Talk:Sex: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Content deleted Content added
→‎Sex: new section
Tags: Reverted Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 43: Line 43:


Your thoughts, please?—[[User:S Marshall|<b style="font-family: Verdana; color: Maroon;">S&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<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&nbsp;Marshall</b>]]&nbsp;<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

    Template:Vital article



    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)[reply]

    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)[reply
    ]
    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)[reply]
    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]