with Smokey Joe's better idea. Dicklyon (talk) 22:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I do, too, but now this opens up moving Albinism back to Albinism in humans (or Albinism (human), but we should favor natural disambiguation), yet without Albinism being nominated for a move this time. We might have to re-RM this.  PS: The original split-and-rename discussion (2007) is at Talk:Albinism/Archive 1. The split was someone's unilateral decision, then reverted and discussed, then re-discussed (thread below that) and split again. There wasn't an RM, but it was before we were doing those very much.  I was heavily involved in the article at the time, because it was quite poor back then, and a constant vandalism target before semi-protection was implemented. Most of the content at both pages has developed since the split, and a merger would produce a too-large article now. So this really is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC matter.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support and also move the article at albanism to albinism (human) and redirect the base name albanism to albino (disambiguation), which would then need expansion to cover the two articles on albanism of course. Disclaimer: I'm actively developing a proposal to deprecate Primary Topic and this is another good reason to do so! The history of albanism (human) already makes interesting reading, see it while it lasts. Andrewa (talk) 03:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support moving as proposed.jamacfarlane (talk) 12:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Linking
Should a link to Albinism in Humans be under the Albanis in Mammals section? Yoleaux (talk) 23:35, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The snail photo used in the article
The snail depicted in this photo (used in the "In invertebrates" section) doesn't look albinistic to me. Its eyes are normally colored (black), so I think it's leucistic. Całkiem anonimowy (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Albino spider???
If you look at this photo :, it looke like this jumping spider is albino. Cases on Reddit has be found Leomk0403 (Don't shout here, Shout here!)  08:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Lack of "any pigmentation"
Isn't this incorrect? I thought albinism concerned only melanin, which is just one of multiple pigment groups. Isn't that why some albino animals are yellowish in color? RagingR2 (talk) 09:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Genetic Mutations Causing Albinism in Frogs.png

"Lack of skin pigment" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Lack of skin pigment and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. An anonymous username, not my real name 05:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Definition and seeming contradiction
The open definition says the conditions relates to lack of melanin. Later definition section says that’s a bad definition. This section has other problems the “clear” definition isn’t cited. Also that section seems to draw an original conclusion rather than show a consensus from relevant experts in the field. This creates problems later when saying reptiles aren’t albino. If the definition refers only to melanin then the presence of other pigments isn’t relevant. VeiledCham (talk) 17:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)