Talk:Skeleton

message: 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)
thread_title:  Animal Skeletons 

message: 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)
thread_title:  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Human skeleton]] 

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

message: Contrary to popular belief, the skeleton is not actually real. The bones are lies created by the government to get us to drink milk. Calcium is also not real. Trust me, I'm a doctor.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.184.223.187 (talk) 12:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Bone facts. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 October 31#Bone facts until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  -- Tavix (talk) 16:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Bone facts" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: — Assignment last updated by SaifT10 (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Science Communication

message: Diagram of the axial sketeleton 102.220.249.247 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biology 

message: A vital question comes to my mind and is about the origin of the skeleton, from what it evolved. While this may still be theorical, we should aleast add a theory on the origin and evolution of skeletons, something that the article doesn't tell. Capaitan Kirter7007 (talk) 00:06, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of Skeleton?