View source for Talk:Face

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProject Anatomy |importance=Top |field=gross}}
{{WikiProject Anthropology}}
}}
{{archives
 |auto= short
}}



==Faces Are Not Ventral==
The opening paragraph says that animals that have a face typically have it on the ventral side of the head, but that should read rostral or anterior, not ventral, no? Even though our (human) face is on the same side of our bodies as our tummies, we are weird because we're bipedal and our neuraxis bends after the spinal cord. The ventral surface of our head is the soft stuff under the chin. If quadrapeds had ventral faces, they would have a hard time looking ahead of them.

Sharks, snakes, horses, etc even have eyes on the dorsal surface of their head. (not exhaustive... those were just the ones i could come up with off the top of my head. nyuk nyuk)

OK, I've made my point. I am not a biologist and I'm sleepy so maybe I'm making a dumb error. Someone please verify and correct the entry?  [[User:Laurosaur|Laurosaur]] ([[User talk:Laurosaur|talk]]) 19:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

:Yes, your "point" indicated that you needed a nap :) Ventral is the normal counterpart to dorsal, it's qualified which allows for exceptions, and the elements you note are not the entire complex. In fact concentration of the entire complex in such a fashion would be a monster of the concept. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 12:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

::For another example of the dichotomy in a related area of biology/physiology see [[Two Streams hypothesis]]. [[Special:Contributions/72.228.177.92|72.228.177.92]] ([[User talk:72.228.177.92|talk]]) 14:07, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

To bring back old discussion, faces are not really ventral. What {{U|Laurosaur}} says is correct, see [[Neuraxis]], on the other hand it is a very common misconception. I'm not really sure what the article should state. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

:::Pretty sure my original text said "normally" are on the ventral surface. What's there now is just a tribute to the broken unity of consciousness. Won't fix. [[User:Lycurgus|Lycurgus]] ([[User talk:Lycurgus|talk]]) 12:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

== Requested permanent protection ==

Would like to inform any editors that I have requested permanent page protection from unregistered users due to the very persistent amount of IP-vandalism on this article. [[User:CFCF|CFCF]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]]) 23:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Evolution history  <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/119.160.119.4|119.160.119.4]] ([[User talk:119.160.119.4|talk]]) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Image choice ==
I've reverted back to the Mona lisa, per [[WP:BRD]]. It's the only female face in the article, including the numerous anatomical specimens. See [[WP:BIAS]]--[[User:LT910001|LT910001]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 01:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:I've replaced this with another Leonardo painting, as a work as famous as the Mona Lisa seems unnecessarily distracting, and the article has nothing to say about the Mona Lisa in particular.
:I added [[:File:Man turning to look at camera.jpg]] in April, which was the best CC-licenced photo I could find with a quick search, but it was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Face&diff=612750530&oldid=612713316 cut a little while ago] as ''"Poor example of a face, should find better photo if we are to add one"''. It's not ideal, but it's a high-resolution image and was the only human photograph in an article that's otherwise illustrated with paintings, sketches and rocks. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
::While I feel Mona Lisa is an excellent example of a very famous face that is not why I reverted the last image. The one you added was unfortunately looking quite poor on my monitors. I'll take a look for some other images. A start may be [https://www.google.se/search?q=site:plosone.org+face&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pO2aU_71N6fMygOhy4LYBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1264&bih=1287] or [https://www.google.se/search?q=site:plosone.org+face&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=pO2aU_71N6fMygOhy4LYBw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1264&bih=1287#q=face&tbm=isch&tbs=sur:fmc]. Especially the composites are interesting as they have a connection to beauty and facial symmetry which we mention, but do not source or elaborate on. -- [[User:CFCF|<span style="color:#014225">'''CFCF'''</span>]] ([[User talk:CFCF|talk]] · [[Special:Contributions/CFCF|contribs]] · [[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|email]]) 12:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
:::No worries. I actually reverted the original editor. My concerns weren't so much about the need to have a classical image, but about removing the one female face in the article. Thanks for your well thought-out responses.--[[User:LT910001|LT910001]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 06:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Two years later the article was still missing a photo of a human face (the Mona Lisa seems to have gone since), so I've [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Face&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=753300554&oldid=748822351 added one]. --[[User:McGeddon|McGeddon]] ([[User talk:McGeddon|talk]]) 10:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

== All about human face ==

This article is really about the ''human face'', with absolutely zero about faces in other animals, the evolution of the face, etc. The article should be expanded. --[[User:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkgreen;">Nick</span>]][[User talk:NickPenguin|<span style="color:darkblue;">Penguin</span>]]<sub>([[Special:Contributions/NickPenguin|<span style="color:blue;">'''contribs'''</span>]])</sub> 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
::Sadly this encyclopedia is shamefully biased towards humans. If you lok at the Human Body template, some topics have articles for both human-specific body parts and animal body parts (like [[human nose]] and [[nose]]) but in general the article is either all about humans or relegates animals to an "Other animals" section at the bottom (like [[ear]]). This could all be attacks in one fell swoop. Thoughts?--[[User:Coin945|Coin945]] ([[User talk:Coin945|talk]]) 04:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
:::It isn't so much the encyclopaedia that is biased, as much as the world is. We live in an anthropocentric society, and as much as we wish dogs could talk, read, and edit Wikipedia - we have to concede that most writers and readers will be looking for information about the human face. Therefore it is not only right, but just that the article covers the human face primarily. The fact that there is no Other animals section is down to no one creating one - see [[WP:MEDMOS]] for a guide of what constitutes an anatomical article. -- [[User:CFCF|<span style="background:#014225;color:#FFFDD0;padding:0 4px;font-family: Copperplate Gothic Bold">CFCF</span>]] [[User talk:CFCF|🍌]] ([[Special:EmailUser/CFCF|email]]) 06:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Could it be that "face" is not a physical thing at all?   I first saw this article on 6 May 2015, when all the images are skinless (except for the caricatures).  So my first impression was that the article is hostile toward the human person, the self, the striving for unity, the conflict between impulses and goals....
[[User:Sbioggio|Sbioggio]] ([[User talk:Sbioggio|talk]]) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
:@{{u|Sbioggio}} Wikipedia is an article anyone can edit, I agree with you that the article is severely lacking in its coverage of the social and cultural and historical interpretation of the face. Perhaps you could add something on this to the article? --[[User:LT910001|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 02:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

==Why is there two sections called "Function"?==
Why is there two sections called "Function"? <u>[[WP:PING|Ping]] me.</u> —[[User:DangerousJXD|DangerousJXD]] ([[User talk:DangerousJXD|talk]]) 09:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
:@{{u|DangerousJXD}} -- Nop, just one when I check ;)  --[[User:LT910001|Tom (LT)]] ([[User talk:LT910001|talk]]) 12:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

== [[:File:Sobo 1909 260.png]] to appear as POTD soon ==
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that [[:File:Sobo 1909 260.png]] will be appearing as [[Wikipedia:picture of the day|picture of the day]] on October 14, 2015. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at [[Template:POTD/2015-10-14]]. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the [[Main Page]]. Thanks!&nbsp;—&nbsp;[[User:Crisco 1492|Chris Woodrich]] ([[User talk:Crisco 1492|talk]]) 09:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
{{POTD/2015-10-14}}

== Reduce or change article lock status ==
Lock till 2021 is a stretch, it would be more beneficial if the status is changed to Pending-changes protection level 1. Adding content from the following link could also be helpful in some sorts. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2795014/scientists-identified-nine-distinct-face-shapes-five-new-groups-traditional-oval-round-heart-square.html If there is any content from [[plastic surgery]] related texts on how to identify shapes could be added along with it, it would be insightful.[[Special:Contributions/59.88.209.51|59.88.209.51]] ([[User talk:59.88.209.51|talk]]) 12:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on [[Face]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=802617590 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071129195258/http://www.face-and-emotion.com/dataface/anatomy/anatomy.jsp to http://www.face-and-emotion.com/dataface/anatomy/anatomy.jsp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110903094920/http://www.affective-sciences.org/MERT to http://www.affective-sciences.org/MERT
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826140342/http://www.edu.dudley.gov.uk/art/specproj/caricatures/menu.htm to http://www.edu.dudley.gov.uk/art/specproj/caricatures/menu.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 10:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

== Problem in problematic "Religion" section ==

In the section "Religion" I found:

:In Islamic jurisprudence, the hands and the face are an exception while the rest of the female body is considered awrah.

An exception to what?  And why should I bother to follow the link to "awrah"?  Why can't it be explained here?

And why just one cryptic sentence in the whole section?  A section without any substantial survey of the role of the face in several religions is useless. 

A useless section that contains a cryptic sentence does not deserve to exist; I have therefore consigned it to limbo.  [[User:Wordwright|Wordwright]] ([[User talk:Wordwright|talk]]) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

== Problem in the introduction of the article ==

the introduction is misleading:

1. most animals do not express any emotion with their face (f.i. insects, turtles)

2. this body region has an overwhelming meaning for human communication (and for apes and monkeys, wolves  and other mammals)

3. the face also a has tactile and other sensory functions (abilities), not ony the three major sences

4. one rarely takls about the "face of an insect". maybe the whole article and also the introduction should be centered around the human face (as was already suggested), although there are subhumann precursors of this region so central for social communication. they can be mentioned in a section of the article.[[User:Mr. bobby|Mr. bobby]] ([[User talk:Mr. bobby|talk]]) 08:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

:I was thinking something similar, that face is not the front of the head exactly but the surface of the front of the head. The distinction is a bit tedious and the language as written is not bad. In one definition, face is the front of the head including the muscles for moving the skin as an anatomical object, in another its the visible surface of the front of the head as an abstract quantity. -[[User:Inowen|Inowen]] ([[User talk:Inowen|nlfte]]) 21:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)


== Facial features are shaped like a T ==

The eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth were all shaped like a T.
Anybody else noticed this?  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/173.71.180.162|173.71.180.162]] ([[User talk:173.71.180.162#top|talk]]) 18:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

==Template ==
{{tl|human face}}
Please edit. -[[User:Inowen|Inowen]] ([[User talk:Inowen|nlfte]]) 22:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

==Edit request==
{{editsemiprotected|answered=yes}}
Please handle the incoming redirect [[human face]]

{{redirect|Human face|the 2001 BBC television miniseries|The Human Face}}
{{tlx|redirect|Human face|the 2001 BBC television miniseries|The Human Face}}

-- [[Special:Contributions/67.70.33.184|67.70.33.184]] ([[User talk:67.70.33.184|talk]]) 12:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
: [[File:Yes check.svg|20px|link=|alt=]] '''Done'''<!-- Template:ESp --> Thanks! [[User:Majavah|Majavah]] <sup>([[User talk:Majavah|t]]/[[Special:Contribs/Majavah|c]])</sup> 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

== External link ==

Will Wikipedia accept the following link: [https://humananatomyonline.in/2022/01/11/face/ Face]? [[User:תיל&#34;ם|תיל&#34;ם]] ([[User talk:תיל&#34;ם|talk]]) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

== Way too anthropocentric article ==

This article is way too anthropocentric (anthropocentrism is a worldview that humans are the only things that matter and animals are cannon fodder). There is literally no mention of other animals aside from the lead section. What about other animals' facial structures? They have them too! So why is there no section for animals? If this is just gonna be a human only page just rename this page to "human face" then. As an animal rights activist, its painful.

Regards, 
Your local animal rights activist. [[Special:Contributions/2001:FB1:96:5B03:D036:ED49:3F19:DC50|2001:FB1:96:5B03:D036:ED49:3F19:DC50]] ([[User talk:2001:FB1:96:5B03:D036:ED49:3F19:DC50|talk]]) 12:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)