Talk:Gonad

Untitled

Does anyone know if this is where the slang 'nads' comes from? Nads means balls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ufoolme (talk • contribs) 14:32, 2 September 2005‎ (UTC)

nuts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.136.139.225 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 3 November 2005‎ (UTC)

Species

I have a feeling most of the information in this article is specific to humans, perhaps a note to that effect should be included? 134.36.64.133 (talk) 16:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it found in shemale Domki Baloch (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Testicles?

This article states that the scientific name of balls is testicles. Well, I learned in school that the correct plural of testicle was testes. Anyone comment on the proper plural scientific name for the boys? BigNate37_T·C 05:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about all the recent vandalism. I'm working with an immature person on a project, and he kept editing...sorry. Nachomania

Not a big deal. Send Paul my best. BigNate37_(T) 01:37, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

"steroid" spelled wrong

I copied this from your article

"The male and female gonads produce stroid sex hormones"

As you can see, steroid is spelled as "stroid". I researched stroid on the internet, and most of what i found were a few truck websites, as well as a town called "stroid". Of course, none of these are related to the gonad topic. For now, ill correct stroid to "steroid". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.177.11.143 (talk) 08:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC).

two pints a day?

Gonads in human males are capable of producing two pints of spermatazoa in a single day.

That sounds like an awful lot of sperm per day.

Gender bias?

Why does this have testicles but NOT ovaries?

Live with Regis and Kelly

This page appeared Wednesday on Live with Regis and Kelly, when producer Michael Gelman brought over the page on his laptop, in relation to uni sushi from a previous episode, which viewers emailed in to note was sea urchin gonads. There was only about 200 extra visits to the article, because of the appearance. -- Zanimum (talk) 15:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well today I learned something

I did not know that gonads was a technical term! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.28.155 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

cock

you dont know anything wiki is the most unreliable site on the internet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.158.21.34 (talk) 00:23, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move 13 August 2014

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 08:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

---

Human gonad → Gonad – The Gonad article should have never been moved to the title Human gonad; that move happened in September 2011. The Human gonad article is somewhat general, small, and it can obviously be expanded to include more material. If there is no Gonad article, there shouldn't be a Human gonad article. Per WP:Disambiguation, things should not be disambiguated unless there is a need to do so. – Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 15:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• A link to the previous move is here, showing Gbmaizol move the article. When Gbmaizol made that move, it had all of the articles (including articles focusing on non-human animals) that mention/link to "gonad" pointing to an article titled Human gonad. This led to SkywardStrike redirecting the Gonad page to the Sex organ article in May 2014. Basically, Gbmaizol's redirect led to messes. Flyer22 (talk) 11:59, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I obviously support the move. Flyer22 (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Just a note that, as it was a couple of my edits that triggered this request, I support this request. Wbm1058 (talk) 12:14, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• Note: The above was moved from the WP:Requested moves page. If I had seen this move as potentially controversial, then I would have posted a move discussion here myself. Nothing at all controversial about the move I've requested, regardless of if someone disagrees with how a WP:Disambiguation matter should be handled. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I will now alert WP:Anatomy and WP:MED to this move discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Alerted here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 17:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

• I support the move. Very little of the information is specific to humans—possibly just the SRY info. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
• Yup gonad should be mainly about human gonad with a section called "other animals" at the end which links to a page called gonads in other animals. You have my support to adjust all anatomy article to match this. We are humans and thus our articles should be about us by default. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:32, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Axl and Jmh649 (Doc James). In this particular case, once the article is significantly expanded, I think we should settle for having an Other animals section for non-human animals, per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Anatomy, before having an article about gonads in non-human animals. We should first see if a separate article is warranted; if it's only stub material or can't be expanded much beyond a stub, then we should keep the non-human animal material in the article that mostly focuses on humans. Flyer22 (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose it should be split instead. A more general article covering everything, while the more specific information remaining here. We should not have bias regarding humans. If this is moved, then it should be reformatted so that general information appears first, and humans have a "HUMANS" section instead of "other animals". General information should be presented with no preference towards humans. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

IP, how can you argue for a split when, currently, there is barely anything in the article and the article is general enough as it is? We don't split articles for no good reason. This is per WP:Split and WP:Spinout. And as for bias, this matter has been discussed at several medical and anatomy articles; the most extensive discussion is shown at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 5. See the reasoning given in that discussion for why we keep the articles consolidated as one until, or if, a split is needed. I disagreed with the closer's comments for the reasons I noted at the bottom of that discussion (the Close discussion). Having an article devoted primarily to humans with an "Other animals" section for non-human animals is generally how medical and anatomy Wikipedia articles work (it's how many non-medical or non-anatomy Wikipedia articles work), especially considering that there often is not a lot to state about the non-human animal aspect. There is no need for a one-sentence or one-paragraph WP:Stub, for example, making our readers unnecessarily go away from the main article for a bit of material on non-human animals. And as for creating a WP:Stub in the hopes that the topic will one day have a lot of material to cover at Wikipedia, that is essentially a WP:CRYSTALBALL matter, a matter better left covered at the main article until there actually is a lot to cover about that aspect. Flyer22 (talk) 07:38, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:NOTFINISHED, we should not assume it will never be expanded. If the move takes place, then any human specific information will need to be segregated into a "humans" section to prevent bias. The treatment of non-humans only as an "other" section is SYSTEMATICBIAS, something we should not endeavor to further. Only specific traits for specific animals should be in such an "other" section. General traits should not be treated as human. Many people in the world already assume humans uniquely have many biological features that are actually shared with much of the animal world. It is very disappointing that we should assume this is a human medical encyclopedia instead of a general encyclopedia. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

IP, I disagree with your arguments, whether your second post above or this one, and I disagree per the reasons I stated above. This is not about assuming that a topic will never be expanded or treating general traits as human. If a medical or anatomy topic mostly concerns humans, that article should mostly be about humans, with a subsection about the matter among non-human animals. Cancer, for example, is primarily a human topic. It is not as extensively studied/documented in non-human animals. Therefore, we don't have a Cancer in non-human animals article; we have an Other animals section in the Cancer article for the topic of cancer in non-human animals. If that topic needed a Wikipedia article, it would have one. We should not be creating stub articles based on an assertion of systematic bias. Also take notice that WP:Systematic bias, as discussed before on that page's talk page, does not concern non-human animals. We should be focused on what best benefits our readers and Wikipedia as a whole. The vast majority of readers that type in "cancer" will no doubt be looking for the human aspect of cancer; so the WP:Primary topic is the human aspect, and that human aspect should therefore simply be titled Cancer, not Human cancer. It's similar regarding anatomy topics where there is not much detail out there about non-human animals. For example, the hymen and vagina (especially the hymen) are nowhere close to being as extensively studied in non-human animals as they are in humans. Wikipedia articles should be comprehensive. And if a topic is covered in both humans and non-human animals, then the article that is primarily about humans should cover non-human animals unless the article title has the word human in it, implying that non-human animals are excluded from the article. The way we do this is with an Other animals section. If the topic needs its own Wikipedia article, then there will be a link in that section to the Wikipedia article. We should not have a stub article simply because the topic may one day be able to be expanded beyond a stub. If that stub material can be adequately placed in a more comprehensive article, it should go there until, if it ever, requires its own Wikipedia article. What best suits readers is to have that little bit of information covered in the main article, not to have them go to a separate article for that little bit of material. Flyer22 (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, articles of this type, if named in a general manner, should have human specific traits segregated into a section such as "human X", while general traits are treated before it, and other specific animal traits treated in sections such as "other". I think we should educate the general public that these things are not solely human traits. If there is a combined article, rather than separate general and human articles, a general treatment should come first, before focus on humans, which should be done in a "humans" section. I think we can agree that we disagree on this matter. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 04:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

If there is an Other animals section in the article (and, really, per WP:Lead, the matter should also be noted in the lead), the public is still informed that the diseases or anatomical traits are not solely human. But, yes, I agree to disagree with you on this topic. We would clearly mostly be repeating ourselves to continue this discussion any further. Flyer22 (talk) 04:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Move back to how it was. There is nothing special enough about human gonads to treat them differently from animal gonads. The difference between human and dog testes is small compared to the difference between testes and ovaries. There is no apparent call to expand gonads to human and non-human. I don't think that plants have gonads. In plant reproductive morphology, there are stamens and carpels, but not gonads. I seem to see that most literature on gonads involves caterpillars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gonad. 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/20120505080019/http://www.pasteur.fr/ip/easysite/pasteur/en/research/scientific-departments/developmental-biology/units-and-groups/human-developmental-genetics to http://www.pasteur.fr/ip/easysite/pasteur/en/research/scientific-departments/developmental-biology/units-and-groups/human-developmental-genetics

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:31, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Eugh.

Can we get a blur that you have to hover the cursor over to reveal, for the image of SURGICALLY REMOVED OVARIES IN A DISSECTING DISH? It freaks me out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.255.24 (talk) 01:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

The image is not at all helpful in understanding ovaries, and it is genuinely nauseating. Where was this image even sourced from? 173.46.96.191 (talk) 05:10, 30 April 2024 (UTC)