Talk:Development of the urinary system

Note
Note: this article was originally taken from the public domain 1918 Gray's Anatomy. As such, it may be in need of updating to reflect modern medical knowledge and modern writing style. -- The Anome 20:44, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)


 * I've gone through the article, changes terms to the ones used today, integrated with the main articles of the subject and made sure it's consistent with what we know today. As a result, I find this article pretty updated now. Besides, I don't think the human being developed very differently 100 years ago than now. Therefore, I removed the label on the top - readers can still see the origin of the text here in the discussion page.


 * However, although the information presented now is fairly correct, there are a lot of information that can be added. I'm talking about all the biochemical mechanisms at the level of molecules. There surely is a lot of that to add. Mikael Häggström 16:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fork of Development of the reproductive organs
The article isn't really to large, in the aspect of amount of text. However, it is still rather heavy. Therefore, I've created a subarticle of the reproductive part. Besides, many readers might want to know only about that subject. However, I'll continu the work of reducing duplicate info tomorrow. Mikael Häggström 19:30, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
 * As an update, the text in the articles Development of the urinary and reproductive organs and Development of the reproductive system are still largely overlapping, but so are the organs in reality, and sometimes the subject of the reproductive system is better approached individually, and sometimes it is better approached in combination with the urinary system, especially in embryology, so I still think it needs two articles. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Merges
This article should incorporate elements of Kidney and Kidney development. I'm thinking about taking on the large task of revamping all kidney articles on Wikipedia. If all goes as planned, the embryology content will hopefully be consolidated in one place rather than scattered across so many different articles. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 16:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a good idea. The whole world would appreciate it. Mikael Häggström 04:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good, but I'd recommend against also merging away articles which describe the specific embryological structures, such as Mesonephros. --Arcadian 12:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Too technical
Way too much jargon here, IMO. The article is virtually unintelligible in parts. Take this paragraph, for instance: "In the outer part of the intermediate mesoderm, immediately under the ectoderm, in the region from the fifth cervical segment to the third thoracic segment, a series of short evaginations from each segment grows dorsally and extends caudally, fusing successively from before backward to form the pronephric duct. This continues to grow caudally until it opens into the ventral part of the cloaca; beyond the pronephros it is termed the Wolffian duct. Thus, the Wolffian duct is what remains of the pronephric duct after the atrophy of the pronephros." Every term in bold makes no sense within this article itself. And this whole article goes on this way. RobertM525 (talk) 08:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Rename
I have moved this article to its new title to clarify its scope: --LT910001 (talk) 02:23, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have the article Development of the reproductive system
 * Having this title delimits this articles scope as relating to the urinary system
 * This reduces duplication and increases the readability for readers.

I would like to acknowledge that although there is significant cross-over, I believe having two separate articles to be beneficial. This crossover can be effectively managed using other means, such as hatnotes. --LT910001 (talk) 02:33, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Development of the urinary system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080814194516/http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au///Notes///urogen.htm to http://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/Notes/urogen.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 17:17, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

Page content
I think an improvement would be made if the page omitted mention of sex organs and reproductive details as Development of reproductive system has its own page and there is no mention of this in page title. There could instead be a linked inclusion of the Genitourinary system.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Eh, how are we going to discuss the development of the urinary system without some mention of the sex organs? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:04, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * i did say to make mention of the genitourinary system info. i didn't mean to suggest making no mention of the sex organs (but not in the first sentences) but see no point in giving so much detail on what is titled the development of the urinary system. There is a whole section which is a complete duplicate of that on development of reproductive system page. Also the dev of rep system page manages to make very little mention of the urinary system development. There is a page linked on the reproductive page to dev.of the urinary and reproductive systems so without looking into things perhaps this page existed and then split. In which case i can only suggest that it wasn't split enough. Otherwise the two pages may just as well be merged into the development of the genitourinary system.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever is the best solution, I support. Pinging Tom (LT) for his thoughts. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I worked on splitting up some of these reproductive/urinary development articles a few years ago. There's a lot of crossover between them (developmentally), but I think it's easier and clearer if they are presented as two separate articles. So as with other articles I would support retaining what content relates to the primary topic and then removing, wikilinking of using a hatnote to present the rest. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:53, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks Tom (LT).--Iztwoz (talk) 13:00, 13 February 2018 (UTC)