Talk:Human nose

edit warring
Edit waring and yelling in edit sumarries is not how content disputes are resolved. The parties involved are lucky not to be blocked already. I have protected the page to end the edit war, if this starts back up after protection expires blocks will be the result, so how about you discuss the matter here instead? Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Hindi Durgesh gouliya (talk) 15:01, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove Neoteny section?
Is the neoteny section substantive and relevant to the rest of the article? While the individual sentences are sourced, it seems to be making a strange argument about noses and attraction, which is illustrated by this particularly weird assertion: "Down syndrome, a neotenizing condition,[25] causes flattening of the nose.[26] However, it looks more youthful and attractive." Strongly suggest removing the whole section. Dzg 666 (talk) 08:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Anatomy of the human nose
Needless separation and would not make for a long article. Much could be removed from here as forked from rhinoplasy Iztwoz (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Preparation for GA review
Hi, well met! Saw this nominated and that it might need a bit of work in some sections eg anatomy, some citations etc. Seeing as you've nominated thought we could talk as we edit here? Just some initial thoughts:
 * I couldn't unfortunately find a better image of a nose on WikiCommons but it's a bit disappointing that lead image has such crummy quality (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Human_noses)
 * imo - A nose is a nose and everybody on earth knows what a nose looks like - so the image used is at least aesthetically pleasing. I did troll though the available images.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The neoteny section is unusually placed. Would you be supportive of merging it into the 'nose shape' section? I'm also weighing up whether that section should be moved to 'society and culture' or just as a separate section entirely, as it's mostly about people's opinions about appearance
 * Addit - frankly a wondering if this section and the picture should just be removed, unless significant notability can be demonstrated. I worry that some person's anthropological anatomical observations, which are not clearly notable enough to be included on this main article, are fairly broad and maybe even a little racist? I'm not sure just because they can be linked to this article they deserve to be here unless they are clearly notable. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:32, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Have moved a little of the info to Nose shapes and removed rest of section.--Iztwoz (talk) 16:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I will renovate some of the anatomy sections over the next few weeks (eg nerve supply, lymphatic drainage, blood supply)
 * I have made a bold edit to 'internal nose' section by removing the 'cavities', because really the internal nose is meant by laypeople as the nasal cavity
 * Have restated cavities - most sources seem to use cavities over fossae gave new ref.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I am not sure we should cover the development of the paranasal sinuses in as great detail, IMO that is slightly off topic
 * Disagree entirely that they are off topic - they are extensions of the nasal cavity, however shall have a look to see if it could be trimmed.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I have renamed 'olfaction' in function to 'smell' because I think that is what most people call this function
 * This could be a parenthesis? - cannot avoid speaking of olfactory epithelium, olfactory nerves and so on.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:55, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

As always looking forward to hearing from you +/- anyone else who is following the article! --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:17, 26 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello Tom - thanks for chipping in. I don't agree with some of the changes made though, and will comment on these. --Iztwoz (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, looking forward to hearing what your thoughts are. I'll help out however I can (just probably not quickly). --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Request
A rather basic request: is there a reason why a source from 1848 is being cited in the article? I would understand citing such dated morphology if the section were titled, say, "history of nose-morphology classification". But it isn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.5.110.4 (talk) 03:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The names are still in use. --Iztwoz (talk) 07:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)