Talk:Development of the reproductive system

Split of some subjects
I split some of the subjects into own articles, to solve the conflict of where to put the main article of the development of them - whether that would be in this article or in the article concerning the organ in its mature form. Now, a link to it makes clear that the main place is in that article itself. Mikael Häggström 18:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Development of the urinary and reproductive organs
These articles significantly duplicate in scope, and this makes access by other readers very difficult. The reproductive aspects should be present in a single article, and the urinary organ development aspects ought to be mentioned at Urinary system. This is part of a greater effort to organise sexual differentiation/determination articles, please contribute at WP:ANATOMY LT910001 (talk) 04:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * LT910001, how is this a good move? This article is not solely about humans, which is why this article does not only link to humans aspects. The same goes for the Development of the urinary and reproductive organs article, which of course should be merged with this article. If no good reason is given for this move, I will move it back. And, as discussed at WP:Anatomy, even if it were solely about humans, it should not be disambiguated with "human" in the title unless the non-human aspect can significantly hold an article on its own; in the case that it cannot, the non-human aspect should have a section called Other animals, per WP:MEDMOS. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm trying hard to get these articles organised (I just put a longer post on WP:ANATOMY explaining more in-depth where I'm going with this). I'd support your revert per WP:BRD. I find this whole set of articles extremely confusing and would really value your opinion where to go (probably in the centralised discussion would be better). I boldly made this move because it seems there are four articles that relate just to humans and I would like to put them all in the same place so that there's not needless fragmentation. That said how about you revert and we'll discuss further on WP:ANATOMY, I agree it does not make sense to have a 'development of human reproductive system' article without a 'development of reproductive system' article. --LT910001 (talk) 04:46, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

If the Development of the urinary and reproductive organs article is merged into the Development of the reproductive system article... Considering the substantial amount of information in these articles, a lot of redundancy will obviously need to be avoided. Otherwise, the combination will make for a long repetitive article. Unneeded subheadings should also be avoided, per MOS:PARAGRAPHS. Flyer22 (talk) 08:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, some urinary information can't help but go hand in hand with reproductive organ information, especially with regard to males. Flyer22 (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OK. . Would you support a rename from Development of the urinary and reproductive organs to Development of the urinary system? This would: (1) reduce duplication in scope and content; (2) still mention the cross-relevance of both topics (3) delimit the scope of both articles. Both articles will be structured so that they refer to each other, but retain a delmiited scope. This will reduce confusion, fragmentation, and help readers. I will then change the links to these articles to point to whichever is appropriate. This is of course if there is consensus for this move. --LT910001 (talk) 00:35, 16 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'd support renaming the Development of the urinary and reproductive organs article to Development of the urinary system, and removing any unnecessary duplication between the two articles. But why abandon your idea to merge material regarding the development of the urinary system to the Urinary system article? Flyer22 (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I was thinking about what you said above: "go hand in hand with". This analogy prompted me to think yes, these are two separate issues that are quite interrelated, and consequently they probably deserve separate articles. I'll make the move shortly --LT910001 (talk) 02:20, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protect the "Development of the reproductive system" page.
Note the User talk:46.130.159.35

46.130.159.35 (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2016 (UTC) Thanks!
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is not an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Start-class
This article was rated B-class, but I have no idea why. There are very few inline citations, one entire subsection is empty, and there are obvious punctuation issues. I have moved it to start-class. SunCrow (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)