![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Suggest adding info about how effective the skin barrier is and why. Skin is composed of a lipid layer in the stratum corneum, and an aqueous layer below the stratum corneum. Substances are usually either water soluble or fat soluble. The skin's lipid layer stops the water soluble substances, the aqueous layer stops fat soluble substances. Thus one skin layer or the other tends to stop most substances. There are dermal drug delivery systems, but it's actually quite difficult to get substances through the skin. Two permeability enhancers sometimes used are PLO (Pluronic Lecithin Organogel), and DMSO (Dimethyl Sulfoxide). More info: [1] [2] (large PDF) Joema 10:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lips be mentioned, I thought that was skin too. a special type of skin with no pores or something. Actually I came here to look for the English word for the thick skin that develops if alot of pressure is applied to the skin. Like guitarists have on their fingertips. But that's not mentioned in it either.( 83.118.38.37 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC))
I think that the "Layers" section of this article should have three subsections: epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis. What are other's thoughts on this? -- 72.144.38.32 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be an article on cutaneous folds. Gringo300 06:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it very american centric in how it says african american. I believe that just people of african ancestry would be more sensitive to us who aren't american. Squall1991 09:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The photo collage is better than nothing but isn't great for comparing skin tones because it's a collection of mostly poor quality photos with differing light conditions and backgrounds. The differing racial characteristics of the faces also distract from the subject of skin. It would be nice to have a single, well-lit photo showing only the hands or arms of a group of people who have differing skin tones. -- 192.150.5.150 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
epidermis is a cell in skin! -- 60.52.41.74 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) aka tearfate (lazy login)
epidermis is not a cell in skin, it is a layer of the integument (skin) consisting of many cells and many layers within itself. therefore, epidermis should be discussed in the skin page, instead of skin being discussed in the epidermis article. Whether this is what the person of who suggested the merge intended or not, skin should NOT be merged into the epidermis article, the epidermis should be merged into the skin. Dr. Payne 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoever thinks that the epidermis is a skin cell needs to review their textbooks. While they are not exactly the same thing (the epidermis is just a layer of the skin), they are obviously related. It would be important to mention that there is another related article, as Wiki tends to do. FrameLA 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
NO- of course it shouldn't be merged. any more than the other layers of skin should be merged. It would be rediculous for them to have their own articles and epidermis not to. 208.53.104.68 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000
05-July-2007: I agree about reorganizing the overall article, and began shifting some sections. The organizing principle is: definition of subjects first, then descriptions of purpose/impact or history, and finally micro-definitions near the end. Several Wikipedia articles start by defining the subject, then delve deep into micro-definitions before describing other aspects of a subject. For example, an article about car " license plates" shouldn't immediately define the license-tag format of all nations on earth after the intro section, but rather cover the purpose, impact & history of automobile tags before stating micro-definitions. I'm trying to assess the "medical-book" nature of the article, versus a layman's view of skin as a subject. I suspect the subject of "skin" is a potential monster that overwhelms Wiki users as a burn-out topic, before it becomes organized, or even gains some adequate source footnotes. - Wikid77 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Before Sex Get Latex Condoms ??? what this supposed to mean, i think that this article needs some wikification...-- 190.42.117.8 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Skin, as defined here is only on animals, so we need to have sections, however small, on the different animal types, with links to fur, hair and scales. Somewhere in this article should be things like funtional differences eg. armour/protection; camouflage; sense of touch; wings of different types made of skin eg Flying Lizards, bats etc. Brief articles, with links, that show what skin is 'about'and what there is to know elsewhere on Wikipedia and how to get there, should be what a major article on skin should be, not infinate details of the skin of one species. Most of this info is great material, it just needs to go off to a page called human skin. Other animals do not have skin as described in a lot of this article. Its great that we can make pages about whatever we like, so nothing need be lost if we think people really excpect to find it in an encyclopedia; this stuff about the exact layers in human skin etc is good and is something to be proud of, but as I came here to learn about scales, hoping to find out how scales related to other animal skins etc, I am sure you can imagine I was dissappointed. Sorry to have piled up requests without doing stuff, but at least I hope I have given inspiration.
IceDragon64 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous IP address submitted the following in the == Aging == section:
This sounded too much like an ad so I reverted it. The link is definitely inappropriate as a source. If this topic is to be added, it should be sourced using independent sources and re-written in an encyclopedic tone. The same editor made a similar edit to Acne vulgaris, which I also reverted. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me where in Baton Rouge, Louisiana can you find a Jafra consultant? It's about skin care, and my grandmother needs to find one since her former Jafra consultant was tired of mailing it to her. If you read and answer this, I would really appreciate your help!
Alpha296
01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Image:RaceMugshots.jpg in section "Variability in skin tone".
I think it is bad form that these faces are published here at Wikipedia. Have they even been convicted yet? What if some of them are acquitted, can't they then sue Wikipedia for slander? Were they asked if they wanted to have their faces in Wikipedia or not?
What about the "black female, wanted for interference with child custody"? Of course she wanted her child back, that is only human. And then she gets her face placed on Wikipedia among wanted murderers?
A much better alternative would be to collect some photos of Wikipedians that agree/want to have their faces in the articles.
I think it also creates a legal problem for editors from some countries. I think I am not allowed to edit and save the articles that contain this image (unless I remove it) since I live in the EU where we do have privacy laws.
-- David Göthberg 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Cutaneous redirects here but the word isn't mentioned in the text so one can't tell what "Cutaneous" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.28.85 ( talk) on 2007-07-19T03:02:00
Italic textCutaneous means something is related to the skin -- James 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The skin components section only talks about meanin and doesn't even list the others. An idea would be to merge this section into the "skin layers" section 69.248.145.222 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a 20 year old male who did some push-ups recently. My chest muscles grew a bit bigger but I developed stretch marks on my shoulders. Does anybody know why that happened? My doctor does not know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.156.20 ( talk) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The "epidermis" section needs a cleanup. The subsections "components" and "layers" basically restate what's already said in the main section of "epidermis". Opinions? PoisonedQuill 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The hypocutis is not the location of the basement membrane. The basement membrane lies at the junction of the epidermis and the dermis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.164.39 ( talk) 15:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
WHO CARES ABOUT SKIN. BLACK OR WHITE, WHO CARES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.85.239 ( talk) 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? kilbad ( talk) 04:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted this article to the version that was present about six weeks ago, before the "expansion" started that left it with only five sentences in it.
Kilbad, I'd like to suggest that you work on the new and improved version in your userspace until you've got time to get it into the ideal shape. I know it's a lot of work and that you've got a vision for the page's future: my point is just to have a more complete article available to the reader while you're working on it. (Please also note that this is Skin, not merely Skin (human), so the final version shouldn't exclude non-human animals.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Two things. First, Skin type should be merged here. It is a stub mentioning hairy and glabrous skin only, in no detail.
Second, the table in this article under Skin type heading is problematic. I can't check the source, as it's not online, but does it really say that "Rarely burns, always tans" is "olive skinned" and "South European"? Cos I'm English and that's my "skin type"... the categorisation also ignores most ethnic groups, and lumps "African" into one, as though the whole continent is homogeneous. The original source is the Fitzpatrick skin type scale, e.g. [3]
I've deleted the geographic indicators, as they strike me as OR. Fences and windows ( talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Skin.jpg, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Skin.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 ( talk) 09:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The Hygiene and skin care section in heavy on "advice". This should be either removed or reasons should be added in a rephrasing. Example: People with oily skin should use a moisturizer with humectants and a clay masques containing bentonite clay twice a week. Why? What is the effect? Are similar products available/efficient? Is this the only method used to create the desired effect? Are there any truly independent and reliable sources for this? 71.236.26.74 ( talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I second that. The 1st cited link is more advertisement than fact. The site itself notes that it should not be used as a formal source. Show us the papers supporting these claims please. This is wikipedia, not an advertisement site. I say remove any rubbish that isn't supported with good science (i.e. p<.01 preferably, good design, reputable dermatology journals, etc). Also remember that correlation does not necessitate causation when interpreting the papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.34.62 ( talk) 01:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is very human-centric.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.195.148 ( talk • contribs)
I came here hoping to find out a bit more about the texture of skin and what causes the ranges of Texture, I know about the colour but I was hoping to find out more about rough bumby skin compared to the more smoother textures and what causes these variations. Perhaps in a seperate article though I am sure it could fit in here as a section.
I came here also to find out stuff, but I didn't find out what I wanted to...the main functions of epidermis, dermis and subcutaneous tissues. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.104.43.136 (
talk)
13:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The section "Human uses and culture" needs development. Tatoos, colour of skin, flaying, use of skin in Necropants (see Wikipedia_Signpost of 25 October 2010's In the news]) besides others. AshLin ( talk) 03:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've heard that for human skin, a 3 hour period, from 10pm-1am or 11pm-2am, is the time when skin cell renewal and regeneration is greatest during sleep. Is this true? Are there any medical studies showing evidence for it? And if it is true, which one is the correct period? 10pm-1am or 11pm-2am? Wsmss ( talk) 14:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, does the bit before the Content box have a name on Wikipedia? The skin article is beginning to look very good, if you want to know about humans, but I am sorry to say that it still needs a lot of work. First of all, the first section should be about defining skin in an enclyclopedic way, with an indication of the ranges of the word, such as geographic range, time ranges etc. Thus the skin article should have the stuff it starts with, for the first paragraph or so, then go on to express the basic types of skin in different animals and basic differences in function, to be discussed later.
What should NOT be there, at this point is the article about oily skin etc. That section, which need to go elsewhere, or even into a different article, needs a definition or link to DHT- I honestly don't know what that is and I am sure I'm not alone.
IceDragon64 14:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My objection to the first paragraph is more about dumbing it down. I realize your information needs to be said, but it doesn't need to be said in the paragraph the general public read. The idea is to start at man on the street speak and gradually end up PHD in the subject. Starting at college level isn't fair. Let me give you an example. Find someone who is a Computer CEO, or a Physics Engineer, or the Chef. All of them are professionals. I bet not a one could make it through that first paragraph without a frown or a pause. (Being pompous breeds, they'd never ask). Here's a try at a more john doe style:
I'm not sure I got some of those translations right. I had to look them up. I'm pretty well read and can actually make out what "arthropod exoskeleton" means, but nobody who isn't reading a book a week, or in the medical field will recognize it. deepsack ( talk) 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I hate to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is a very weak article and needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of an encyclopedia. I'm a Ph.D. biophysicist with experience but no special expertise regarding skin, so I'm not going to take on this one, other than my minor additions today. I looked here because I had added material on β-keratins to the article on feathers. There is some good material, but the writing and organization are not quite at a high school level. Sorry, but we have to keep improving the wiki project. Don't get discouraged; just keep working. Writing and organization will improve in proportion to practice.
If you're working on this, your heart and mind are in the right place. To put anatomy in perspective, just remember that if all the arteries, veins and capillaries of a man were laid out end to end, he would probably die.
David Shear 18:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree: just as a person who has minimal anatomy experience, this article lacks accuracy. As well, it is very brief for such a complex involved topic. Dr. Payne 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Another point: According to FASS 2007, the formula used to calculate skin-surface from length and body mass is pretty outdated; it's based on a study in 1916. Is there any info on this study (how many objects (people) were studied etc.)? Are there alternate methods of calculating the surface? The formula from FASS-07is , where is skin surface in cm2, is body mass in kg and is height in cm.
Error in figure(?): The diagram of the skin layers in the section "epidermis" may be mis-labeled. Notice the bottom, red, striated layer. It has no label. It should be muscle. The yellow "blobs" of fat in the subcutaneous layer, or possibly the nerve fibers (unclear) seem to be labeled as "muscle fibers." I have no anatomical training per se, but if I can identify these potential problems, it would be worth having someone with more knowledge review this diagram closely.
Jseagull (
talk)
14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a rewrite, and whoever undertakes the task needs to severely edit down the instances of word links to related articles - eg "cell, cells" - I get it, somewhere there's an article about cells - but I don't need to see the word colored in blue 25 times - it's distracting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.181.14 ( talk) 21:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"Skin is considered one of the most important parts of the body." By whom? Which parts of the body are not important?
Appendix. WLU
- re == Ridiculous Statement == . . . get over it - no sheathing to an organism = dead organism - sheesh — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.136.181.14 (
talk)
21:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Small article, easily merged, benefits readers by centralising this information instead of needlessly fragmenting it Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I am currently in a Comparative Anatomy of Vertebrates course at PLU and noticed that under the "Other Animals" section--specifically for "Fish and Amphibians" that there is some information regarding Mucous and Granular glands however I was wondering if I could enter an overall subsection labeled "Glands" for the amphibians as it seems rather incomplete. Does this section merit enough value for additional information with credible sources? Thank you. Beckjt ( talk) 04:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I choose to question the statement that the skin has the largest surface area of all the organs. The lungs, for instance, has an immense surface area, though I am not sure of the numbers. Thus, I raise the issue here. What I do know is that the lungs, if placed outside the confinement of the body, could reach a volume of 6 cubical meters, if all the folds were to be straightened. Please help to look into this. -- TVPR 11:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is from Hole's Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology, Eighth Edition, Chapter 6, page 113. "If the skin of 150-pound person were spread out flat, it would cover approximately 20 square feet. Jordan Yang 18:02, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I found that also in MSN Encarta where it would spread out 20 square feet from a 150 pound male
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Beckjt.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Suggest adding info about how effective the skin barrier is and why. Skin is composed of a lipid layer in the stratum corneum, and an aqueous layer below the stratum corneum. Substances are usually either water soluble or fat soluble. The skin's lipid layer stops the water soluble substances, the aqueous layer stops fat soluble substances. Thus one skin layer or the other tends to stop most substances. There are dermal drug delivery systems, but it's actually quite difficult to get substances through the skin. Two permeability enhancers sometimes used are PLO (Pluronic Lecithin Organogel), and DMSO (Dimethyl Sulfoxide). More info: [1] [2] (large PDF) Joema 10:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
Shouldn't the lips be mentioned, I thought that was skin too. a special type of skin with no pores or something. Actually I came here to look for the English word for the thick skin that develops if alot of pressure is applied to the skin. Like guitarists have on their fingertips. But that's not mentioned in it either.( 83.118.38.37 01:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC))
I think that the "Layers" section of this article should have three subsections: epidermis, dermis, and hypodermis. What are other's thoughts on this? -- 72.144.38.32 20:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
There needs to be an article on cutaneous folds. Gringo300 06:11, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else find it very american centric in how it says african american. I believe that just people of african ancestry would be more sensitive to us who aren't american. Squall1991 09:53, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
The photo collage is better than nothing but isn't great for comparing skin tones because it's a collection of mostly poor quality photos with differing light conditions and backgrounds. The differing racial characteristics of the faces also distract from the subject of skin. It would be nice to have a single, well-lit photo showing only the hands or arms of a group of people who have differing skin tones. -- 192.150.5.150 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
epidermis is a cell in skin! -- 60.52.41.74 04:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC) aka tearfate (lazy login)
epidermis is not a cell in skin, it is a layer of the integument (skin) consisting of many cells and many layers within itself. therefore, epidermis should be discussed in the skin page, instead of skin being discussed in the epidermis article. Whether this is what the person of who suggested the merge intended or not, skin should NOT be merged into the epidermis article, the epidermis should be merged into the skin. Dr. Payne 20:06, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Whoever thinks that the epidermis is a skin cell needs to review their textbooks. While they are not exactly the same thing (the epidermis is just a layer of the skin), they are obviously related. It would be important to mention that there is another related article, as Wiki tends to do. FrameLA 01:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
NO- of course it shouldn't be merged. any more than the other layers of skin should be merged. It would be rediculous for them to have their own articles and epidermis not to. 208.53.104.68 00:11, 20 April 2007 (UTC)amyanda2000
05-July-2007: I agree about reorganizing the overall article, and began shifting some sections. The organizing principle is: definition of subjects first, then descriptions of purpose/impact or history, and finally micro-definitions near the end. Several Wikipedia articles start by defining the subject, then delve deep into micro-definitions before describing other aspects of a subject. For example, an article about car " license plates" shouldn't immediately define the license-tag format of all nations on earth after the intro section, but rather cover the purpose, impact & history of automobile tags before stating micro-definitions. I'm trying to assess the "medical-book" nature of the article, versus a layman's view of skin as a subject. I suspect the subject of "skin" is a potential monster that overwhelms Wiki users as a burn-out topic, before it becomes organized, or even gains some adequate source footnotes. - Wikid77 16:47, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
Before Sex Get Latex Condoms ??? what this supposed to mean, i think that this article needs some wikification...-- 190.42.117.8 21:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Skin, as defined here is only on animals, so we need to have sections, however small, on the different animal types, with links to fur, hair and scales. Somewhere in this article should be things like funtional differences eg. armour/protection; camouflage; sense of touch; wings of different types made of skin eg Flying Lizards, bats etc. Brief articles, with links, that show what skin is 'about'and what there is to know elsewhere on Wikipedia and how to get there, should be what a major article on skin should be, not infinate details of the skin of one species. Most of this info is great material, it just needs to go off to a page called human skin. Other animals do not have skin as described in a lot of this article. Its great that we can make pages about whatever we like, so nothing need be lost if we think people really excpect to find it in an encyclopedia; this stuff about the exact layers in human skin etc is good and is something to be proud of, but as I came here to learn about scales, hoping to find out how scales related to other animal skins etc, I am sure you can imagine I was dissappointed. Sorry to have piled up requests without doing stuff, but at least I hope I have given inspiration.
IceDragon64 15:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
An anonymous IP address submitted the following in the == Aging == section:
This sounded too much like an ad so I reverted it. The link is definitely inappropriate as a source. If this topic is to be added, it should be sourced using independent sources and re-written in an encyclopedic tone. The same editor made a similar edit to Acne vulgaris, which I also reverted. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 14:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
Can someone please tell me where in Baton Rouge, Louisiana can you find a Jafra consultant? It's about skin care, and my grandmother needs to find one since her former Jafra consultant was tired of mailing it to her. If you read and answer this, I would really appreciate your help!
Alpha296
01:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Image:RaceMugshots.jpg in section "Variability in skin tone".
I think it is bad form that these faces are published here at Wikipedia. Have they even been convicted yet? What if some of them are acquitted, can't they then sue Wikipedia for slander? Were they asked if they wanted to have their faces in Wikipedia or not?
What about the "black female, wanted for interference with child custody"? Of course she wanted her child back, that is only human. And then she gets her face placed on Wikipedia among wanted murderers?
A much better alternative would be to collect some photos of Wikipedians that agree/want to have their faces in the articles.
I think it also creates a legal problem for editors from some countries. I think I am not allowed to edit and save the articles that contain this image (unless I remove it) since I live in the EU where we do have privacy laws.
-- David Göthberg 13:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Cutaneous redirects here but the word isn't mentioned in the text so one can't tell what "Cutaneous" means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.110.28.85 ( talk) on 2007-07-19T03:02:00
Italic textCutaneous means something is related to the skin -- James 15:50, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The skin components section only talks about meanin and doesn't even list the others. An idea would be to merge this section into the "skin layers" section 69.248.145.222 01:41, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
I am a 20 year old male who did some push-ups recently. My chest muscles grew a bit bigger but I developed stretch marks on my shoulders. Does anybody know why that happened? My doctor does not know. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.156.20 ( talk) 19:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
The "epidermis" section needs a cleanup. The subsections "components" and "layers" basically restate what's already said in the main section of "epidermis". Opinions? PoisonedQuill 21:04, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The hypocutis is not the location of the basement membrane. The basement membrane lies at the junction of the epidermis and the dermis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.164.39 ( talk) 15:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
WHO CARES ABOUT SKIN. BLACK OR WHITE, WHO CARES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.85.239 ( talk) 03:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? kilbad ( talk) 04:44, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted this article to the version that was present about six weeks ago, before the "expansion" started that left it with only five sentences in it.
Kilbad, I'd like to suggest that you work on the new and improved version in your userspace until you've got time to get it into the ideal shape. I know it's a lot of work and that you've got a vision for the page's future: my point is just to have a more complete article available to the reader while you're working on it. (Please also note that this is Skin, not merely Skin (human), so the final version shouldn't exclude non-human animals.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 05:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Two things. First, Skin type should be merged here. It is a stub mentioning hairy and glabrous skin only, in no detail.
Second, the table in this article under Skin type heading is problematic. I can't check the source, as it's not online, but does it really say that "Rarely burns, always tans" is "olive skinned" and "South European"? Cos I'm English and that's my "skin type"... the categorisation also ignores most ethnic groups, and lumps "African" into one, as though the whole continent is homogeneous. The original source is the Fitzpatrick skin type scale, e.g. [3]
I've deleted the geographic indicators, as they strike me as OR. Fences and windows ( talk) 03:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
This bot has detected that this page contains an image, Image:Skin.jpg, in a raster format. A replacement is available as a Scalable vector graphic (SVG) at File:Skin.svg. If the replacement image is suitable please edit the article to use the vector version. Scalable vector graphics should be used in preference to raster for images that can easily represented in a vector graphic format. If this bot is in error, you may leave a bug report at its talk page Thanks SVnaGBot1 ( talk) 09:23, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
The Hygiene and skin care section in heavy on "advice". This should be either removed or reasons should be added in a rephrasing. Example: People with oily skin should use a moisturizer with humectants and a clay masques containing bentonite clay twice a week. Why? What is the effect? Are similar products available/efficient? Is this the only method used to create the desired effect? Are there any truly independent and reliable sources for this? 71.236.26.74 ( talk) 17:36, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
I second that. The 1st cited link is more advertisement than fact. The site itself notes that it should not be used as a formal source. Show us the papers supporting these claims please. This is wikipedia, not an advertisement site. I say remove any rubbish that isn't supported with good science (i.e. p<.01 preferably, good design, reputable dermatology journals, etc). Also remember that correlation does not necessitate causation when interpreting the papers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.34.62 ( talk) 01:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
This article is very human-centric.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.24.195.148 ( talk • contribs)
I came here hoping to find out a bit more about the texture of skin and what causes the ranges of Texture, I know about the colour but I was hoping to find out more about rough bumby skin compared to the more smoother textures and what causes these variations. Perhaps in a seperate article though I am sure it could fit in here as a section.
I came here also to find out stuff, but I didn't find out what I wanted to...the main functions of epidermis, dermis and subcutaneous tissues. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.104.43.136 (
talk)
13:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
The section "Human uses and culture" needs development. Tatoos, colour of skin, flaying, use of skin in Necropants (see Wikipedia_Signpost of 25 October 2010's In the news]) besides others. AshLin ( talk) 03:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
I've heard that for human skin, a 3 hour period, from 10pm-1am or 11pm-2am, is the time when skin cell renewal and regeneration is greatest during sleep. Is this true? Are there any medical studies showing evidence for it? And if it is true, which one is the correct period? 10pm-1am or 11pm-2am? Wsmss ( talk) 14:14, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, does the bit before the Content box have a name on Wikipedia? The skin article is beginning to look very good, if you want to know about humans, but I am sorry to say that it still needs a lot of work. First of all, the first section should be about defining skin in an enclyclopedic way, with an indication of the ranges of the word, such as geographic range, time ranges etc. Thus the skin article should have the stuff it starts with, for the first paragraph or so, then go on to express the basic types of skin in different animals and basic differences in function, to be discussed later.
What should NOT be there, at this point is the article about oily skin etc. That section, which need to go elsewhere, or even into a different article, needs a definition or link to DHT- I honestly don't know what that is and I am sure I'm not alone.
IceDragon64 14:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
My objection to the first paragraph is more about dumbing it down. I realize your information needs to be said, but it doesn't need to be said in the paragraph the general public read. The idea is to start at man on the street speak and gradually end up PHD in the subject. Starting at college level isn't fair. Let me give you an example. Find someone who is a Computer CEO, or a Physics Engineer, or the Chef. All of them are professionals. I bet not a one could make it through that first paragraph without a frown or a pause. (Being pompous breeds, they'd never ask). Here's a try at a more john doe style:
I'm not sure I got some of those translations right. I had to look them up. I'm pretty well read and can actually make out what "arthropod exoskeleton" means, but nobody who isn't reading a book a week, or in the medical field will recognize it. deepsack ( talk) 00:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
I hate to hurt anyone's feelings, but this is a very weak article and needs a lot of work to bring it up to the standards of an encyclopedia. I'm a Ph.D. biophysicist with experience but no special expertise regarding skin, so I'm not going to take on this one, other than my minor additions today. I looked here because I had added material on β-keratins to the article on feathers. There is some good material, but the writing and organization are not quite at a high school level. Sorry, but we have to keep improving the wiki project. Don't get discouraged; just keep working. Writing and organization will improve in proportion to practice.
If you're working on this, your heart and mind are in the right place. To put anatomy in perspective, just remember that if all the arteries, veins and capillaries of a man were laid out end to end, he would probably die.
David Shear 18:17, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree: just as a person who has minimal anatomy experience, this article lacks accuracy. As well, it is very brief for such a complex involved topic. Dr. Payne 20:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Another point: According to FASS 2007, the formula used to calculate skin-surface from length and body mass is pretty outdated; it's based on a study in 1916. Is there any info on this study (how many objects (people) were studied etc.)? Are there alternate methods of calculating the surface? The formula from FASS-07is , where is skin surface in cm2, is body mass in kg and is height in cm.
Error in figure(?): The diagram of the skin layers in the section "epidermis" may be mis-labeled. Notice the bottom, red, striated layer. It has no label. It should be muscle. The yellow "blobs" of fat in the subcutaneous layer, or possibly the nerve fibers (unclear) seem to be labeled as "muscle fibers." I have no anatomical training per se, but if I can identify these potential problems, it would be worth having someone with more knowledge review this diagram closely.
Jseagull (
talk)
14:16, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This article needs a rewrite, and whoever undertakes the task needs to severely edit down the instances of word links to related articles - eg "cell, cells" - I get it, somewhere there's an article about cells - but I don't need to see the word colored in blue 25 times - it's distracting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.181.14 ( talk) 21:48, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
"Skin is considered one of the most important parts of the body." By whom? Which parts of the body are not important?
Appendix. WLU
- re == Ridiculous Statement == . . . get over it - no sheathing to an organism = dead organism - sheesh — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
50.136.181.14 (
talk)
21:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Small article, easily merged, benefits readers by centralising this information instead of needlessly fragmenting it Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:36, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I am currently in a Comparative Anatomy of Vertebrates course at PLU and noticed that under the "Other Animals" section--specifically for "Fish and Amphibians" that there is some information regarding Mucous and Granular glands however I was wondering if I could enter an overall subsection labeled "Glands" for the amphibians as it seems rather incomplete. Does this section merit enough value for additional information with credible sources? Thank you. Beckjt ( talk) 04:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I choose to question the statement that the skin has the largest surface area of all the organs. The lungs, for instance, has an immense surface area, though I am not sure of the numbers. Thus, I raise the issue here. What I do know is that the lungs, if placed outside the confinement of the body, could reach a volume of 6 cubical meters, if all the folds were to be straightened. Please help to look into this. -- TVPR 11:50, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This is from Hole's Essentials of Human Anatomy and Physiology, Eighth Edition, Chapter 6, page 113. "If the skin of 150-pound person were spread out flat, it would cover approximately 20 square feet. Jordan Yang 18:02, 14 Oct 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I found that also in MSN Encarta where it would spread out 20 square feet from a 150 pound male
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Beckjt.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 09:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)