Talk:Fertilisation

message: When discussing the fertilization in mammals, ZP1 should also be mentioned as a glycoprotein in the zona pellucida. It should also be noted that there is current research supporting that sperm undergo the acrosomal reaction before binding to the zona. Contrary to previous understandings, it seems that the sperm go through the acrosomal reaction in the cumulus and that they most likely bind to ZP2 instead of ZP3.Rraju2 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: References for the above information come from the textbook:Developmental Biology by Scott Gilbert, 10th edition. Gilbert cites the following studies as support: Huang et al. 1981, Yanagamachi and Phillips 1984, Gahlay and colleagues 2010, Jin and colleagues 2011, and Baibakov et al. 2012 Rraju2 (talk) 21:47, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: New Research should be Incorporated

message: It should be noted that conception only ever meant embryonic implantation after the drug companies developed the first birth control pill. The pill blocks ovulation 80% of the time, but it also thins and hardens the endometrial lining of the womb, making it impossible for the embryo to implant. To deal with this situation, the FDA, several drug companies, and Dr. Alan Guttmacher held a meeting and changed the definitions of both conception and pregnancy so that they could legally market the pill as a contraceptive, rather than early abortifactent. This is the only reason behind the term controversy.
:Still, [[conception shouldn't redirect here. Beginning of Pregnancy Controvercy seems better. (BTW, my encyclopedias from the '70s frequently use the term "baby" in reference to prenates, and state that pregnancy starts at implantation, but human life starts at fertilization. I think it says "mother" too.) ☺ (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Term controversy

message: <replacing text that was cut> 
Wikipedia has a clear policy that the first use of either British or American spelling determines the edits thereafter. The first use on this page was in the title, which was British style (with an "s" not a "z"). Therefore the edit warriers who seek to convert it to the other convention are in violation of Wikipedia policy, ie., it is an act of vandalism. Continued warring in violation of Wikipedia policy, will result in the the perpetrators paying the consequences, including possible page protection and blocks of editors. Pollinator 04:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right that the spelling should be left in accordance with the orignial author's version.  But I'm sure this is not vandalism but rather good faith correcting of what they think are spelling errors, unless they've been gently warned and the policy you've mentioned explained to them.  Peace, delldot | talk 15:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your point is well taken, but my point is that hereinafter it will be regarded as vandalism. Thanks. Pollinator 17:00, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry if I've misunderstood your position, I'm understanding you to be saying that it should be considered vandalism the first time someone does it. If that's not what you're saying, then you can ignore this. If you're saying it will be considered vandalism the first time someone does it, here are my thoughts: I hate to be pushy, but I really do feel that we should only consider edits vandalism if it's obvious (see WP:VAND: "Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.").  I don't think we can assume that every newbie is going to read this talk page before making what they may think is a spelling correction.  And it could keep potentially good new editors from the project if we treat their edits as though they are in bad faith.  So what I'm asking is that people who change the spelling be asked nicely once to stop and shown the relevant policy.  After that of course, it will no longer be necessary to assume good faith.  This will be more work, yes, but I'm willing to keep this page on my watchlist and do the necessary reverting and discussing when I see this happen.  Does this idea sound acceptable to you? Thanks much, delldot | talk 05:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You are always free to file a requested move to change the page name. Before you do, review WP:ENGVAR, you will need it to marshal your argument. In the meantime, discussion of the variant spellings should be kept in the footnotes. Almost all readers will be able to understand either spelling; as noted above, most changes are good-faith and easily reverted; the ideological repeat-changers can be easily dealt with; and it's basically fine the way it stands. (And I reverted your addition to the lead describing the "Oxford" spelling - we're making articles here, not war, right? :) Franamax (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: The paragraph on plant fertilization is incomplete, and should be merged with the one on double fertilization.
The paragraphs on plant fertilization seem to indacate that all plants have flowers when this is not the case.
I would like to propose that either double fertilization or plant fertilization in general be given its own page.  Double fertilization in extremely important in the field of botany; even general introductory biology courses teach it.  As such, the material should be expanded and given its own page.  Anyone who knows how to do this or has the authorization, please do so.  I would be willing to write the content GreenGorgon (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Plant

message: Why does the article have the words "Lachlan stop hitting on nick!"
in the middle of the "Double fertilisation" section?  It has been
in the article for a while.  i'm not a regular Wikipedia person, so
i don't want to remove it if it means something ...
Sbmehta 20:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's removed now. I think it was probably a vandalism. Keith Galveston (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random text 

message: Is there anyway to lock this article so only registered users can edit it, seeing as how it is obviously prone to vandalism by unregistered 14-year-olds? Plynch22 21:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  vandalism II 

message: its WHEN AN EGG AND A SPERM JOIN TOGETHER  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.254.152.174 (talk) 02:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  FERTILIZATION 

message: I propose the page be moved to the most common spelling, fertilization. The initial comment on the talk page talks about this and quotes some rules, but it is clear that the reasoning is not in synch with the rules or reasonable. Google gives 7.2 million hits for 'fertilization' yet only 1.8 million for 'fertilisation.' Fertilization is the most commonly used spelling, on the internet, in other encyclopedias in dictionaries, unless CLEAR wikipedia rules can be cited as to why the less popular spelling variation is to be used over the most common then I'll be moving this article to the new spelling. — raeky (talk | edits) 04:17, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article started out with the -ise spelling. On Wikipedia -ize is not better or more correct than -ise; Wikipedia does not have a preference on national dialects of English - unless the article has a clear connection with a particular English-speaking country. This subject does not fall into that category. All that really matters is that there is consistency throughout the article. Indochinetn (talk) 19:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While this is true in general, I find the following somewhat unpleasant: "For fertilisation in humans specifically, see Human fertilization." Yes, this article is consistent, but could not all articles that reference each other be consistent?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.75.48.47 (talk) 01:55, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Not only does the different spelling confuse and annoy people. It should be spelled the way it's always been spelled. Just because it's spelled differently, people might get confused. Just saying that it's always been spelled with a "z" in the past, so why change it now? ...And yes I saw that British Dialect side note, but still...this isn't Britain. Most users are coming from America. Wikiuser92612 (talk) 05:46, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  name change proposal 

message: The article says that neither the X nor Y sex chromosomes undergo crossover events.  Is that completely true?  If not, it needs to be gone into in more detail or linked to another article on mammalian reproduction.
Thanks  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.77.197.177 (talk) 22:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone check something in the main article for accuracy? 

message: The article says that neither the X nor Y sex chromosomes undergo crossover events.  Is that completely true?  If not, it needs to be gone into in more detail or linked to another article on mammalian reproduction.
Thanks
216.77.198.111 (talk) 22:19, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could someone check something in the main article for accuracy? 

message: Human reproduction begins with the union of the reproductive cells. The female produces cells called egg cells in her body. A male produces cells called sperm cells in his body. The egg and sperm cells are called reproductive cells. When a sperm cell unites with an egg cell< fertilization takes place.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conjaresc (talk • contribs) 09:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertilization 

message: How about a separate article on double fertilization, which will be linked to this page within the 'fertilization in plants' section?  A group of us is planning to work on this as a class project from July 8-18th, 2009. -- EricaVE  —Preceding unsigned comment added by EricaVE (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there.  Separating the current section on double fertilization into a new article seems doable, provided it's large enough to warrant.  If you or anyone in your group would like help navigating through Wikipedia's policies on  reliable sources,  citation style and templates, or anything else, just leave a message on my  talk page.  Cheers, Emw2012 (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Double Fertilization 

message: So did you know that plants fertilise. So plants did the help of insects,wind,and animals.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.79.113.173 (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Headline text 

message: This reference has been dropped from the page. 
Perhaps someone with access to it can reconstruct what it had to offer. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:50, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference dropped 

message: I typed in "fertilisation" into the Oxford online dictionary (a British dictionary) and it redirected me to "fertilization", with "fertilisation" being an alternative form sometimes used in BrE. Given that fertilization is the primary form used everywhere, even in the UK, shouldn't this page be moved to "fertilization"? 38.111.32.82 (talk) 01:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything in the OED about -ise being used "sometimes". Anyway, the OED is not an ultimate arbiter of the spelling of any dialect or its frequency. The article must use the dialect of the first most significant contributor. --78.144.166.248 (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: And, like I stated it here, it should also mention the alternative spelling in the article's text (where everyone can easily see it) instead of in a hidden note or footnote; the WP:Alternative title policy (it is a policy) is clear about that. Flyer22 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: As seen with this and this edit, the alternative (American) spelling had somehow slipped into the lead; I went ahead and added both spellings, per WP:Alternative title. Flyer22 (talk) 15:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/351731. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Sminthopsis84 (talk) 15:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: I answered a request at WP:RFPP and protected the current version - if there is any confusion here is a diff showing (I think) the addition be discussed. AlexiusHoratius 16:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a further improvement to the material under attack, here, but whatever, I'm outa here. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 18:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would not like to object to the protection, but could I simply ask why it was a full protection rather than just IP users? I see a ton of semi-protected pages only allowing autoconfirmed users, and I'm not exactly sure why this warranted a full protection. Again, I'm not objecting to the protection, merely wanting to know why it was a full vs semi. (I'm also a semi-new Wikipedian, so I may not know everything yet.) Ging287 (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like anons and autoconfirmed users were on both sides of the reverting, so semiprotection (protecting against only the anons) wouldn't have done much. AlexiusHoratius 16:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The page was linked to on reddit here: http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/20ig7a/remember_when_feminists_pledged_to_fix_wikipedia/, which I think explains the sudden influx of people. It's also where I first saw the offending passage, and is why I chose to login to my account on here for the first time in 6 years Aaarrrggh (talk) 17:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Any reason why you're canvassing off-site for edits to the article in question? I was under the impression that sort of thing is highly frowned upon. Ongepotchket (talk) 17:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ongepotchket, all of this "feminist theory" edit warring started after this edit by Ging287, which is suspicious in my eyes...unless Ging287 saw the Reddit post instead of being the one who started it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Flyer22, my apologies, I did forget to provide a link. I was referring to this post made by the editor above, requesting help from reddit users in order to circumvent the rules here. Ongepotchket (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Ongepotchket, oh, I see. Thanks for the link. Yes, that was inappropriate WP:Canvassing on the part of that editor (though, technically, WP:Canvassing refers to contacting other Wikipedia editors), and it was WP:Meatpuppetry (which is always inappropriate and prohibited). Flyer22 (talk) 12:40, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

text:  Protection ended March 20th, so 'just after' is a bit misleading in that taste. I've omitted the section due to a lack of peer viewed citations. See section below. Consensus is the first step towards resolution, which I am attempting to work towards.Ging287 (talk) 02:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: I propose that we leave it as omitted unless covered in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Ging287 (talk) 02:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I restored the section after a recent deletion whose edit comment was clearly basing things on OR. I think that the section as it currently stands is not yet there, but is approaching something that would belong in the article. I am sorry to be part of the edit warring, but the edit I reverted was beyond the pale. Still, I don't plan to get in any holy war about whether the section belongs here or not, so if the consensus here is that it doesn't, I'd probably disagree, but I would not stand in the way. Ging287 is definitely doing the right thing by starting a discussion here. Homunq (࿓) 13:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've made sufficient changes to this section according to WP:TONE. Ging287 (talk) 21:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Aggressive/energetic egg" section 

message: Here we can discuss the complete removal of this section. Tutelary (talk) 02:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Complete removal

message: The Odonata have a complex fertilisation scheme with multiple matings, sperm competition, and fertilisation delayed until egg-laying. Seems worth a paragraph and a photo of the "heart" or "wheel" mating posture.
Other insects e.g. Hymenoptera similarly have sperm storage, fertilisation being delayed often many months as the queens lay eggs continually but are fertilised only once in a mating flight with the drones. Seems worth a paragraph also. And a photo. Perhaps we're suffering from mammal-ism here (compare the male-ism of the rest of WP). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Chiswick Chap, you should add the material; not an empty section. Flyer22 (talk) 15:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

text: In fact, all of the empty sections should be removed. Flyer22 (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it's perfectly correct to indicate missing sections so the team of editors can get to work on them. I will have a go at the insects in due course, if nobody else has done that by then: we can't do everything at once. Far better to indicate incompleteness honestly than to provide readers with a misleading or unbalanced picture. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, it's not perfectly correct to add empty sections. Adding tags to indicate that the sections should have material in them is a different matter. Adding empty sections is lazy, and is putting the WP:Burden on other editors; I will never agree with that. Flyer22 (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

text: We have article talk pages for valid reasons, and one of those reasons is to indicate things that should be in the article. Flyer22 (talk) 15:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your holding strong opinions doesn't, unfortunately, make them correct; I have already given you three good reasons why empty sections are useful. I'm busy on other things but will add a stub on insects today. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

text: That is an editor-centric point of view. Put yourself in the mind of a reader: you see an article that appears to be complete. Do you go and read the talk page to see if there are any outstanding issues? Not one reader in a thousand, probably. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Your opinion that empty sections are useful is just an opinion. And an outlook that empty sections are a good thing hardly ever holds up, per WP:Burden. Imagine creating a whole Wikipedia article like that. Empty sections are pure laziness, and is not reader-centric; it is editor-centric. And as many at this site know, I mainly edit with thoughts as to what is best for our readers, not what is best for our editors. Readers do not come to Wikipedia for empty sections, which often stay in Wikipedia articles for months or years before they are finally removed as the empty things that they are. As for what you stated above, I won't be agreeing, per my several of experience with this site. Stating that we should add empty sections to let readers know that material is missing in the article is counter to the way that I edit Wikipedia. There is very likely always something that is going to be missing from a Wikipedia article, as it is almost always a work in progress. We do not add visible notes in Wikipedia articles telling readers that material is missing; the same should apply to empty sections.  Flyer22 (talk) 15:54, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It was not "just an opinion", it was justified above with clearly stated reasons. I've added a brief summary, which could certainly benefit from expansion. I've done this despite other work because I prefer to spend my time doing something useful on articles than arguing. I won't be back. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If my comments on the empty section matter are just opinions, then so are yours. We have Template:Empty section to identify the problem with empty sections, not to encourage their additions. As for editor work, my article work across Wikipedia speaks for itself. Flyer22 (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Delayed fertilisation in dragonflies (Odonata) and ants, bees, wasps (Hymenoptera)

message: The word "impregnate" is more commonly used, especially in Google Books. I did this search on 2015-11-06 with option "verbatim". 
* "woman can be impregnated" Google: 9,440    books: 190
* "woman can be fertilized" Google: 23,000    books: 5
* "impregnated by her" Google: 315,000    books: 6,100
* "fertilized by her" Google: 74,800    books: 1,770
I prefer the word "fertilize" because "impregnate" is ambiguous: Longman, Cambridge, Oxford 85.193.214.212 (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fertilize or impregnate? 

message: In section 3.4 (Human) of this article on Fertilisation, it states: "Additionally, interspecies hybrids survive only until gastrulation and cannot further develop." As this is the section about human fertilization, that then implies the existence of fertilization between humans and another species. 50.107.177.141 (talk) 07:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Human "Interspecies Hybrid", Say What? 

message: Substituted at 15:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: IF THERE IS AN EVOLUTIONARY CHOICE BETWEEN THE IDEAL SPERM TO FERTILIZE THE EGG THEN UNDER IDEAL CONDITIONS THE EJACULATED SPERM SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO FLOW OUTSIDE OF THE WOMAN
WOULD A FEMALE MENSTRUATION CAP OR A MODIFIED DESIGN SERVE THIS PURPOSE?
WITH MILLIONS OF SPERM EJACULATED THE LOSS OF POSSIBLE IDEAL COMBINATIONS NEEDS ADDRESSING
I.V.F TREATMENT DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE THIS IDEA
FERTILIZED EMBROYOS SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO LEAVE THE WOMB UNTIL THE BIND
I HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT SELECTIVE ABORTIONS
LAND IS EVERYWHERE
86.141.205.9 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  FERTILIZING THE EGG WITH AS MANY CHOICES OF SPERM AS PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE 

message: Hello everyone!
I am a 10^{th} student, and was searching for Hologamy in Wikipedia. Unfortunately, I didn't find it :(
I request any knowledgeable person to kindly add the topics Hologamy, Merogamy and Paedogamy  to the correct page.
Thanks in advance!
Seeker220 (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some uncovered forms of Syngamy 

message: Just pointing out that Syngamy is defined nowhere here, and it appears that wikipedia doesn't have a Syngamy article. Would be good for someone knowledgeable in the field to fix this.
Zeebo7 (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Syngamy neither defined nor linked 

message: Corp 2405:205:C925:3208:868E:1CCD:5DC3:F9CB (talk) 11:04, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sic