Talk:Trachea

Merge/Division
I think that the best thing to do here would be to divide things up between Vertebrate trachea and Invertebrate trachea.

Just saying "insect" trachea (as i have in the past) is not fully correct, as insects are just one class within the arthropod phylum to be tracheate.Hello if you arte like 12 and under dont read this is doesnt make sense trustr me

There's also another invertebrate trachea, i believe in molluscs, that should be mentioned.

So the question is now... do we want two pages with a disambiguation page for "Trachea" or do we want to keep the two sections on one page?

I'm inclined to go with the disambiguation.

In that case, the merge should go ahead, with the vertebrate trachea page. james waters 20:24, 7 December 2005 (UTC)


 * agreed - perhaps Tracheal system would be an appropriate title for the inverts (c.f. Malpighian tubule system) Goldfinger820 21:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Split or not, this article needs cleanup.-- FUNKAMATIC   (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Insects
To the insect statement could added "...where oxygen is absorbed into the body." --azwaldo 19:42, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Question
what rings keep the trachea open? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.116.153.58 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 19 September 2007
 * You may want to ask at Reference_desk/Science. This page is for the discussion of the article, not questions about its subject, the trachea. Foobaz·o&lt; 19:52, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

treachea explinactin for little kids
Your neck is the treaches air goes in and out!!!!!!!!!!!1 got ir get it good —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.247.143 (talk) 21:51, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Vertebrate trachea
There is no reason that these articles can't be displayed on the same page. Both are short, and the context provided by additional information will improve the quality and readability of both articles. Additionally, it's unnecessary to fragment these two articles, and this is not standard for the vast majority of articles, which harmoniously display human and other animal information on the same page. Therefore, I propose a merge LT910001 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Invertebrate trachea
Same reason as stated above. LT910001 (talk) 01:50, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merging would mean treating functional equivalents, not homologous structures. That's possible, but I've seen similar mergers before, and then people started adding to the article which led often enough to a re-splitting. Also, do you wish to ALSO merge the non-analogous plant tracheae? Or not? Why?
 * I'd say keep things as they are. It's no bother, but merged it can become a bother later on. HMallison (talk) 22:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, while many articles mix human and non-human anatomy, that's often not well done, confusing or simply false. Human anatomy terminology is derived from human medicine, whereas the terminology of ALL OTHER LIVING THINGS is derived from non-human scientific study. Which means that all terms for things that do not perfectly conform the the rather absurdly altered human body are different - just think of terms of orientation! Mixing is prone to cause confusion (although I would much prefer more people would understand that huamns are animals). HMallison (talk) 22:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Think a merge would be a good move for reasons stated by proposer. Previous editor is arguing against his own case for allowing parallels to be drawn across the species. Usually as already decided separating human from animal anatomy is preferred but here the structure is quite small. Arguments that articles may need re-splitting if they become too large should not be an issue since re-splitting is an easy enough process and the chances are that there is not so much to be added. Iztwoz (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Support With sufficient division there should be no confusion. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:16, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Lab grown trachea
I think it should be noted in the article that the scientists managed to grow trachea into laboratory and they successfully implanted them into patient's bodies. WSJ, April 30, 2013 - Daily Mail, 8 July 2011. —  Ark25  (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing this out, . As you know Wiki is built around collaborative editing, and the best person to make the change is... you! If you feel this is noteworthy, how about you add a reference to this in the 'History' section? --LT910001 (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will do it soon. —  Ark25  (talk) 10:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Tracheal rings
Stub hardly changed in nine years - better presented on target page Iztwoz (talk) 07:44, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support readily merged into Trachea --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:49, 8 March 2016 (UTC) ✅

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Trachea. 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/20120205043112/http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/VAn308/tracheal_ring9.htm to http://www.vetmed.wsu.edu/VAn308/tracheal_ring9.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100626061509/http://fp.dl.kent.edu/hyork/catresp.htm to http://fp.dl.kent.edu/hyork/catresp.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) 05:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Science
Trachea 175.176.87.63 (talk) 17:46, 29 August 2022 (UTC)