Jump to content


Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


There appears to be no article on "body" in the sense of the part of an essay or paper between the introduction and conclusion. Any suggestions on the article name for that sort of "body", or should it be put in this name too? So ... are you saying that single-cell plants *do* have a body ? Or did you really mean to say

"Plants are not normally regarded as having a body."

Should we say something here about whether boulders are normally regarded as having a body ?

--DavidCary 02:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Body (metaphysics)[edit]

I think there should be a disambiguation page for Body since there is a page Body (metaphysics) just as there is such a page for Extension

Great idea! I'll take care of that for you. Next time you could drop by the disambiguation project, and someone there will help you out.

I am going to make Body (disambiguation). I will leave the information about animal bodies at body.--Commander Keane 04:33, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Apols for putting this here - but last sentence of second paragraph on "Bodies" reads: "...and dead viruses are called ghosts".

This is very misleading given the context (and I can find no evidence to siggest that the correct term for a "dead virus" is a "ghost".


anatomy and physiology[edit]

The study of the working of a body is anatomy.

I thought this was physiology (emphasis on working). Am I wrong? Maybe someone who knows should explain what physiology is here. --대조 | Talk 19:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "guys"/clarification[edit]

"It is beneficial to keep the balance of good guys greater than their opponents."

This seems to be a rather colloquial way of writing, as compared to the rest of the article. In addition, I'm not exactly sure what it means. Does this mean something along the lines of "It is beneficial to keep the number of good microbes in the (human) body greater than that of bad microbes"? Someone with more knowledge on the matter should clarify and state the idea behind this sentence in a more formal manner, in my opinion.


Meaningless sentence[edit]

Apols for putting this here - but last sentence of second paragraph on "Bodies" reads: "...and dead viruses are called ghosts".

This is very misleading given the context (and I can find no evidence to siggest that the correct term for a "dead virus" is a "ghost".


I'll removed it until it's verified.--Planetary 08:50, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The body shouldn't be defined in contrast to the soul or personality since that is a religious view point. The body should be defined independent of wether the soul is a part of the body or not. Materialist philosophy and holistic wievs see the soul and body as one. Biology of the brain and the chemical hormones of the body also indicate that the "soul" is a part of the body. Phenomenas such as ghost arms or motor memories in the spinal cord should also be considered. Additionally both modern religious persons and atheist are often toning down the difference between the mind and the body.

There should be an article about the many different cultural and philosophical views on the body and how those have progressed through world history. The contrast of body and mind should be a minor optiional example of one view on the body. Another example should be how the body are portrayed in literature such as frankenstain or the archetypical robot and the 13th century imagery of death.

Also we need anatomical principes for art, like the measurements of body parts for the purpose of drawing and painting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

should have more pics[edit]

add pics!!!

File:Lets get physical.jpg
The body talker

I liked what I read24.68.44.217 (talk) 00:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Headless walkers.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Headless walkers.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:07, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with disambiguation page[edit]

This article is of poor quality and doesn't really have any redeeming values. It only suffices to make the process of finding the correct article longer. CFCF (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CFCF, considering that this is a WP:Broad-concept article and Body (disambiguation) is a disambiguation page, I don't understand your proposal to merge this into Body (disambiguation). I understand your feeling that this article is a waste of space and should validly be merged with something, however.
I'll alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 00:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merge and redirect. While I concede it might be possible to write a comprehensive and pertinent article by this name that is more than just an elaborate disambiguation page, this is not that article ... and I'm not convinced it would be possible anyway. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:14, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, the 3 sections of this article which are not a see also list are poorly distinguished: human body, corpses and mind body dualism. Body, living or dead, covers all these concepts. However, I have no real opinion on this merge. As AC stated above it might work as 2 articles if someone dedicated their time to it. On the other hand, agree currently there is no major reason to have separate articles since they are both essentially acting as disambig. Lesion (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My reasoning is that since this article get around 600-800 hits per day, and >20000 times in October it doesn't look good for Wikipedia to have it at this low quality. Most of the articles it links to are of higher quality and better written. I wholly support someone taking up significant expansion of the article, but as it is now it acts no different to a disambiguation page with a little bit of extra text. CFCF (talk) 10:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Will go ahead with the merge as soon as I find time. CFCF (talk) 19:04, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My main point about not understanding the merge proposal is that disambiguation pages are not supposed to resemble articles. Therefore, I'm wondering how this merge will translate to that disambiguation page. Above, this article has essentially been called an elaborate disambiguation page. What will you merge from here to that page while ensuring that it doesn't look like an article? Flyer22 (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, since the Body article will no longer exist, the disambiguation page for this topic should simply be titled Body. The disambiguation page, in this case, should be transported to the Body page. Flyer22 (talk) 19:24, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fully with you on those points, and I chose merge in lack of anything better, because I don't really find delete an appropriate template in this case. The links on this page should be kept, even though the text will be removed or reappropriated. CFCF (talk) 11:44, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Body (Biology)[edit]

I actually miss an article on 'body' in biology. Most languages do have such an article. See Q170494. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 23:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Body (biology) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 16:07, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]