Talk:Human body/Archive 1

Adoption as a Project
I've decided to adopt this article in an attempt to fully develop it, hopefully to good-article or feature-article status. Edits will be found at User:Strombollii/sandbox, until fully revised. Any advice or suggestions are more than welcome via this or that page. Thank you! --Strombollii (talk) 01:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi Strombollii - and congratulations on taking on this article, which really could do with some work. May I make a suggestion? Rather than editing your new version entirely in your sandbox, and then releasing it fully fledged, I would recommend tinkering with the existing article, and introducing your improvements here bit by bit (while also working on the full improved version in the sandbox). That way, (a) people who are watching the article will have time to get used to the changes, and the new version won't be as likely to be met with hostility; (b) you'll prompt other people to chip in with suggestions and improvements - and you can transfer these to the sandbox version as you proceed. Remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and you'll find that an article that is being visibly worked on will pull in collaborators - you won't like everything that others do to "your" article, but both the process and the end result will be improved by the collaboration. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 07:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you for the advice: really I'm just afraid of angering the "Wiki-gods" and publishing something unfinished, or in progress. However, when put that way, it sounds like a fantastic idea.  I doubt I'll get far without others helping.  THanks again! --Strombollii (talk) 15:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Everything is unfinished, permanently. Everything is always in progress. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 16:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The challenge here will be to determine your focus on such a broad topic. It's almost a subject that lends itself to a text book with many many chapters or its own encyclopedia; than a single Wikipedia entry. On the upside, there must be a billion references you can access! Good Luck. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimmyButler (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * In my search for FA Medicine topics (trying to find what an FA should look like), I came across Human_anatomy. Perhaps you should move your topic of choice to this pre-exsisting article or suggest merging the two because, from a quick glance, they seem to share a common focus. Sorry if this dismays you - I just saw it and didn't want you to get too far before having to merge/move. FoodPuma (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd rally vehemently against a merge: as discussed, there is a distinct difference between the two. --Strombollii (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Second & Fourth Paragraphs of Reproduction
There seem to be some missing words at the beginning of these paragraphs. They just start with 'pelvis' and make little sense. I tried looking back to see if I could find what they used to be, but to no avail. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.192.170 (talk) 17:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

how do women get yeast infection

Picture
I was just wondering if this is a better main picture for the article. . Jhenderson777 (talk) 21:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe not for if no other reason than the current picture is more detailed and accurate.It is also more athesteticly pleasing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.12.165.254 (talk) 21:24, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

The relationship among the topic and the ones of radio frequency, microwave etc.....
--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:10, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+radio+frequency+human+body&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+microwave+human+body&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=infrared+human+body&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en


 * The link between the two is far too weak. HumphreyW (talk) 10:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean....@___@ --222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:SEEALSO for an explanation of the purpose of the "See Also" section. Specifically, "A reasonable number of relevant links that would be in the body of a hypothetical perfect article are suitable to add to the "See also" appendix of a less developed one." A tangential connection between two areas of science is not sufficient, or else the entire body of scientific knowledge would qualify. I suspect you're having fun spamming the article, and request that you please stop and save us all some time. Cheers. Daqron (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=infrared+human+body&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:25, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+light+human+body&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_q=spectrum+human+body&num=10&btnG=Search+Scholar&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_occt=title&as_sauthors=&as_publication=&as_ylo=&as_yhi=&as_sdt=1.&as_sdtp=on&as_sdts=5&hl=en

The topic of Cosmic life are based on the following.....
--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+%22cosmic+life%22&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=allintitle%3A+cosmic+truth&btnG=Search&as_sdt=2000&as_ylo=&as_vis=0

How can we make this really cool?
Years ago, my mother sold a few World Book Encyclopedias, and her favorite article to demo was "Human Body," because it included transparencies so that you could peel back the skin and see the muscular system, peel back the muscles and see some internal organs, and so forth through a dozen or so sheets. Could we have a 3-D model of a body with switchable layers? Other ideas? I think there's an improvement to be made over the basic picture. It might require some technology change, but it could be an awesome showcase piece! -- ke4roh (talk) 02:41, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if you can view the human body in an interactive manner on WP, but you might find this article useful. Follow the link and instructions given in it. EngineerFromVega Discuss 09:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Why are they white?
Why are the people in the picture white? Surely if they are to be taken as representative of the species, they should be Chinese? Or Indian? Or African, including the diaspora? White people are one of the LEAST representative racial groups. 24.19.56.18 (talk) 18:50, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree, but I don't know of an alternative picture available. If you find one of equal quality, feel free to replace it. Mokele (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * better contrast maybe — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.178.130.133 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Redundancy
This article, as it is now, seems in large parts duplicate with Human physiology. --Neitram (talk) 08:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Replacement of image
I suggest that the image in the introduction should be replaced with a new one. Everyone is welcome to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy. Mikael Häggström (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Discussion is now archived at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_2. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that a change was made, but looking at the discussion you created, there was never any consensus for a change so I reverted it back to the prior image. The discussion has since been archived so it you want you may want to open up another discussion of this. BearMan998 (talk) 00:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh come on... The new image is clearly much better than the old one. Reverting in 24 hours. SNALWIBMA ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 12:02, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well.. ideally we should get an image of muscular people (not overly muscular... just not flat ab-ed) so we can (also) point out their various muscle groups... which is slightly difficult with people who dont have pronounced muscles..... For the record, i do think the new picture was better than the old one. The female is facing forward and standing straight so isn't obscuring some of her body parts for one.--Coin945 (talk) 12:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The second image is not really representative of an average person. The woman has very small breasts and is underweight while the man has very small genitals. At least the first image is more in line which makes it more favorable to use. TheLou75 (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

With the image on the right showing a near flat chested woman and a man with a very small penis, is it suppose to represent an exteme like two sexually underdeveloped people? -198.228.200.153 (talk) 06:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I also prefer the new image. I can't find it now, but I thought there was a more definitive discussion on this (not WT:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 2). The discussion I recall also had comments on the size of various bits—while the subjects would not feature in the porn flooding the Internet, is there any evidence of an abnormality? At any rate, the new image was added on 9 October 2011, and has been in the article since then—that is the definition of as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Johnuniq (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In terms of any evidence of abnormality, the image details do state the female model is underweight. As for consensus, the fact that this discussion is still going on indicates that there isn't consensus on this issue. Also, remember consensus can change at any time. TheLou75 (talk) 00:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I was addressing the above comment "there was never any consensus for a change". Johnuniq (talk) 00:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The previous image was also a target of complaints about anatomical imperfection, and I think there will always be users who keep commenting on particular body parts regardless of what image we choose to display. However, the main reasons to why the new image was created do not include anatomical perfection (in fact, the female in the new image is underweight), and I find it necessary to mention them again:
 * It has much higher resolution
 * The female model is directed towards the camera in standard anatomical position
 * There is data of the age, height and weight of the models
 * The defined height has also availed for scaling the models so that their relative sizes reflect what they are in reality.
 * They have the same lighting and color profile.
 * Images of the backside are available
 * There is a written informed consent from both models regarding its license, and that it was going to be displayed in Wikipedia.
 * Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Will you go ahead and restore the superior (though admittedly not perfect) image that has been there for almost a year, or will I? <b style="color:darkblue;">SNALWIBMA</b> ( <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">talk</b> - <b style="color:#2F4F4F;">contribs</b> ) 16:59, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Moving of image
Sorry about that. I should probably explain myself, shouldn't I. As part of the Today's article for improvement/Nominated articles drive, I nominated this page, as it has quite inadequate coverage for such an essential topic. The opposition was on the basis of having a graphic image brought to the direct attention of any and all editors who wished to work on the article, possibly causing distress/offense etc. We were discussing image blocker etc., but IO decided the easiest way was just to move the image down, so then one is not bombarded with the image unwillingly, and can click edit without having the image flash on their screen (e.g. if they are editing from work). Seemed like a good compromise.--Coin945 (talk) 14:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It will still be present. I would almost switch the image with a cover of something out of Grey's Anatomy to show the inner workings of the body at the top, rather than the nudity, but this is something that would require consensus. Most of the interesting stuff is on the inside, not the outside. A Muscle-skeletal with transparent skin overlay might be a good replacement then anatomy for this article. For the time being. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Chris I've said that for years. I think there is consensus for such a change and I support your proposal. Viriditas (talk) 06:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * This is an interesting proposal and after thinking about it, it would make more sense than any of the current images we have on this article. A nude body only shows VERY basic features and I would argue is of little value. Like you mentioned, most of the interesting stuff is on the inside. If you can upload or find a current image on commons or on Wikipedia showing the interior of the human body, we can have some discussion here. TheLou75 (talk) 00:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I support such a move too. I suggest any of the two images at right as examples that we may have at the top instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Mikael - I was thinking something of a graphical representation of a man and woman with the inner workings of the body visible. I have seen text book examples of this, but sadly those aren't free images and unfortunately graphic design is not one of my strong points. However, I did notice your gallery and you do display impressive skills in this arena. I found these two examples of yours which would almost be perfect in my opinion, this one and this one. The only drawback I see is that both images do not cover the lower body. Would you mind adding to these two images? TheLou75 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was able to expand the image at right a bit, as shown here at right. However, there is essentially no additional internal organ of interest in the legs that isn't already mentioned at top, but I could possibly move the "muscles" and "lymph node" labels to bottom. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Impressive work Mikael. The reason I suggested the lower body to be added was more just for the sake of having it so that it would represent the whole body. One more suggestion, can you add the reproductive organs into the image and include the same for a female version? This is looking like a very good replacement image. I absolutely love the level of detail in it. TheLou75 (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I found an image for the female reproductive organs to use for now, although it's rather schematic. I don't currently have an equivalent for the male version, however, so it may take a while. Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good, keep us updated on any progress. TheLou75 (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed merge
I have proposed a merge between Human anatomy, Human physiology, and this article, because:
 * The scope of 'human body' should logically encompass these two topics.
 * As it is, all three articles are short and of relatively poor quality.
 * Content is substantially duplicated between these three articles.
 * Having the content in one place would significantly improve the quality of content here.
 * The increased readership would likely result in improved quality over time.
 * These articles could be reexpanded at a later date.

--LT910001 (talk) 23:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Agreed - In the form the articles are in now, they would greatly benefit from this, and if they were to be split again it is much easier to see what content is available on Wikipedia so as not to duplicate everything like it is now. CFCF (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I have completed the merge between the article human anatomy and here. The content was already substantially duplicated here, but I have preserved the majority of text and images. The remainder of the article duplicates, but in a truncated form, the list provided at Outline of human anatomy, so I have provided a link in the see also section to that page. --LT910001 (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Can we get you to ask for help as the merger was not done properly - as per WP:MERGETEXT -- Moxy (talk) 16:05, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Contacting additional Wikiprojects
I have made an effort to lure editors from additional Wikiprojects to help out here in the sections where there is need for it. CFCF (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

System
How many system in body? A p sachaniya (talk) 14:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * @: Scroll down to Human_body and you might find out ;). --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

65% Oxygen
There is an image with a description of the human body as 65 percent Oxygen. Should it not say H20, not just Oxygen?--Mark v1.0 (talk) 21:15, 19 December 2014 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_body#mediaviewer/File:201_Elements_of_the_Human_Body-01.jpg


 * There's oxygen in a lot of solid stuff in the human body - carbohydrates, proteins, bone, etc. HCA (talk) 03:23, 20 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Do you know what H20 is? It is water. Two hydrogen molecules for every oxygen molecule. So by that logic most of the body is hydrogen.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 19:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)


 * There are two different was of looking at it. In one way 65 % is correct. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Two_pie_graphs_about_the_composition_of_the_human_body.png --Mark v1.0 (talk) 00:29, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Ask for semiprotection
This page has been destructively edited by some users especially IP users, and many of the edits are soon undone. <span style="font:110%/1.5 'segoe ui','open sans',arial,sans-serif;border:2px solid #6ad;overflow:hidden;border-radius:9em;display:inline-block;background:#6ad;vertical-align:-7px;margin:0 8px"> Sky 6t  15:04, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

"Studies in science"
I've boldly moved this section to "Society and culture". I am trying to separate this section, which relates to how the human body is studied and taught, from information about just the anatomy and physiology of the body. What are other editors thoughts about the location / wording, and this idea in general? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's probably a bold but wrong move. The section needs a bit on history, not a discourse on anatomy in general, so probably best to move it out - if indeed it's correctly placed in this article at all. This is not an article about anatomy as such, nor about medicine, so what's it for? Perhaps we should just cut it. However, the history of anatomical and figure drawing does need at least a brief paragraph, given that it's the most conspicuous thing about the subject, so we have to cover Vesalius, Da Vinci etc in the text as well as in the existing images. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I see you've put this under "Professional study". I think this is a good choice and separates the "Study of" from the sections about the anatomy + physiology. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Human anatomy article is missing
Remarkable. I've started a discussion at Anatomy which used to be all about human anatomy, but not unreasonably isn't; and the article here, human body, also quite rightly has a far wider scope. But Human anatomy, far from being the top of a tree of anatomy articles covering a sizeable chunk of Gray's Anatomy, is just a redirect! Extraordinary. "Something needs to be done." Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 4 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't find the reference for this but this followed a sent of discussions 1-2 years ago which (from memory) also involved . --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Our main thesis was that there is not really any difference between "Human body" and "Human anatomy" - what exactly is human anatomy, if not the study of the human body? So I think it's quite reasonable that "Human anatomy" redirects here. Oh, I see you've put this at another page. Moving discussion there... --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Major differences, see discussion. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * - Discussion is at Talk:Anatomy. -

Drastic revert
Tom (LT) and I have just put in a lot of careful work on restructuring and fully citing the article. It is therefore startling to encounter a total revert. I hope we can find some sensible compromise here, as the previous state was not satisfactory. I'm afraid I don't follow the logic (beyond that pictures are nice). Perhaps someone could lend a hand, I'm not sure I feel like coming back here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)


 * This is the revert. I must state that I view having both a Human body and Human anatomy article as unnecessary WP:Content forking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:57, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

List of systems
I think it's useful to have the list of systems on this page, although I find the current format and table pretty ugly. I'm scratching my head how else we can display this, however. Any ideas? Maybe a gallery of large images? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Both the overlarge multi-image (not going to work terribly well on mobile devices, each system reduced to a dot on postage stamp) and the table are rather unlovely: of the two, the table is not worse than the multi-image. But the table boundaries are unnecessary: all that is needed is a subsection for each system, with one image (either left or right, take your pick). The table gives an unwarranted air of officialdom without adding anything, and it takes up a lot of space. If we need two images per system (do we?) then they'd still be best attached to their section of text, not in a lump above it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks this looks much, much better now. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Hm, I've had quite a session. My first impression was that things weren't too bad, but everything I looked at turned out to be largely uncited, confused, disorganised and occasionally just plain wrong. I see that I have effectively restructured the whole article. It remains mainly uncited but at least it shows where we need to take the text – mainly in the direction of a complete set of refs.
 * The article looks much better now you've cut things up and trimmed them and jettisoned a lot of the unnecessary + uncited information. Am not too convinced about this "Composition" and "Anatomy" being separated - maybe will just move them under a single title. Same goes for "Physiology" and "Systems". That said the way you've structured it would be much more approachable from a lay reader IMO. Will have a think. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The body's elemental composition is certainly not "anatomy". The systems of the body are certainly both structural and functional, to varying degrees. Thus the circulatory system is anatomically arteries, veins, capillaries, and the heart; and physiologically, the autonomic system that delivers oxygen and nutrients, etc etc. Therefore, the sections are logically distinct, and would be a muddle if merged. Chiswick Chap (talk) 05:41, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
 * have continued editing. What do you think of this current structure? I feel the "Composition"/"Anatomy" difference is more obvious now. I've tried to organise "Composition" so that it gradually steps up - general, cells, tissues, organs, systems. What do you think? I'm sorry the actual wording is not that great at the moment, but if you like it I'll put some more effort into it & improve & cite it (most of it now falls under sky is blue territory though). --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:37, 8 September 2016 (UTC)