Talk:Double circulatory system
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • Circulatory system Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:Circulatory system |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 20 August 2015. The result of the discussion was redirect to circulatory system. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
.PNG)
I
[edit]I don't understand this sentence:
"The average heart pumps about 5,040 ml of blood per minute and an average adult has about 5 liters of total blood volume, so the heart is exchanging blood volume at a rate of about ten times per second."
--Jesse
Me either. From what it said it would seem more accurate to say "The human heart pumps the equivalent of the complete blood content of the human body in one minute"? Or am I misreading it? Either way I think it needs more explanation to avoid confusion.
TristanJ 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
The article says "vary by a factor of ten, from 1.2 m/s in the aorta to approximately 1.1 cm/s in the capillaries" - but that's a factor of 100, not ten!
Mperrin 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be reversed? The aorta has a wider cross section and thus the fluid will pump slower under the same pressure than the capillaries, which are narrower and more constricted?
TristanJ 16:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
It's faster in the aorta. remember that there are millions of capillaries, and only one aorta. 24.92.254.17 (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)anon
Sorry, but i do not see how valves is linked to double circulation. Please compare with single circulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.89.33.78 (talk) 14:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Possible deletion of article
[edit]Nobody found any references for this article since it got tagged as unreferenced in 2009. I know that sources for the information in it probably exist but I don't think anyone is going to cite them any time soon. I'm not sure an article that's going to stay unreferenced on and on belongs in Wikipedia and so might be worthy of nominating for deletion. I search "double circulatory system" in Google Books and found some that mention the double circulatory system but it's a lot of work to hunt down which part of which book search result each piece of information in the article is in. Maybe this article needs attention from an expert in the subject who can easily find sources for the information in this article. Maybe this article even needs to be rewritten if that expert can find sources for some of the information in this article but not for other information in it. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Blackbombchu when reading this article I agree with you - it makes very little sense and very very little references to what a "double circulatory system" actually is. I've redirected it to Circulatory system#Other animals where users can get some comparative information. I'm really unsure as to whether this article is talking about the two circulatory systems that supply the liver and lung, or the double circulatory system in animals, so I think it's better that this stays a redirect. What do you think about this? --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- @LT910001: Since you just went ahead and redirected it without moving any of its information to Circulatory system instead of adding {{Merge_to}} to the top, I'm no longer very sure that it isn't worthy of deletion entirely. Maybe it's worth unredirecting it and nominating it for deletion in case the consensus ends up being to keep the article instead of redirecting it. Can I just go ahead and be bold and nominate it for deletion, or if an experienced editor is super sure it's worthy of deletion, they can tag it for proposed deletion. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Sorry I should clarify. What information is worth saving form this article (very little) is duplicated in the circulatory article and I've redirected it to the appropriate section there. This seems to be the outcome you feel is best, too (ie deletion of the article's content) with a redirect to send interested readers to another relevant article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- If however something is still niggling at you and you wish to fully pursue the more bureauractic pathway, I am happy for you to revert (1) my edit (2) propose article for deletion with intent to redirect (3) contact relevant wikiprojects (4) await result of discussion (5) await admin to create redirect. It may be worth doing this as Wikiproject animal anatomy WP:ANAN may have something to add, however in my experience most of these processes result in users who are really not familiar with subject matter reiterating ideological viewpoints about the process with not benefit to the actual article. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm going to go straight into nominating for deletion because I believe I'm only supposed to propose an article for deletion if I'm so sure it's worthy of deletion that I think it should be deleted without discussion. Blackbombchu (talk) 14:45, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- If however something is still niggling at you and you wish to fully pursue the more bureauractic pathway, I am happy for you to revert (1) my edit (2) propose article for deletion with intent to redirect (3) contact relevant wikiprojects (4) await result of discussion (5) await admin to create redirect. It may be worth doing this as Wikiproject animal anatomy WP:ANAN may have something to add, however in my experience most of these processes result in users who are really not familiar with subject matter reiterating ideological viewpoints about the process with not benefit to the actual article. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Sure. Sorry I should clarify. What information is worth saving form this article (very little) is duplicated in the circulatory article and I've redirected it to the appropriate section there. This seems to be the outcome you feel is best, too (ie deletion of the article's content) with a redirect to send interested readers to another relevant article.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:52, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- @LT910001: Since you just went ahead and redirected it without moving any of its information to Circulatory system instead of adding {{Merge_to}} to the top, I'm no longer very sure that it isn't worthy of deletion entirely. Maybe it's worth unredirecting it and nominating it for deletion in case the consensus ends up being to keep the article instead of redirecting it. Can I just go ahead and be bold and nominate it for deletion, or if an experienced editor is super sure it's worthy of deletion, they can tag it for proposed deletion. Blackbombchu (talk) 00:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Third type of circulatory system
[edit]I found the image https://universe-review.ca/I10-82-circulatory.jpg which appears in https://universe-review.ca/R10-33-anatomy09.htm which shows that there is a third type of circulatory system, amphibian circulatory system that is not the single circulatory system or the double circulatory system. This article is lacking an explanation of what the single circulatory system is. The article said "Most animals living above the water require a double circulatory system to allow the added benefit of direct oxygenation from a developed pulmonary circuit." which I misunderstood as "The single circulatory system provided half oxygenated blood to the cells." That's only true of the amphibian circulatory system which I thought was called the single circulatory system, not the single circulatory system where blood goes from the gills to the capillaries without first going through the heart and only goes through the heart on the way back. In fact, I thought the single circulatory system didn't even exist. We need to find an expert to review this talk page section and edit the article based on it. Blackbombchu (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
