|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Sex article.|
|A fact from Sex appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on December 3, 2010.|
Article is simple[change source]
this is so simple! we're not writing for 5 year oldsDean randall 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
- Simple English Wikipedia is meant to be simple, to allow people who are not native speakers to understand it. Billz (Talk) 18:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree even a three year old person would be able to understand the majority of this article.
- lol, now I know that "simple english" can be taught to people of ANY age... it's like PG-3 (age rating). I will make a "simple spanish" based in this "simple english" and upload it in some wiki... and add any language that I already know or will learn from now on... however, the grammar will be the same as the original language.
- It may have added words, grouped in lists of themes (ie: a Buddhist dictionary). Each list can have a couple hundred words at most and should be able to be explained using "basic english" (if they're not then "basic english" is more simplistic than simple, and "simple spanish" will add any word like "organ"... I may also delete words from this dictionary... like advertisement, lol).--Esteban.barahona (talk) 00:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Article based on English Wikipedia
This article or parts of it were created based, in whole or in part, on this version of the English Wikipedia article. The complete history of the article can be found there.--Eptalon (talk) 21:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Changing the image of humans[change source]
In Wikipedia, there was a discussion about changing the older image of humans to a new one - . I think the image can be changed in this article as well. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Well, I see no clear reason to change. The original photographs seem quite natural and inoffensive, better than the second version. The labelling on the second is more readable, but also more obtrusive. Readability of labels on the original is improved by using control/shift/+ to enlarge it. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:20, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I would support the change: the new female is a bit under average weight, but the far superior documentation etc and less awkward pose of the female make this image an improvement. I'm not sure what inoffensiveness has to do with it. sonia♫ 09:23, 30 October 2011 (UTC)