Template talk:Animal sexual behavior

Scope of this template?

For this template to have maximum practicality, the scope and limitations should probably be clearly defined, lest it become unwieldly clogged with arbitrary links to every conceivable animal's paragraph on reproduction. Some suggestions:

1. Perhaps only full article level links should be included (e.g. no links to "MyFavoriteAnimal#Reproduction"). Examples include Lordosis behavior or Seabird breeding behavior.
2. Perhaps species-level links should be omitted, with only general links to reproduction discussion of family-level or higher taxa , e.g. only Canine_reproduction instead of arbitrary inclusion of Gray wolf, Golden jackal, Domestic dog, Red fox... (why no Raccoon dog or Gray fox??)
3. Perhaps only individual species with notably distinct reproductive modes (compared to related species) should be included. That is, if closely related species differ primarily only in age at reproduction or clutch size (such as the rhino species) they may not warrant individual entries, but notable departures (such as the unique female anatomy of Spotted hyenas compared to brown hyenas) may be more informative to highlight. In this way, the diversity of Animal Sexual Behavior can be made more visible, rather than becoming a cluttered dustbin for animal factoids.

--Animalparty-- (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Update: I've recently added links to general topics (under the heading "Mating systems"), and expanded bird, fish, and herps. I still believe the mammal section can be selectively pruned to achieve more equitable balance, and invertebrates are for now still omitted.--Animalparty-- (talk) 19:49, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't like it as a side navbox, it will interefere with the articles where it is placed and create drama wars. It would be better set up as a bottom navbox, and one that is collapsable. Montanabw^(talk) 04:39, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I suspected (see above), this is approaching an arbitrary, indiscriminate list, and becoming ever more mammal-centric, and I apologize if my additions contributed to the mess. Every sexually reproducing animal has sexual behavior, and I think there should be discussion on the scope and purpose of this navigation box (e.g. what articles should it be placed in, and what are clear inclusion criteria?). Now that it is a navbox rather thana sidebar, its placement in the middle of certain articles is especially jarring (see Elephant#Sexual_behaviour). Further, is there any logical reason to expect that someone reading about elephant sex would want to navigate to a section (not an article) on short-beaked echidna sex? The current scope of this template is too large and arbitrary to be practical. Per the WP:NAVBOX guidelines: Navigation templates are particularly useful for a small, well-defined group of articles. The essays WP:NAV and WP:NBFILL offer additional tips for how navigation templates should and should not be constructed. Since @Jarble: created the template, I'm interested in his or her thoughts on the issue, as well as anyone else's. I hate to say it, but this template may collapse under its own weight and be better off scrapped unless properly thought out. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Animalparty: This template would be much easier to navigate if it were converted into a {{Navbox with collapsible groups}}. Jarble (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@Animalparty: I think it would be reasonable to convert this template into an outline, then. Jarble (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Polygyny

I put some content in the article Polygyny in nature (before, it was a redirect to Polygyny). Perhaps it was better to the template to link to the article Polygyny in nature (even if mantaining the name "Polygyny" in the link)?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

A discussion about this template and related topics can be found at WikiProject animal anatomy. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Animal_anatomy#Reproduction_in_animals. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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: page not moved (non-admin closure) Biblioworm 00:43, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Template:Animal sexual behavior → Template:Sexual reproduction in animals – This template relates not just to sexual behaviour, but it's clear that it also contains information about reproductive anatomy and physiology -- in fact it serves as a navbox for almost all such articles. It would be good therefore to rename it to a clearer title. Tom (LT) (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: The template applies to some articles that are not about reproduction – e.g., to Pseudocopulation and List of birds displaying homosexual behavior, so this renaming looks like a change of scope. Is that intended? —BarrelProof (talk) 00:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; the title Template:Animal sexual behavior is broader than the title Template:Sexual reproduction in animals; obviously, animal sexual behavior will include matters of sexual reproduction. But sexual reproduction does not include every sexual behavior. I agree with BarrelProof that the move would be changing, and limiting, the scope. And if it's decided that both Template:Animal sexual behavior and Template:Sexual reproduction in animals are needed, I don't think that both are needed. Flyer22 (talk) 05:17, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - "Animal sexual behavior" not only included topics that "Sexual reproduction in animals" would not, as Flyer and BarrelProof point out, but "Sexual reproduction in animals" would include, in a confusing way, many topics that "Animal sexual behavior" would not. What is needed is a separate additional template, Template:Animal reproduction, which covers reproduction in general, including asexual reproduction, nesting and brooding behaviours, the nurture and protection of the young and the many other strategies that lead to reproductive success but are only incidentally sexual, if sexual at all. A navigation template should be focused either on "sexual behaviour" or on "reproduction", and not muddy the water with the term "sexual reproduction". --Epipelagic (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note: A bit more on this has been stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Animal anatomy; see this WP:Permalink. Flyer22 (talk) 19:25, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Let's leave this at the more inclusive category of sexual behavior, which includes reproduction, and clean it up to WP:NAVBOX guidelines rather than reduce the scope or have two partially overlapping templates. Per the discussion I tried to have above, we should focus the template only on full articles, not arbitrary sections of this or that animal. --Animalparty-- (talk) 18:45, 10 November 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.