Talk:Human body

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. File:Human body features.jpg. 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.

The relationship among the topic and the ones of radio frequency, microwave etc.....

• 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) 10:10, 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) 10:14, 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) 10:17, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

• 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) 10:21, 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) 10:25, 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

--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The topic of Cosmic life are based on the following.....

• 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) 10:47, 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

--222.67.209.227 (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

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)