Talk:Face

Anatomy: Gross Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Anthropology

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anthropology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anthropology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnthropologyWikipedia:WikiProject AnthropologyTemplate:WikiProject AnthropologyAnthropology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Archives

1

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? Laurosaur (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

To bring back old discussion, faces are not really ventral. What 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. CFCF (talk) 23:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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. Lycurgus (talk) 12:40, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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. CFCF (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution history — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.160.119.4 (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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--LT910001 (talk) 01:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 [1] or [2]. 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. -- CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:27, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.--LT910001 (talk) 06:13, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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 added one. --McGeddon (talk) 10:13, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Nick Penguin_(contribs) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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?--Coin945 (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 06:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.... Sbioggio (talk) 03:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@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? --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:51, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why is there two sections called "Function"?

Why is there two sections called "Function"? Ping me. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@DangerousJXD -- Nop, just one when I check ;) --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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 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! — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:58, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

"The superficial layer of the facial muscles and the neighboring muscles of the neck seen from the side and slightly from in front."
This illustration was published in the 1909 edition of Johannes Sobotta's Sobotta's Atlas and Text-book of Human Anatomy.Illustrations: K. Hajek and A. Schmitson; Restoration: CFCF, nagualdesign

Archive – More featured pictures...

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.59.88.209.51 (talk) 12:39, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Face. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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. Wordwright (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.Mr. bobby (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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. -Inowen (nlfte) 21:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Facial features are shaped like a T

The eyebrows, eyes, nose, and mouth were all shaped like a T. Anybody else noticed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.71.180.162 (talk) 18:14, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Template

{{human face}} Please edit. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please handle the incoming redirect human face

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

-- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks! Majavah ^(t/c) 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Make not only face ..

make more .. 85.140.18.202 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

External link

Will Wikipedia accept the following link: Face? תיל"ם (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. 2001:FB1:96:5B03:D036:ED49:3F19:DC50 (talk) 12:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]