Template talk:Zoology

Cryptozoology + suggestions

I have reintroduced cryptozoology into the template on the grounds that although its standing within Zoology is controversial, a number of Zoologists, consider it to be a legitimate branch of of the discipline comprising a unique set of research methodologies (See eg, Karl Shuker, Darren Naish, Charles Paxton, Edward Bousfield etc), plus the field was founded by a Zoologist - Bernard Heuvelmans. In my humble oppinion, owing to the fact that the targets of cryptozoologists are physical putative animals known through non-autoptic evidences, whose extistence, if demonstrated would contravene no physical laws; the field does not deserve to be lumped in with the 'paranormal' (Ufology, parapsychology etc), especially as the field has a limited presence in mainstream peer reviewed journals - which is more than can be said for most 'paranormal' fields. I understand however the reservations of those who don't want it listed as a zoological subfield, but it must be realized that the zoology template is a far more appropriate place to list it than the paranormal one. For the time being what say we leave cryptozoology in the zoology template and give it the benefit of the doubt? The second issue that I would like to raise concerns the inclusion of seperate listings for Myrmecology and Apiology (the scientific study of bees and ants respectively). Both of these are sub-branches of Entomology, which I also see is listed seperately. If we are listing discrete subranches of entomology, then why not include lepidoptology (the study of butterflies and moths) or coleoptology (the study of beetles)? For consistencies sake, I have removed these two entries as they seem to be redundant in the context of the one for entomology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.219.166.67 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I put Apiology and Myrmecology back in the template. These are distinct branches of zoology with their own contributions to the body of scientific knowledge. e.g. Karl von Frisch won the Nobel Prize for his work on honey bee communication. The argument that something is subfield of another field is not a good enough one for removal. Everything is a subdiscipline of something else. By that argument cetology, and primatology should be removed because they are subdisciplines of mammalogy.This is also a separate issue that should have had a separate heading from the cryptozoology heading. AJseagull1 (talk) 02:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I didn't mean to remove cryptozoology when i replaced apiology and myrmecology. I have no opinion on that matter. I have placed it back in the template as it was before my last edit. I will leave that argument for someone else AJseagull1 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

As I point out below, the fact that a few people also described by some as zoologists support cryptozoology does not provide sufficient support for inclusion in the Biology template. What would actually be required would be the regular inclusion of cryptozoological studies in mainstream, peer reviewed zoology journals. If someone can produce a sufficient threshold of such references, it could perhaps be included. Otherwise, it should be removed. Locke9k (talk) 22:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

It definitely needs to be removed. Cryptozoology is part of zoology like pseudoscience is part of science: it isn't. DreamGuy (talk) 19:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Neuroethology?

Does neuroethology belong under the zoology header or under the neuroscience header? Jasongallant 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

image

this is a terrible picture for entomology. there should be an insect that looks like a classic insect, not an insect that looks like a plant sitting on a leaf! 66.92.134.109 (talk) 17:01, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Cryptozoology?

Why is this on the template? It's not considered a serious branch of zoology, and it's misleading to put it up with the real sciences. -- MisterHand 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have now removed it from the template, for the reasons given above. -- MisterHand 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Cryptozoology be listed at least with a note of some kind in the template that it is a pseudoscience? Beno1000 14:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Possibly. That certainly would be more accurate than what was here before (where it was listed alongside the traditional branches, giving it undue weight). -- MisterHand 15:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Cryptozoology is a branch of Zoology. Like all sciences, it attempts to use evidence and facts, as well as eyewitness reports, in an attempt to find out if a hypothesized thing exists (in this case, an obscure species). Since it uses the scientific method, and attempts to seek knowledge using logic, it is a science. It is not a pseudoscience. Saying so would be even more misleading and a slap in the face to cryptozoologists everywhere. Perhaps seperating the template into sections of "Traditional zoologies", "obscure zoologies", etc. would be more fair and accurate? -Alex, 74.130.207.209 05:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC).

• I agree. If you look at the articles on science and pseudoscience you'll be able to see that cryptozoology is a science and not a pseudoscience. Cryptozoology does not claim that creatures such as unicorns and the Loch Ness Monster exist, they study the possibility of the existance of such creatures using scientific methods. Beno1000 10:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• If you guys can provide a source (preferably a peer-reviewed scientific journal) that states unequivically that 1) Cryptozoology is considered a science by the scientific community at large and 2) Cryptozoology is considered a branch of zoology by other zoologists then it would be appropriate to include it here. -- MisterHand 13:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Due to the lack of a source, as requested almost a year ago, I've once again deleted Crytozoology from the template. -- MisterHand 13:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is an absolute impossible task. Can you provide me a peer-reviewed scientific journal stating any other of these categories are considered a science? This is not a subject found in scientific journals... Not nearly enough of a reason to accept removal. 86.29.194.10 (talk) 15:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when trying to argue that a possible pseudoscience has legitimate mainstream acceptance, the burden of proof is on the proponents to provide references supporting its inclusion. In fact, it is trivial to provide myriad instances in which real subsets of biology are a subject of study in credible, mainstream, peer reviewed scientific journals. That is the criterion required by Wikipedia. As to the arguments above, the fact that a few 'zoologists' who are notable only due to their affiliation with cryptozoology promote cryptozoology does not mean that it is in the mainstream. The requirement is a certain threshold of consideration and publication in mainstream scientific journals. The requirement for notability of cryptozoology is substantially lower, as one merely has to demonstrate that it has sufficient support in popular culture to be worth discussing. However, this discussion relates to whether it is considered a mainstream science under the category of zoology. Unless someone can provide a strong set of citations in mainstream scientific journals, it should be removed from the template. Locke9k (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

im with Alex on this one, cryptozoology, like the others, is merely the study of so called "fictional" creatures. shouldnt that be enough to allow it on the zoology page?

i would also like to ask this: until something is proven to exsist, isnt it considered to be part of cryptozoology?

think back to when humans didn't believe that something could exsist in the very darkest depths of the oceans.

WolfCub88 19:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Your point while interesting is not really relevant to the topic at hand. The threshold for Wikipedia is legitimate cited references. If cryptozoology was a subset of zoology, accepted by mainstream science, it would appear many times in mainstream peer reviewed zoology journals. Unless someone can document such inclusion, it should not be described as a subset of zoology by wikipedia at this time. By all means, if you feel that it should be included, engage in research within cryptozoology and seek to have it published in a zoology journal. Push for more legitimate, peer review publications to be included in zoology journals. Go out and try to promote your viewpoint, but Wikipedia is not the place. Remember that wikipedia is not a place for righting great wrongs. On the other hand, if you can produce the above cited evidence, by all means, please do so. Until then, cryptozoology should be removed from the template.Locke9k (talk) 22:48, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

WolfCub and others- the inclusion of cryptozoology is not an appropriate inclusion under the header of zoology. I am in agreement with MisterHand that there is no consideration of 'Cryptozoology' as a credible scientific enterprise, and there is no discussion of it as a tenable field in the scientific literature.

Jasongallant 20:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that Cryptozoology keeps getting added and removed and added and removed from the template. I suspect that this will keep happening. I am not going to enter the debate of whether it should be in the template or not, but I am going to ask that IF you do add it in again (or any other type of zoology for that matter), please stick with the alphabetical format of the template instead of just tacking it on the end. Thanks. -AJseagull1 (talk) 20:02, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

To summarize the points I have made above, I offer the following criterion that must be met by those wishing to include cryptozoology in this template. The standard for inclusion in Wikipedia is the inclusion of reputable citations. The standard for inclusion in this template should thus be a body of citations showing that cryptozoology is an accepted field of publication within mainstream, peer-reviewed zoology journals. If these cannot be produced, cryptozoology itself may still meet notability for coverage in wikipedia by publications showing that it is a notable fringe theory or pseudoscience. However, in that case it would not be reasonably eligible for inclusion in this template. A good place to look for the type of references produced on this subject by the wikipedia community should be the article Cryptozoology. This article does not include substantial references to cryptozoological articles published in mainstream biology journals. On the other hand, it does include several references specifically suggesting that cryptozoology does not fall within the body of mainstream biology. Just as much as for any other part of wikipedia, a template should be based on a cited body of knowledge. If you wish to keep cryptozoology in this template, please therefore produce appropriate citations of the sort I have described above, or otherwise respond to this point. Locke9k (talk) 23:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Template doesn't show in Primatology

I found the zoology template useful to page to the various branches but the template doesn't exist on the Priatology page. I'm new so I didn't dare try to add it. Fablesx2 10:51, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Others?

Why aren't there other branches of zoology on this template, like Planktology or Conchology? They should be there too if subbranches like Apiology and Myrmecology are there. Yvesnimmo 16:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Layout

I added a relevant image to Cetology. The layout then became awkward. It seems that this template is meant to be placed in top right corner. But that implies that all the branches are to have a picture of a fox in their top right corner. That is not reasonable. Each article should have an image of something from that speciality in the prominent spot. --Etxrge 06:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The image should be a substitutable parameter, otherwise as above it is really distracting to have the wrong icon for the taxon. Shyamal 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and added an optional parameter so you can use { { Zoology | Image: your favorite.jpg } }. Shyamal 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I changed the images to relevant images in the template on each page. I just went and picked one I liked that was already on Wikipedia, if someone feels especially strong about a particular image they should go ahead and change it AJseagull1 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Notable Zoologists

How is it decided which notable zoologists are included in the zoology template, and which are only listed on the zoology entry page or the list of zoolosits page? As of this post the list in the template is: Georges Cuvier, Charles Darwin, William Kirby, Carolus Linnaeus, Konrad Lorenz, Thomas Say. Who decides that they are template worthy, but scientists like Richard Dawkins, Thomas Henry Huxley, Alfred R. Wallace, and E.O. WIlson are not...Why not have a link ot the list of notable zoologists instead or arbitrarily picking a few to put in the template?AJseagull1 (talk) 21:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

There's no reason we can't put a more... link in the template. That being said, several "series" articles arbitrarily pick a few articles from a topic of thousands. I agree, Alfred R. Wallace should probably make the list, as to who decides they are "template worthy", I believe history is responsible for that. I hope to avoid an argument as to why Charles Darwin and Carolus Linnaeus deserve to be "notable zoologists" a tad more than Richard Dawkins or Edward Wilson. Justin ^chat 16:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One helpful thing to check might be how many times their works have been cited. While this might not work in all cases, a google scholar search of an author can help give a general sense of how greatly their work has been read and cited by others in the field. Often more citations corresponds to more influence.Locke9k (talk) 22:57, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Template width

Hello. With smaller screens/windows, this template as it currently stands is too wide. Could a picture with only two creatures per row be used instead, please? 212.84.103.144 (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Animal diversity.png

I have recently created the following collage of various animals which much better represents animal diversity (18 classes in 13 phyla) than the current image (nine classes, seven of them vertebrate, in three phyla).

μηδείς (talk) 06:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

If there are no good reasons not too, I will substitute the image shortly. μηδείς (talk) 15:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Key topics section

It needs a section that covers key terms and concepts. I am not a scientist so I do not know what is considered most key to zoology. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:46, 6 March 2012 (UTC)