Talk:Sex: Difference between revisions
→Sex: new section Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Undo |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
Your thoughts, please?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
Your thoughts, please?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S Marshall</b>]] <small>[[User talk:S Marshall|T]]/[[Special:Contributions/S Marshall|C]]</small> 17:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC) |
||
== Sex == |
|||
Sex is a good thing [[Special:Contributions/223.235.29.68|223.235.29.68]] ([[User talk:223.235.29.68|talk]]) 04:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 04:34, 5 June 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
To-do list for Sex: |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
|
This article has been viewed enough times to make it onto the all-time Top 100 list. It has had 123 million views since December 2007. |
Revisions succeeding this version of this article is substantially duplicated by a piece in an external publication. Please do not flag this article as a copyright violation of the following source:
|
Autoconfirmed talk page?
If there's no precedent for making talk pages available only to autoconfirmed users, the recent spate of mischief here might be a good cause to establish such a precedent. Otherwise, what's the procedure for seeking and applying auto confirmation to this talk page? --Kent Dominic·(talk) 04:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Article talk pages are semi-protected occasionally, but there has not been enough disruption here. I suspect that a lot of IP comments at Wikipedia in the last few months are from experiments with bots and I use rollback to remove them (assuming they really are off-topic). The procedure is to ask for protection at WP:RFPP but there would have to be several nonsense posts per day for a few days to get any action. Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)]
- IMO any edit from an IP to a talk page that creates a new heading with less than 5 words under it should be reverted by a bot (rather than autosigned as at present). These are invariably something stupid and it's not possible to say anything worthwhile about the page in under 5 words. Won't get all the trolling but it does happen that way on other pages too. Crossroads -talk- 06:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Gotcha. This article had been off my watchlist for a while, and I was troubled to see the numerous instances of mischief posts that were rightfully deleted. This talk page is proof that unfettered access comes with expected inconvenience. Ce la vie. BTW, the current lede Version 4.2 is tons different from the one I worked on, and it's simpler than the definition in my own lexicon, which has verbiage re X and Y chromosomal norms and deviations. Any lede is way better than the one I found here last year. If the current lede proves to be stable, I hope to revisit my original plan to link this article to my own lexicon while scrapping the definition I created in my readers' behalf. Kent Dominic·(talk) 13:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- IMO any edit from an IP to a talk page that creates a new heading with less than 5 words under it should be reverted by a bot (rather than autosigned as at present). These are invariably something stupid and it's not possible to say anything worthwhile about the page in under 5 words. Won't get all the trolling but it does happen that way on other pages too. Crossroads -talk- 06:18, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
- Hey, I wasn't able to edit Talk:Race and intelligence until today, when I got autoconfirmed. So there's some precedent for it. Happy (Slap me) 16:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
Third paragraph
The terms male and female typically do not apply in sexually undifferentiated species in which the individuals are isomorphic (look the same) and the gametes are isogamous (indistinguishable in size and shape), such as the green alga Ulva lactuca. Some kinds of functional differences between gametes, such as in fungi, may be referred to as mating types.
— Current text
I suggest a revised version:
Some living things lack sexes. Certain species reproduce asexually. In others, such as the green alga ulva lactuca, where individuals are isomorphic (look the same) and the gametes are isogamous (similar in size and shape), the terms male and female are not used. Biologists sometimes describe them in terms of mating types.
— Proposed text
Your thoughts, please?—S Marshall T/C 17:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)