Talk:Metazoa

Whoops; sorry about covering up the history link again by "fixing" that redirect. Here's a direct link: http://www.wikipedia.com/wiki/Metazoa&action=history Bryan Derksen

Thats OK. The article is a huge mess and needs to be integrated into about a half of a dozen other articles - especially animalia. Metazoa is the old terminology for the Animal Kingdom. Much of the info in the article is outdated. I really think that the addition of scientific articles from very old sources is next to useless -- many of the names have been changed and much of the information is out of date and in fact wrong. That doesn't forgive the person who simply deleted ALL the content in this article and then provided a REDIRECT. --maveric149

I apologize for that. I was hoping to sort out the article but for whatever reason couldn't get the history to work. In retrospect, of course, what I should have done is moved the content out first and then did the redirect. If I help stub the phyla now, will that make it up to you? --User:Josh Grosse

That's cool. Sorry I lost my temper - but if I didn't catch that we would have effectively lost the info contained in the Metazoa article. Right now I am spinning off articles from a bunch of the info that is in the metazoa article. --maveric149

Yep. I think almost everything that is of much use is covered now. I'll let you finish up with what you want to export, and then we can set it back to a redirect. -- JG

Actually it's a Subkingdom and should have it's own article. It's used extensively in the taxoboxes and one shouldn't confuse it with animalia because it's a subset. Williamb 09:53, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sometimes it's considered a subset, ranked variously from subkingdom to superphylum, but other times not. It's not a standard group, and while it may deserve its own article, the article should reflect that. It definitely shouldn't be used in taxoboxes; its unhelpful and simply makes them more system-dependent (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Tree of Life). Josh 07:41, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Removed redirect[edit]

Metazoa is a more complex term than a synonym of animal, and is scientifically quite distinct. i kan reed 00:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Synonym for Eumetazoa[edit]

According to most of the article, especially the taxobox, this is a synonym for what most articles refer to as Eumetazoa.--Crustaceanguy 00:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That appears to be true, but I'm not an expert. Does anyone know if a redirect is valid? i kan reed 18:01, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above poster is correct. I'm redirecting this to Animal. I'll post the information on this page on the talk page of Eumetazoa, to see if any of it can be used there. Werothegreat 17:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

uh... I'd like to point out that animal is a really poor redirect, because Metezoans do not include Sponges, or some Gniderians. The terms are hardly synonymous. i kan reed 19:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I probably confused you... What I meant is Metazoa is an outdated name for Animalia, and Eumetazoa is a subkingdom of Animalia which includes all animals except the sponges (phylum Porifera). In this article, however, everything is jumbled up and disordered, that is, the fact that Metazoa is a synonym for Animalia is correct, but the fact that it excludes sponges is not.--Crustaceanguy 23:44, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]