Talk:Human body diagrams
Hi, nice diagram but I have a few comments:
- The common cold viruses should point to the nose
- I wouldn't distinguish between community-acquired and atypical pneumonia - same viruses
- CMV is not classified as a sexually transmitted disease
- HSV 1 infection of the mouth (mainly lips) should be added
- Where are all those important viruses that cause skin rashes, VZV, measles, parvovirus and rubella for example
- Where are the important viruses that cause gastroenteritis? Norovirus and rotavirus (and point to the duodenum)
- There is redundancy in the title, an overview means it has been simplified (not "simplistic")
- Thank you for your comments. I called it "simplistic" rather than just "overview", because, after making those tables in en:virus disease, I too thought many important aspects were missed out. I wrote according to Lippincott's summaries, but they apparently also included some relatively redundant facts, such as split between different types of pneumonia. Anyhow, I'm making a major revision of the picture, taking from the more detailed section from which i made those tables. Mikael Häggström (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
- The new version is uploaded now. You are welcome to give comments on the File:Bacterial infections and involved species.png too, for the next update. In any case, I'm doing a review and expansion of that one as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 14:38, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It seems like the coffe diagram only details negative health effects. Nausea, dizzziness, drowsiness and stomach ache... People drink the stuff because it wakes you up (or maybe this is a myth and a kind of palcebo effect).
- Thanks for noticing! Indeed it only details (negative) side effects, because cited site only did so, instead of including main (wanted) effects (like arousal or good taste). So feel free to take a picture of yourself (or use the current one) and make a diagram of main effects as well (I got some other things to do on my list first). Mikael Häggström (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
- Someone else (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Caffeine#Effects_When_Taken_in_Moderation) noticed that the symptoms listed on this diagram aren't at all consonant with the symptoms listed anywhere else in the medical literature. I got to sleuthing around a bit, and I think I've discovered what the problem is. The reference you cite (above) doesn't cite any sources, so it's difficult to ascertain where they got the information for the monograph. However, this site has information that is similarly out-of-the-ordinary, and cites a source--namely, the product information insert for Cafcit (caffeine citrate) for intravenous administration. So I used Google to find the insert here, and it turns out that all these strange side-effects are from a study of its use for apnea of prematurity in preterm infants, not in adults. It looks like someone at Medline in 2000 made a rather glaring mistake, and the graphic has some rather glaring errors in it, as a result. This is a more accurate list from which you could generate a replacement graphic. Blahdenoma 00:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for the notification, as well as the detective work both in finding the original error of the previous source, and finding a new source! I've inserted a replacement image in both the Caffeine and coffee articles: File:Effects of moderate caffeine consumption.svg. I took the references directly from what I found when scrolling through the Caffeine article. The new medscape source would have worked too, but many entries there seemed to belong to excessive usage or overdose, and the latter are specifically dealt by File:Main symptoms of Caffeine overdose.png. Again, thanks! Mikael Häggström 03:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
You should use a pretty female image for this instead.
- I actually had that in mind at the time. See entry from last month just below. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Image page: File:Symptoms of fibromyalgia.png
An equivalent Public Domain image of a FEMALE in the same anatomical position would be very useful in this case, since a majority of such patients are female. Please tell if you know how to contribute. Mikael Häggström (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
is there any real need for him to have nipples?
- In a biological sense, no. Nipples serve no essential function in males - they are simply there. Just as the navel in adults. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
Renaming to "Adult male diagrams"
I've now made a lot of other diagrams as well, and the only thing that makes these diagrams more "Häggström"-like is that I happen to appear in the image, and I doubt that justifies this naming, as it might be more convenient to rename it "Adult male diagrams" to distinguish from the adult female diagrams and perhaps other versions that are to come. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- As you correctly pointed out, this project is yet another example of the male as norm. Why must the symptoms of every disease be illustrated with a male? razorbelle (talk) 20:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
The phrase: Do want you want, shouldn't say instead: Do what you want
Man shadow rather than photograph
Correction on Calcium regulation diagram
This diagram shows that 1,25 hydroxy-vitamin D induces "bone reabsorption" and should instead say "bone resorption".
- If it is this one to the right you refer to (?), it says "Bones: Increased calcium reabsorption", which seems correct. Mikael Häggström (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Yes, that is the one I am referring to. There is no such thing as "bone reabsorption." Calcitriol (1,25 hydroxy,-vitamin D) causes "bone resorption" and thereby increases serum [Ca]. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bone_resorption or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcitriol.
- I agree, but where do you see this "bone reabsorption" expression? Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:29, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Calcium reabsorption is misleading on the diagram on the right as it implies (incorrectly) that calcium is being reabsorbed into the bone but the correct interpretation is that calcium is being released as a result of bone resorption back into the blood to increase serum [Ca2+].
- Yes, it might be misinterpreted, so I've changed the text to "Calcium reabsorption from bones" instead. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)
"Click for sources"
Thank you for creating these excellent diagrams. Many of your diagrams, like File:Effects of sleep deprivation.svg, have a list of sources on the image description page. It's unusual on Wikipedia to include sources there. Why not write the word "Sources", in underlined blue text, in the corner of future diagrams? That way people will know they can click for sources. All the best, Unforgettableid (talk) 22:44, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
- I'm pleased to hear you found them useful. Also, thanks for the suggestion. However, I'd rather avoid such text in the actual images, as these diagrams often end up outside Wikipedia as well, and in such cases that text would not be clickable but would rather be confusing. I still think the current system is more appropriate, with the pages in Commons linked from notes in the image captions in Wikipedia. It would be inconvenient to have references given in each article the images appears in, because images may appear in multiple articles and even multiple wikis, giving a risk of forgetting one when the references are updated. Mikael Häggström (talk) 04:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
Copyright claims by A.D.A.M.
Some of the processed and anotated images come from pages where it says: "Copyright 1997-2011, A.D.A.M., Inc. Any duplication or distribution of the information contained herein is strictly prohibited." Do ADAM really claim copyright on these, or is it a blanket formula that is not meant to apply to work based on the Häggström photos? /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 10:06, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- Interesting. Which images have been found with such copyright claims? Mikael Häggström (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
2 organs on female body O.o 188.8.131.52 16:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)