Talk:Germ layer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

All Eumetazoans have Germ layers, witch include all except for Mesozoa, sponges and unicellular animals. Eumetazoans are animals that have Germ layers, true tissues, a mouth and a digestive cavity. That's the difenition that I know...

[edit] Request

I'd love some drawings and diagrams added to this article. TheLimbicOne 23:39, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merging organogenesis (closed, concensus: no merge)

I came here hoping to find a discussion of merging organogenesis here, but found nothing. IMO, there's enough organogenesis-specific information to merit it having its own separate article. I'll see if I can expand it from stub-status over the holiday. --David Iberri (talk) 03:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Isn't organogenesis a broader topic than the germ layers that develop during that process? It makes sense to merge the articles, and then have one just be a redirect to the other, but shouldn't germ layer link to its own section of organogenesis and not the other way around? ~JessAnovA

Actually, it's the other way around. First, germ layers develop. Then, organs and tissues form out of the germ layers. TheLimbicOne 16:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Either way works for me. I just noticed, while I was researching for the expansion of germ layer, that these two articles would fit well together and have quite a bit of overlap. I don't think organogenesis could be expanded to stand on its own. I would have done the merge right away but I'm not sure which article should point to which. My case for into germ layer goes:

1. Most people (myself included) will search for germ layer first.

2. Germ layer leads to organogenesis and is the broader topic.

TheLimbicOne 22:03, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

• As of this edit, I support organogenesis being merged into germ layer. I don't know enough details on development to merit expanding either. David Iberri, if you can expand organogenesis into its own creature then I will withdraw the merger support. Semiconscious (talk · home) 05:12, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Organogenesis usually sits apart from developmet of the primary tissue layers in textbooks. The differences in cellular organisation are sufficient to warrant a separate page for "germ layers", separate from organogenesis as you would blastulation or gastrulation. You may want to consider organogenesis separately according to their cellular lineage, however this may be too complicated as tissues somtimes appear closely related but are derived from separate tissues, eg. the dermis and epidermis from the mesoderm and ectoderm respectively. You may also want to consider that ectoderm, endoderm and mesoderm are descriptive, whilst blastulation, gastrulation and organogenesis are processional.TaO! 14:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think organogenesis and germ layer formation can be merged. There's too much going on with organogenesis to merge it with another article. Some areas of organogenesis will probably merit their own page. Evilhypnotist 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge tag removed. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 10:04, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merge Endoderm, Mesoderm, and Ectoderm

Well, they used to be one article. After splitting them up we have to duplicate a lot of the information and explanations in each of the new child articles (which are stubs). Instead of using the main template here to reference a stub, why don't we just put these sections back together as one coherent article. These four topics are too closely tied together to be properly addressed seperately. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 16:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. These are three distinct germ layers, each significant enough to fill pages upon pages of text. I have taken the liberty of removing the merge flag because this would be a retrograde.

Oppose merge. There is much more to say about these subjects, but it is harder for the articles to expand when they are all combined. --Arcadian 18:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

For more context on some of the work being done on these subjects, you may want to also look at Talk:Human embryogenesis. --Arcadian 18:52, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, if you take a look at the interlanguage links, you'll see that almost all of the other major wikis have chosen not to merge, and have distinct articles for each layer. --Arcadian 19:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The interlanguage links are also stubs with less information than currently on the english versions. Those articles did not get merged when this article merged originally. No signifigant expansion took place in those stubs as individual articles. Therefore, either the interlanguage community doesn't feel a need to align itself to the english wikipedia or there really just isn't that much information to add. --TheLimbicOne(talk) 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Combining these articles:

1. signifigantly reduces duplicate information and the effort required to keep it all matching
2. makes perfect sense when the subjects are so closely intertwined. Hence, J.Steinbock's addition of the {{main}} template.
3. follows the format of featured articles, which usually combine multiple stub topics under one heading.

--TheLimbicOne(talk) 07:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Oppose merge. I am against piling up in one heap of information, as there is still lot of to be said about each subtopic, the mother article would be macropedic (not necessery information included make you unnecessery slow down, when searching through the article for information). In this moment information content in Germ layer is balanced, just fine for reading and getting addequate info. If you would be interested in some particular layer, you can just clic on the main article link. Sub articles will grow within time. Reo ^ON | +++ 20:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)