This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Template:Zoology page.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming

Contents 1 Cryptozoology + suggestions 2 Neuroethology? 3 image 4 Cryptozoology? 5 Template doesn't show in Primatology 6 Others? 7 Layout 8 Notable Zoologists

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)