This template is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology 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.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine 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.
The result of the move request was: Moved to :template:Human reproductive physiologyMike Cline (talk) 13:56, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support indicates scope of the template so it will not collect horticultural or veterinary topics -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oppose; the topics on the template are not only about humans. And even if they were, there would be no need to rename unless there was valid reason why we should have a complementary template for non-human life. Flyer22 (talk) 06:16, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support and split unrelated topics. The current template is too large, and covers too many things. The majority of articles are human specific, but a few (such as Ovoviviparity) are more general. The two "index" sections at the bottom seem out of place as well, so those should be forked into standalone templates for use on those articles. — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. Makes sense and easier to maintain if "Human" is added. Better: Reproductive physiology of humans. Student7 (talk) 21:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Support. This is a sensible RM and the suggested title adequatley describes the content of the template. If there are non-human articles in the template, I would suggest splitting it into a more relevant template. Mbcap (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2015 (UTC)Reply[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.
