Template talk:Zoology

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Cryptozoology + suggestions 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  image 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Template doesn't show in Primatology 

message: 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)
thread_title: Others?

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Notable Zoologists

message: 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)
thread_title:  Template width 

message: 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)
thread_title:  File:Animal diversity.png 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Key topics section