Talk:Human: Difference between revisions
Cybercobra (talk | contribs) →Human oestrus and lack thereof: WP:NOTFORUM; moving to Reference Desk |
No edit summary |
||
Line 101: | Line 101: | ||
::Any photographic image is going to have some issue, but the use of a photographic image is superior to the use of a non-photographic image, so I would tend to oppose changing to one just to avoid bickering over ethnic features. If we do use a non-photographic image, though, the only really acceptable ones are the Pioneer image or the [[Vitruvian man]], and the latter has no female element. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
::Any photographic image is going to have some issue, but the use of a photographic image is superior to the use of a non-photographic image, so I would tend to oppose changing to one just to avoid bickering over ethnic features. If we do use a non-photographic image, though, the only really acceptable ones are the Pioneer image or the [[Vitruvian man]], and the latter has no female element. <span style="white-space:nowrap">— [[User:Gavia immer|Gavia immer]] ([[User talk:Gavia immer|talk]])</span> 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
:::I think maybe a gallery would be in place here, after all the human condition is pretty hard to capture in one photo. Something like what is in the infobox in articles like [[French people]].[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
:::I think maybe a gallery would be in place here, after all the human condition is pretty hard to capture in one photo. Something like what is in the infobox in articles like [[French people]].[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::::I agree, the human population is too diverse to be summed up in one image.[[User:play10000]] 21:26, 17 october 2010 (UTC) |
|||
:The lead image should be a photograph, which shows what humans actually look like, instead of a line drawing like the Pioneer image. I don't see why we would need a gallery: we do very well with a single lead image for the [[horse]] and [[dog]], which are much more variable in appearance than humans are. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
:The lead image should be a photograph, which shows what humans actually look like, instead of a line drawing like the Pioneer image. I don't see why we would need a gallery: we do very well with a single lead image for the [[horse]] and [[dog]], which are much more variable in appearance than humans are. [[User talk:Ucucha|Ucucha]] 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
||
::I am not convinced that the best frame of comparison for this article is zoology articles although it does seem to be built on that concept.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
::I am not convinced that the best frame of comparison for this article is zoology articles although it does seem to be built on that concept.[[User:Maunus|·Maunus·<span class="Unicode">ƛ</span>·]] 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:27, 17 October 2010
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Human is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Template:WP1.0 Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Human article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
Lead image
There seems to have been an attempt to change the lead image without consensus. There is a long standing agreement based on a very long period of discussion to have the Akha image in the lead. If you want to change it, please discuss the reasons here first. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
- With all due respect, Martin Hogbin, could you please provide a link to the Section of Archived Discussion to which you refer? The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- To interject: Most recent RFC, Most recent discussion --Cybercobra (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cybercobra! I personally don't care one way or another what lead image we use, but I figured whoever still wants to change it should at least have a quick link like that to the correct Archives. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I just missed it, but what was the reason for the specific limitation to just one variety of human? If we take a look at dogs, for example, we see a small selection of the different varieties. I'm sure there exists, or could be made, an image that could show a number of different human... I really don't want to say "breeds", and "race" is something of a social construct but I think you get the point. It would be more representative of the species to show a man and/or woman of each of, for example, East Asian, Caucasian, African, and Middle Eastern decent.Embolalia (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Click on "Most recent RFC" and "Most recent discussion". In my opinion, it's not a bad choice - shows both genders, whole bodies, in context with a background, clothing and possessions. Though an image like this one shows many phenotypes, you would never be able to show whole bodies with anything approaching the detail of the current image. But if you are really sure the image should be changed, you should review previous discussion first. In the meantime, I've added the mugshot image to the race section. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Perhaps I just missed it, but what was the reason for the specific limitation to just one variety of human? If we take a look at dogs, for example, we see a small selection of the different varieties. I'm sure there exists, or could be made, an image that could show a number of different human... I really don't want to say "breeds", and "race" is something of a social construct but I think you get the point. It would be more representative of the species to show a man and/or woman of each of, for example, East Asian, Caucasian, African, and Middle Eastern decent.Embolalia (talk) 01:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you, Cybercobra! I personally don't care one way or another what lead image we use, but I figured whoever still wants to change it should at least have a quick link like that to the correct Archives. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 05:01, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
- To interject: Most recent RFC, Most recent discussion --Cybercobra (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
The image is just about perfect because it shows average humans.
- Most people aren't particularly dark or light skinned, but a sort of brown.
- Most people are from Asia, and most of those from east Asia.
- Most people throughout history have been farmers. I don't know if that's true anymore. Maybe a new image should show a pair of factory workers.
- People are basically divided into two types: Men and Women. Very few exceptions to this.
- Most people are pretty poor, but not shockingly poor.
- ?
Agree that the Akha image is very suitable for all the (unsigned) reasons above! I think even if people want to rotate the image to have a different view of humanity every week, that would be fine by me, though a bit silly since the Akha does the job so well. But please never again use a stylized image in which the woman has no vagina. Unbelievably prudish and inaccurate.222.94.40.22 (talk) 06:10, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Listen. The man is not happy - whatsoever. She puts on a good face for the camera despite their terrible poverty. And no, mugshots are not acceptable images. Of all pages, let's try and get this one right 'people'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.151.125.253 (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
- The fact that the man seems to be worried and the woman amused are further evidence that these people are representative of the species. People tend to be serious and worried a significant amount of time, and then happy and content a significant amount of time as well. Also, that amount of poverty is pretty average for humans. It seems terrible to you, but there's been no drought or flood and their sacks seem full, so they're good for now, but as peasant farmers know, you never know. Chrisrus (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
Tangentially, it would be nice if we could somehow use the Face of Tomorrow images (archived site link). (see also a gallery in secondlife). Just a tangent, for your interest. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
I think the lead image should be agnostic if I can say so. The picture taken from the Pioneer plaque representing a human couple, used on many pages in other languages, is way more suitable to represent all Humans. Indeed it was made to represent humans to "someone" that has never seen one. About the five reasons why the actual image would be right only the fourth one is agreeable. To make an average of human skin colors is pointless. The fact many people is from east is not a good reason. The article is about "Human", not "Far east Human" or "East Human" or "West Human". Again the article is about "Human", not "Human Farmer". Poverty is a condition, not a characteristic. If it was a characteristic, that means there isn't any remote hope for poors to get out of there (maybe is really so but this isn't an article about poverty). Lucaseverini (talk) 18:53, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Pioneer image is also good. Chrisrus (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Any photographic image is going to have some issue, but the use of a photographic image is superior to the use of a non-photographic image, so I would tend to oppose changing to one just to avoid bickering over ethnic features. If we do use a non-photographic image, though, the only really acceptable ones are the Pioneer image or the Vitruvian man, and the latter has no female element. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I think maybe a gallery would be in place here, after all the human condition is pretty hard to capture in one photo. Something like what is in the infobox in articles like French people.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I agree, the human population is too diverse to be summed up in one image.User:play10000 21:26, 17 october 2010 (UTC)
- I think maybe a gallery would be in place here, after all the human condition is pretty hard to capture in one photo. Something like what is in the infobox in articles like French people.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- Any photographic image is going to have some issue, but the use of a photographic image is superior to the use of a non-photographic image, so I would tend to oppose changing to one just to avoid bickering over ethnic features. If we do use a non-photographic image, though, the only really acceptable ones are the Pioneer image or the Vitruvian man, and the latter has no female element. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- The lead image should be a photograph, which shows what humans actually look like, instead of a line drawing like the Pioneer image. I don't see why we would need a gallery: we do very well with a single lead image for the horse and dog, which are much more variable in appearance than humans are. Ucucha 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that the best frame of comparison for this article is zoology articles although it does seem to be built on that concept.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- This should be a zoology article CybergothiChé (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well I allow myself to disagree with that statement.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- please feel free to CybergothiChé (talk) 10:27, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well I allow myself to disagree with that statement.·Maunus·ƛ· 11:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- This should be a zoology article CybergothiChé (talk) 09:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Dog is a good example. Despite drastic intra-species variation, still only 1 lead image is used. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
- I am not convinced that the best frame of comparison for this article is zoology articles although it does seem to be built on that concept.·Maunus·ƛ· 19:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Sociology outline
This is the current TOC/Outline, after putting "psychology" and its subordinates under "Sociology," - a more accurate description:
TOC
| ||
---|---|---|
[citation needed] At issue now is whether certain subsections under the "culture" section better fit under "sociology" - ie. "tool use," "gender roles," "race and ethnicity", "society..", "war" and "trade.." appear to be sociological topics more than they are strictly "culture" topics. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 04:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
PS:The current outline status is:
|
- Wikipedia former featured articles
- Old requests for peer review
- WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
- B-Class Primate articles
- Top-importance Primate articles
- WikiProject Primates articles
- B-Class taxonomic articles
- High-importance taxonomic articles
- WikiProject Tree of Life articles
- B-Class mammal articles
- High-importance mammal articles
- WikiProject Mammals articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Anthropology articles
- Top-importance Anthropology articles