Talk:Skeleton/Archive 1

Archive 1

Picture

Can we get a more professional picture, that is to say, an actual picture of an actual skeleton from somewhere? I don't see anything particularly impressive about this fake, watermarked "3D" one, and I'm positive I can find a picture of a skeleton that's public domain. Unless anyone has any strong objections, I'm going to change the picture in the next few days. --Detruncate 04:13, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the picture/diagram is wrong; it has the hand and foot bones labelled as "carpals" instead of carpals and tarsals respectively. --D-Gen

• • changed it already-LadyofHats 16:43, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to let me know what you would like on an image and I'll see what I can come up with. Our images are renders of 3d models developed from human MRI and CT data. I apologize for having errors on the last image. 3dscience 20:05, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but this article is a serious diappointment you would expect a full detailed article with actual pictures. This is a disgrace to wikipedia. The article Bone is very poor too -how can wikipedia expect to be taken seriously with articles like these? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^{"Expecting you" "S.P.E.C.T.R.E"} 20:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

In my browser, the skeleton image is HUGE, even intruding into the sidebar beyond the article, which I have to scroll down to actually read. This is an SVG image; shouldn't it be made smaller for the article? B7T 18:11, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia can do better than this!

You people don't even have a redirection to bone or don't even mention that the bones in the skeletal system stores certain materials. —The preceding Jramirez23 comment was added by Jramirez23 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

True, this article -- like many/most -- could be improved, and you are more than welcome to do so. However, there is a link to bone in it. I don't think such a redirect would be appropriate. There is a template message that applies here:

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make those changes. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit almost any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in (although there are many reasons why you might want to). The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold in updating pages. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes — they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome.

Let me know if you have any questions. Cheers,Figma 16:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge?

Yea, I'm new..but to the point

I think a this should be merged with the human skeleton.

just a thought. normally noobs don't get a say. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Recent idiot (talk • contribs) 12:16, 13 April 2007 (UTC).

Merge? Certainly not. I came here looking for some information on the evolutionary development of the skeleton after looking at some tadpoles in my local pond. Rather disappointingly, I didn't find any and I would have been even more miffed if I'd discovered that the article had been merged with an even more restricted article. This one is, as it were, at once too skeletal and not skeletal enough (ouch! Sorry) but having no special knowledge I'm unable to contribute. Jigsawpuzzleman 08:38, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Not quite human...

This article sounds as if it were written by an alien. Read "Pop Culture"

They are celebrated by children and adults alike for their annual role in Halloween, a holiday in which humans try to frighten each other.

By the way, I feel that the Pop Culture section is completly irrelevant and just stupid. It's 2 in the morning so I'm going to bed. Goodbye, all. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ch33zer (talk • contribs) 05:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Sigh...

I see that it is the time of year where every 9th grade Biology student in the world is amazing their friends with the MAGIC OF EDITING WIKIPEDIA TO INSULT THEM. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.38.194 (talk) 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

what?

maybe this is a vandal, but sinuses are described as "air filled froth and dinosaur gunge".

someone revert —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.52.168 (talk) 14:37, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs a complete rewrite

This article is about the human skeleton, for which we already have an article. The article *should* be about skeletons and skeletal systems in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.105.23.109 (talk) 00:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree. Other articles such as: exoskeleton, endoskeleton, human skeleton cover a lot of this ground in a much better fashion and I've linked them from this article. This article is actually overly long and should give a brief description and then target to endo/exo/human skeletons. --Rajah (talk) 23:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What?

For an article of high importance such as this? I'm quite surprised to see no references or even external links! Look at how it ends! JTBX (talk) 18:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Someone added a bunch of juvenile gibberish to the top of the main article, anyone here adapt enough to fix it?

Archive 1

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Richardamoo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Animal Skeletons

while the image is nice not immediately obvious that clicking on different skeletons takes you to articles, and could do with something to make this more obvious —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firebladed (talk • contribs) 12:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

A skeleton is a part of human structure that help in movement Imeh solomon (talk) 14:15, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

when you are a baby you have 305 bones but when you get older you have around 206 bones because some of your bones join toghrther —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.212.132.70 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean up

Looking for suggestions on a clean up of this article. It seems to me there is too much detail on the human skeleton and skull which should be replaced by a general summary of animal skeletons. I suggest a merge of this info into the human skeleton/skull articles and addition of the following sections: Composition, Evolution, Endoskeletons, Exoskeletons and the Human Skeleton. Maybe something on common features of animal skeletons. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubathy (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are any objections I will begin making changes along these lines over the next few days —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cubathy (talk • contribs) 04:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Human skeleton

Think page would benefit from usual presentation of Human section followed by Other animals. This would still not be a very large page. Iztwoz (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit leery, since I feel it would contribute to a general anthropocentrism that plagues much of WP's articles on anatomy. HCA (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree - the proposed merge was intended for the human skeleton to be merged into skeleton in order to stop the focus being on the human skeleton. Iztwoz (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But then won't we have the problem of human domination not by name, but just by preponderance of content, like happens in other articles like Maxilla? HCA (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate on your logic please Iztwoz. Merges like this tend to swamp the general anatomy articles with human anatomy. How is your proposal achieving the opposite? Should the considerable material available on things like bird and fish skeletons also be merged into the article? At the moment the article seems somewhat unusual among the general anatomy articles in that there is a reasonable balance between the anatomy of the human species that has been around for a hundred thousand years and the anatomy of the sixty thousand documented vertebrate species have been around for up to 500 million years (not to mention over one million documented invertebrates that have been around even longer). --Epipelagic (talk) 20:59, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Am also wary of this merge. I think this article presents a fairly long conceptual overview of different types of skeleton, and that it would be a little confusing to merge the two articles. In this case, I think a separate article about the human skeleton, linked as it is here, is warranted. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But what is the justification for having a completely separate section on the Human skeleton in the article and also leaving the subsequent sections on bone and cartilage as follow-ons? I cannot see that there is such a great difference in detail between the human and other vertebrate (particularly mammal) skeletons. Also there is a lot of irrelevant material on the human skeleton page about bone and muscle and even blood production - the human skeleton ought in my mind to just refer to the dried up skeletal framework. Iztwoz (talk) 12:39, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn proposal - seems I was thinking in terms of a narrower context not appreciating the synonymous use with skeletal system. Iztwoz (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Biology

Teaching Imeh solomon (talk) 14:22, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

206 bones are in human body Imeh solomon (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)