Talk:Face

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Faces Are Not Ventral

message: 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)
thread_title:  Requested permanent protection 

message: 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. --NickPenguin(contribs) 20:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: @ 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)
thread_title:  All about human face 

message: Why is there two sections called "Function"? Ping me. —DangerousJXD (talk) 09:18, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: @ -- Nop, just one when I check ;)  --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Why is there two sections called "Function"?

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[:File:Sobo 1909 260.png]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reduce or change article lock status 

message: 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:
*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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:01, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Problem in problematic "Religion" section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Problem in the introduction of the article 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Facial features are shaped like a T 

message: Please edit. -Inowen (nlfte) 22:32, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Template 

message: Please handle the incoming redirect human face
-- 67.70.33.184 (talk) 12:27, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thanks! Majavah (t/c) 13:11, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit request

message: make more .. 85.140.18.202 (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Make not only face .. 

message: Will Wikipedia accept the following link: Face? תיל"ם (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  External link 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Way too anthropocentric article