Talk: Interspecies reproduction

Naming?[]

So... "interspecific" isn't a real word. The word is "interspecies". -- Sulfur 16:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would have agreed with you at first, but I looked it up and it is in fact a word: [1]. Though I agree "interspecies" is more recognizeable, it is only a synoynm for "interspecific." --Icesyckel 17:26, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the page have existed since the rw-year 2004, and somepeople may search "Interspecies reproduction", I've taken the liberty to create a redirect to this page.--Rom Ulan^Hail 00:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Interspecies sex[]

Starting[]

Again, just getting the article started. I know it needs work. --Icesyckel 16:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So... two things:

1. Is "Interspecific" even a word? Methinks that it should be "Interspecies". Which btw, is a word.
2. Why do we need this? What can it tell us that we can't roll into the reproduction page?

As in... why such a sudden interest in all of this? -- Sulfur 16:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem awfully suspicious ("why such a sudden interest in all of this?")? I found the article Interspecies reproduction, and I wanted to fill in some new pages to provide a way to resolve some disputes ongoing in the discussion on that page. You know, trying to contribute. I agree that "interspecies" is better than "interspecific," but it wasn't my idea. I was just trying to be consistent with the pre-existing page, "Interspecies reproduction."

And remember: Memory Alpha:Be considerate to new members. I am still new at this, so cut me a break. I was just trying to help. --Icesyckel 17:02, 1 December 2007 (UTC).

Yah, when there's a sudden spate of activity on pages, one is always a bit curious. Secondly, it's nice to bring out the "be considerate card" a lot... just make sure that you've read the other policies and guidelines. -- Sulfur 17:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am still learning. As for the policies - I read the ones you showed me, and sorry if I offended you or anyone by breaking them. If there is another you'd like to refer me to (to explain, for instance, what an "edit summary" is), then I will read that too - but don't expect me to have them memorized yet. I am not playing a "card" of any kind: I just signed up yesterday and have never done anything with wiki before then either. Sorry. --Icesyckel 17:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, to begin, the talk page guideline is to indent all of your responses to the same level. So, if you start a conversation, you always indent... well, not at all.  :)

The edit summary is that bit down at the bottom right above the "save" and "preview" buttons. It's recommended that you fill it out every edit. That suggests to other people what you're doing on the page, and when you check the history of a page (button at the top right beside the "edit this page"), you will see those edit summaries. The other place they show up is on the recent changes page.

Most of the policies and guidelines that you need to know about can either be picked up by "lurking" about and visiting various talk pages, seeing what kinds of edits admins tend to make, and that kind of thing. They are also pretty much all linked from the welcome that you received on your talk page. -- Sulfur 17:44, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

So I shouldn't indent here if I understand correctly, because I am the one who started? Thanks for the advice btw, and sorry if we got off on the wrong foot. Truce? Oh, and based ont he policies, shouldn't we delete this whole conversation? Technically, we're not so much discussing anything about the article. Last remark: should this be labelled a stub? --Icesyckel 17:53, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge?[]

I'm wondering if this article should be merged with sex, as the races or species of the parties involved does not change the fact that it is still sex. I realize that currently the Sex article is simply a list, but this could be expanded into an article about it, starting with this article. --31dot 18:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea, but I started this page from a discussion on the interspecies reproduction page about a month ago. In doing so, it ceased some kind of argument about whether the info on this page belonged there. I don't mind, personally, if we merge, but it would seem silly to do so until we determine whether it can be done without rehashing that same issue. Perhaps we could make this a different subject heading under sex? Then we could redo the links on the interspecies reproduction page. I wish I remembered now what the specifics were of the argument there, but I have to leave for a Christmas party soon. I'll look at it again and see what the dispute was that caused me to spawn this. It may be moot now for all I know. --Icesyckel 22:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I looked, and the dispute was about including info on interracial reproduction into a page entiteled "interspecific reproduction," which was later changed to the current page "interspecies reproduction." Also, interspecies sex was created to differentiate between examples of interracial sex in canon versus interracial reproduction. What the value of the information is I cannot say, but I started the interracial reproduction page and the interspecies sex page to separate items that people said did not belong in the interspecies reproduction page. As for reorganization, I am not opposed to it at all. It does seem that these could all be separate subjects on the "sex" and "reproduction" pages. --Icesyckel 02:44, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merge, sex is sex. Kennelly 15:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

SEX...I mean, support. Sounds like good grounds for a merge. - Adm. Enzo Aquarius...I'm listening 15:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait... why can't this just redirect to interspecies reproduction? --From Andoria with Love 06:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Anybody? --From Andoria with Love 03:31, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Shran's idea is better. Merge (read, redirect) into interspecies reproduction.– Cleanse 07:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

So is this, or is this not just the same thing as biological reproduction? Seems silly to have two pages on the same topic, when they both mean to reproduce (therefore getting rid of the disambig page in the process). --Alan 21:31, 30 January 2009 (UTC)