Talk:Flesh
Latest comment: 2 years ago by 184.184.116.200 in topic Article about the term or topic?
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Flesh article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: 1 |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on April 9, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Not biology?
editHi, Chiswick Chap. Regarding this? Do you mind explaining why you removed WP:Biology? I certainly don't consider the topic just a food and drink topic.
Please don't ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 05:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Do as you think right on the basis of the evidence. I checked carefully, and the term is really not used by biologists other than as a common metaphor (putting flesh on the bones of a theory, etc). If you have reliable evidence to the contrary, describe and cite it in the article and put the WP back. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:12, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, I know that there isn't much to state on this topic. I looked for sources on it years ago. I'm just saying that it does concern biology, as seen by what was in the article before and what is currently in the article, and that it may be of interest to some biology editors. One or more editors from WP:Biology may be able to improve the article in some way. My opinion on the article today is that the page should simply be tagged with Template:Wiktionary redirect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Indeed, if it's a Wikt (Support) then the problem doesn't arise. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:39, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, I know that there isn't much to state on this topic. I looked for sources on it years ago. I'm just saying that it does concern biology, as seen by what was in the article before and what is currently in the article, and that it may be of interest to some biology editors. One or more editors from WP:Biology may be able to improve the article in some way. My opinion on the article today is that the page should simply be tagged with Template:Wiktionary redirect. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 04:44, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Article about the term or topic?
editRegarding this edit by Johnbod, it does clarify that this article is about the term. I noted with this edit that I "was going to remove the 'is a term for' wording per WP:ISAWORDFOR and WP:Refers to because the article is not about a term. But it was presented as a terminology matter before Johnbod's edit." So, Chiswick Chap and others, I guess this is a term article? If we are agreed that this is what it is, it should be put in a terminology category. We should also keep what WP:WORDISSUBJECT states in mind. And, above, I did question whether we even need an article on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:26, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Yes, as I wrote in the thread above, it looks as if this could be a WP:DICDEF in which case it belongs in Wiktionary, not here; I take it that "a term article" means a DICDEF. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- No, it doesn't. That's especially the case when there are numerous meanings in different areas, as here. I suppose it is a "term" article. What it isn't is an article on a valid concept in areas of biology, except perhaps mycology? Johnbod (talk) 16:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
- Chiswick Chap, per WP:WORDISSUBJECT, we can (and do) validly have articles on terms. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
the flesh is skin — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.184.116.200 (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2022 (UTC)