Talk:Body proportions

message: Do the proportions of the human body conform to any notable local maxima? Is there a reason that the arms are of this size, that the legs are of this size, etc.? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 21:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why? 

message: Is there some reason why the very general sounding "body proportions" was chosen over say, "Figure Drawing Canon"?  As it stands the content in 100% artistic, so shouldn't that be reflected in the title?  There is nothing to stop information on e.g. genetics and anything else related being added, which is all fine and well... unless it should be an article for artistic determination of proportions?  I guess I'm just surprised that searching WP I couldn't find any mention of (artistic) canon.  I've added art to the Canon page but this article doesn't use the word. Adytum72a 07:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Name

message: So is the part about the HEAD (4 eyes wide, length of nose, etc) idealized as well? It isn't very clear on that?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.211.103 (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Idealized?

message: "These ratios may not always reflect the actual shape of the model's body, if there is a model. In other cultures, different ratios may be emphasized for different aesthetic effect."
Needs work.
--"...if there is a model."--Where the idea of a model come from? Is this sentence necessary at all? What is it supposed to mean?
--"In other cultures..."--What 'other' cultures? What culture do you think this is?
--'different' should be removed, as it conveys no meaning in the sentnece.
74.185.249.234 (talk) 00:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Wording

message: I was expecting to find an article about the human proportions as defined by the artists of the renaissance. What I found is an article about sociological study of perceptions in different cultures. Ok, ok, ugly people are pretty too. ;)
Yes, I'm not surprised to learn that the British find beauty in short, crooked legs. How else would they fit in their coracle otherwise?  
And why is the icon for the "Visual arts portal" a Jewish amulet against the evil eye? That's some twisted logic right there! Is there something I'm not getting? 67.206.187.38 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up is Down 

message: was banned in 2005 from all articles dealing with weights and measurements and after frequent violations indefinitely blocked. He has come back recenty editing from two accounts and several IP addresses. Those accounts are now blocked. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rktect. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: For example, what are the ranges of adult height, adult leg length, adult arm length, etc. and the ranges of the ratios? The article seems to be missing the actual subject. 74.96.172.110 (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite right.  I was expecting this to be an article about anatomy, but it turns out to have practically no anatomy in it.  Maybe there is another article lurking somewhere?  Anthropometry?86.162.38.70 (talk) 15:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  So what are the usual ranges of body proportions? 

message: when someone goes to the "body proportions" one would expect something like: "arms are on average X% of the size of the legs and Y% of the size of the torso" or "the standard way of measuring the human body is X and Y" or any other form of information on the relative sizes of parts of human anatomy to each other and how they are measured.
the only thing that remotely comes close to that is "An average person is generally 7-and-a-half heads tall", then there is something about the "idealized size of legs to body ratio" which is completely useless without proper anatomic information to give any context.
this article is nearly devoid of any real content, I'm baffled why this even exists. 2804:14C:65D0:8274:417A:18CC:7359:87C (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It really is a very poor quality article. Other articles that might be more helpful:
* Female body shape
* Male body shape
Additions to this list welcome. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  this could be easily the least useful article in wikipedia 

message: Given that the article Aesthetic canon is really about artistic canons, I propose to move it to "Artistic canon" (the current title will remain as a redirect). 
Full disclosure: until a few days ago, the article had other material not directly related to visual or plastic arts, but it consisted of uncited musings that forked the articles on physical attractiveness, makeup, fashion but without any specific focus on canonical frames of reference. 
Please make any observations at talk:Aesthetic canon#Proposal to change name. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I have initiated a wp:requested move process. As of today, the discussion is whether the name should be open ended ("Artistic canon") or well-defined ("Artistic canon of body proportion"), Please contribute at talk:Aesthetic canon#Requested move 26 September 2020. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Following earlier discussion, I have revised the proposal to be "Artistic canons of body proportions". Please make any comments at the article talk page via link above. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aesthetic canon, artistic canon 

message: As an artistic reference, this section is a mess. First two lines are great, expressing the proportions in terms of "heads" after that it is less helpful. Please someone straighten this out. Atrusoghen (talk) 14:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I have prefixed the section with  but the rule around here is, if you need anything done properly, you have to do it yourself. So go take more from the sources already cited or go hunting for new ones. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ratios (section) 

message: In the 'See also' section the language describing female and male forms is asymmetric and implies that male is the 'human' form and that the female form is causally different: "Female body shape – Cumulative product of the human female skeletal structure and distribution of muscle and fat
Male body shape – General shape of a human body"  This seems to arise accidentally from the use of references to two articles, one on the human body and one on the female.  I think we should be aiming to present the male and female forms in parallel terms.  To do this we would need to adjust the two pages referred to, then the links would shake themselves into place.  I'm off to look at those pages; meanwhile I post this for criticism. Lorenzoil (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please go ahead. The immediate problem is that Male body shape redirects to Human body shape: "male body shape" does not have a dedicated article like Female body shape. So perhaps the solution is to create one? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male/female