This article is part of WikiProject Animal anatomy, an attempt to organise a detailed guide to all topics related to
animal anatomy apart from
human anatomy. To participate, you can edit the attached article, or contribute further at
WikiProject Animal anatomy. This project is an offshoot of WikiProject AnimalsAnimal anatomyWikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomyTemplate:WikiProject Animal anatomyAnimal anatomy articles
Albinism is within the scope of WikiProject Animals, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to
animals and
zoology. For more information, visit the
project page.AnimalsWikipedia:WikiProject AnimalsTemplate:WikiProject Animalsanimal articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
The following is a closed discussion of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Unsure. I think
Albinism should be displaced from the placename. Human albinism is a subset of biological albinism. This page would go better at the basename, and could use more prominent mention of humans. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk)
07:06, 25 June 2018 (UTC)reply
What SmokeyJoe said. While I could support the proposed move as an improvement, I think that the reverse treatment
Albinism (this page) >
Albinism in humans would be much more natural. We are a human-centric encyclopedia, but I don't think that human albinism should necessarily take over the primary role over the broader concept (contrast
Talk:Swimming#Requested_move_24_October_2017). That would require another RM, though.
No such user (
talk)
14:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)reply
We already had this discussion a long time ago. This article used to be at
Albinism, and there was a consensus to move
Albinism in humans to that undisambiguated title, per the general principle that all our bio-medical articles focus on humans first and foremost. I don't strongly agree with that idea, but it has been consistently applied site-wide, so changing it would a very steep uphill climb, and it should be a big RfC not an
WP:CONSISTENCY-breaking quabble on an article-by-article basis. See also all the activity-related articles:
Swimming vs.
Aquatic locomotion to which
Animal swimming redirects;
Swimming focuses entirely on humans. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 18:29, 1 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I mentioned
Swimming (as a counterexample) because I was the one who proposed the move of the human-centered article to the base title. Maybe I'm being subjective, but when I hear "swimming" I imagine people swimming; however, when I hear "albino" my first association is not a human, but rather a cat or like. For swimming topic, we have
aquatic locomotion as an elegant workaround for an "other species" article, but for albinism, choices are just awkward. Barring the swap, I'd rather go with a
WP:NDESC title such as
Albinism in animals; (plants make up only a tiny section in the article and I'm not sure if such discoloration is really referred to as "albinism"). I'm not sure where are the other articles titled "Foo (biology)" you mentioned in the nom. We have
cell (biology) and
class (biology) because those are field-specific uses of words with broad meaning. However, there isn't symmetry here –
human albinism is just a subset of this albinism, it's not really ambiguous with anything else. Also, was there a formal debate about the general principle that all our bio-medical articles focus on humans first and foremost; while I broadly concur with that principle, I more perceive it as a guideline that should be applied on case-by-case basis (and for this topic, I think it does not fit well).
No such user (
talk)
09:27, 3 July 2018 (UTC)reply
I do, too, but now this opens up moving
Albinism back to
Albinism in humans (or
Albinism (human), but we should favor natural disambiguation), yet without
Albinism being nominated for a move this time. We might have to re-RM this. PS: The original split-and-rename discussion (2007) is at
Talk:Albinism/Archive 1#Albinism in humans and animals. The split was someone's unilateral decision, then reverted and discussed, then re-discussed (thread below that) and split again. There wasn't an RM, but it was before we were doing those very much. I was heavily involved in the article at the time, because it was quite poor back then, and a constant vandalism target before semi-protection was implemented. Most of the content at both pages has developed since the split, and a merger would produce a too-large article now. So this really is a
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC matter. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 05:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)reply
Support and also move the article at albanism to
albinism (human) and redirect the
base namealbanism to
albino (disambiguation), which would then need expansion to cover the two articles on albanism of course. Disclaimer: I'm actively developing a proposal to deprecate Primary Topic and this is another good reason to do so! The history of albanism (human) already makes interesting reading, see it while it lasts.
Andrewa (
talk)
03:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Isn't this incorrect? I thought albinism concerned only melanin, which is just one of multiple pigment groups. Isn't that why some albino animals are yellowish in color?
RagingR2 (
talk)
09:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)reply
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
The open definition says the conditions relates to lack of melanin. Later definition section says that’s a bad definition. This section has other problems the “clear” definition isn’t cited. Also that section seems to draw an original conclusion rather than show a consensus from relevant experts in the field. This creates problems later when saying reptiles aren’t albino. If the definition refers only to melanin then the presence of other pigments isn’t relevant.
VeiledCham (
talk)
17:30, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply