Talk:Morphology (biology)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 18 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jajc1128.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dfish21, MountainFoot. Peer reviewers: ReallyCaffeinated.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Why the British spelling?
I wonder why are you using the British spelling in this article? -- Troop350 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Because its author is British. Have you seen Manual_of_Style ? SP-KP 18:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The sudden switch to remove the words "color", "shape", and "pattern".
I would urge the Wikipedia moderators and other readers to review the latest changes to this page. You'll notice that two days ago the user "Standinguptoit" made a sudden rush of significant changes to the page (more than any other contributor in a long time), removing the previous specification that morphology may reference or include aspects of "shape, structure, colour, or pattern". This user has even specifically added an introductory paragraph detailing why these words should not be considered part of the definition.

There is currently a user on youtube who is eager to emphasize that biological morphology cannot include these terms ("shape, colour, or pattern"). Many people have referenced the standard wikipedia definition to him (seen up to the June 2nd build), as well as the definitions found in the Encyclopedia Brittanica and other well-respected encyclopedias. It seems a little contrived that this drastic flip-flop in the Wikipedia entry (from clearly explaining how these words apply in biology to expounding in detail as to why they do not) should coincide with the heated debate on youtube over the meaning of the word.

Wikipedia cannot allow itself to become a playground for word-wars like this. Please remove these changes from the last two days and keep the definition which was present up until then.

Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.27.100.132 (talk) 01:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, the person you are referring to is still making a big deal out of the whole issue. Personally I think the guy is an idiot, but I will say that on the reference to http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/392797/morphology, you will notice that their standard definition of it is: "morphology, in biology, the study of the size, shape, and structure of animals, plants, and microorganisms." If you compare Britannica definition to the wikipedia definition, you will see that Britannica says nothing about pattern or color. If I'm missing something please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh45 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Cellular morphology
I can't seem to locate a Wikipedia explanation of morphology at a cellular level. I can find a variety of articles on specific types of cells that discuss the cellular morphology of those specific cells. For example: Apicomplexan cellular morphology, Bacterial cellular morphologies, Staphylococcus_epidermidis, and Saccharomyces.

But I cannot find a Wikipedia article that says what cellular morphology is.

Question to the various biology-knowledgeable folks (I am not one of those!) who follow this page on Morphology (biology): Should I request a new WP article be created on Cellular morphology? Or would it be better to suggest a section be added to this article (Morphology (biology)) on the subject of Cellular morphology? Or is neither one a good idea for some reason I'm not aware of? Cheers. N2e (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds like it should definitely be added. Unfortunately, while I'm a bio person, I don't work at the cellular level.  Maybe repeat this suggestion here: WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology Mokele (talk) 12:25, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Biology
Internal morphology 103.151.46.72 (talk) 05:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

"Anatomy and physiology" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anatomy_and_physiology&redirect=no Anatomy and physiology] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Jay 💬 13:42, 18 January 2024 (UTC)