Talk:Fetus

The topic of this article is ambiguous
The hatnote at the top of this article explains that this article is specifically about human fetuses. However, the lead section of this article seems to imply that the article is about both human and non-human fetuses, even though this contradicts the hatnote at the top of the page. Should this article be renamed to "Human fetus" so that this article's topic will be less ambiguous, and there will be no confusion about the scope of this article? Jarble (talk) 19:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
 * A brief mention/implication concerning non-humans, or even a few mentions/implications concerning non-humans, doesn't make humans any less this article's focus. But if you are that worried about such mentions/implications, which it appears that you are, one solution would be to alter the hatnote so that it uses the word "primarily," as in "This article is primarily about the stage of human development." What I think of such moves has already been stated in the discussion you started at the Pregnancy article. I've informed WP:MED of this fetus discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * wp:MOSMED skirts the issue somewhat by deferring to TA, but we are inconsistent about whether or not to give precedence of title to the human-focussed article over the more general alternative. Hence we have Human brain, Human heart, Human leg, Foot and Arm as human-focussed articles. These show various hatnotes as appropriate.LeadSongDog come howl!  13:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not seeing the problem, actually. The first sentence tells you what the word means.  Everything after that is about humans.  We don't need to absolutely exclude all mention of non-human fetuses to have people figure out the subject of the article.  In fact, a well-written article would include some comparative embryology.  Sure, you'll have to read a couple of sentences or glance at the table of contents to be absolutely certain that the article is about humans, but this isn't a serious problem.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:43, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, when I made my above comment, I was thinking the same thing about comparative anatomy, which MOSMED mentions. But "comparative embryology" is more accurate in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I made some improvements here. If not, feel free. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Not needed, per that edit summary, responses to Jarble above, and similar responses to Jarble any time Jarble wants an article to be less human-centric. Flyer22 (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)


 * I also found the lead section pretty confusing. I'm inclined to agree with renaming based on MOS:PRECISION (particularly the part about "natural disambiguation"). I disagree that “fetus” is analogous to “pregnancy”. If someone said “let's talk about pregnancy”, I would assume they meant human pregnancy, but if someone said “let's talk about fetuses”, I would ask “Human fetuses?”. I've clarified the lead section, but still think a rename or merge should be considered. George Makepeace (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Example of an article with an “Other species” section: Embryo George Makepeace (talk) 23:37, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Fetus (biology)
Very little content on page that is not covered on target page and would fit into an Other animals section Iztwoz (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Support meaning is the same in both cases. No need to separate articles - would benefit things by centralising information and reducing needless fragmentation. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)



External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fetus. 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/20130601182944/http://pregnancyarchive.com/articles/insights-into-early-fetal-development/ to http://pregnancyarchive.com/articles/insights-into-early-fetal-development

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) 06:15, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Out of place file
Ought the file of fetus at gestational age 9 weeks be removed as this is a file of an embryo (7 weeks fertilisation age).--Iztwoz (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Removed

Fetere
I distinctly remember reading somewhere that the word fetus comes from the Latin word fetere, meaning to stink. I’m assuming this was wrong? 63.231.140.53 (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 December 2021
Some authors [39] argue that fetal pain

In the above quote from the fetal pain section, the space between "some authors" and the reference ought to be removed. 122.150.71.249 (talk) 06:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅  LakesideMiners Come Talk To Me! 14:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)