Talk:Lung

Change "from the Khan Academy" to "from Khan Academy"

I am an avid learner and often use the platform "Khan Academy", which is the educational website that this Wikipedia article references in one of its videos. However, the caption of said video states that it was taken "from the Khan Academy", which I feel is quite wrong. Never in my almost two years of studying there have I heard anyone mention Khan Academy as an actual concrete "object". I believe that this should be changed (refer to the subject), but do not want to do it without a general consensus. Does anyone else agree? Liamyangll (talk) 07:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

Agree with this change --Iztwoz (talk) 09:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done I have updated it because there is no point waiting for more people to agree - no one has come for two months. I have linked this talk page section in my edit summary. Liamyangll (talk) 03:42, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Main article chain.

Lung#Birds links to main article Bird anatomy#Respiratory system.

Bird anatomy#Respiratory system in turn links to main article Respiratory system#Birds.

This seems... unnecessarily recursive, redundant, and indecisive (but I'm too drunk to closely compare the article contents or try to figure out a better system). Intralexical (talk) 02:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Intralexical. Firstly I'm pleased to know that you are reviewing our anatomy articles whilst drunk. Secondly, I completely agree. When you sober up a bit feel free to take a stab at, or propose, a better solution. If you want a central place to talk about it or run some ideas past other people, try WT:ANAT --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Tom_(LT). Thanks for the welcome. After looking at this again, I think it's clear that the content belongs on both pages. They may also have slightly different focuses, with one on anatomy and the other on physiology. There's a lot of duplication and even the references and images are mostly the same, but it's in the scope of both topics and in any case too long and specialized for me to feel comfortable trying to trim one down into a summary or anything like that.

However, the "Main article" template doesn't make much sense to me when they're of similar length and depth. So I think I'm going to treat this as organizational/navigational thing, and just change that to "See also" and put it on both pages. I also counted the shared and unique references on each page, so I'll drop that on a talk page in case anyone else wants to try merging or rewriting content later. Intralexical (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rename to "Human Lung", it's easier....

Might as well rename the article, as it is pretty much unclear until you get to get to section six that all of the previous was only about human lungs. Sure, mammals will have many of these things in common, but even within that group there are significant differences, not to mention non-mammalian lungs. There are many categorical statements that are simply not true (volumes, weights, lobe numbers are just the obvious ones), unless it's made clear they apply only to human lungs. Renaming the article and splitting off section six into a new article will be easier than trying to fix that whole mess. Fgf10 (talk) 15:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I renamed the first section "Structure in humans" and nested some of the subsequent content accordingly. This is a recurring issue in articles about vertebrate anatomy. Rexodus (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Question

when you inhale does air in lung have higher concentration than air in capillary and when you exhale does air in capillary have higher concentration than air in lung — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2c3:4201:d70::af01 (talk) 20:30, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 19 November 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) ^Clyde!_Franklin! 05:55, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

---

Lung → Lungs – The article uses "lungs", not "lung". Mucube (talk) 03:53, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:SINGULAR. Article titles are usually rendered in the singular. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:21, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
• Oppose Britannica uses "Lung" and unlike Scissors its not plurale tantum. The lead should probably be changed to say "A lung" unless the MOS says otherwise. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:52, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's any rule that the bolded term in the lead sentence must match the grammatical number of the title. I think it's fine as is. Rreagan007 (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Biology

Lungs 2402:3A80:1182:E158:0:0:87BD:8D75 (talk) 12:46, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Lung sounds needed

Has anyone got self-made audios of the human respiration? I am kinds dissappointed on the fact that there are none. DuDeMaNBaLl (talk) 01:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

3D models of lungs

vh-f-lung

anything which we should update about this lung before it is inserted into the article? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 12:01, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

This was already reverted can see no value in its inclusion. The page has comprehensive coverage of good images.--Iztwoz (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

+1. Tom (LT) (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but this would allow people the see the lung from any angle they want to, as well as 3D print thier own model at home.

Arguments for having it are

• Three-dimensional perspective: STL models offer a more comprehensive view of the lungs' structure, allowing users to visualize the organ from multiple angles and perspectives.
• Interactive exploration: Users can rotate, zoom, and manipulate the model to gain a deeper understanding of the lungs' complex anatomy, including the bronchi, alveoli, and pulmonary vessels.
• Clarity and precision: 3D models can accurately depict the intricate details of the lungs, making it easier to understand concepts like lung lobes, airways, and blood flow.
• Visual learning: For students, educators, and medical professionals, a 3D model can serve as a valuable teaching tool, making complex anatomical concepts more accessible and engaging.
• Medical research: The model can be used for research purposes, such as studying lung diseases, surgical procedures, or the effects of environmental factors on lung health.
• Inclusion: A 3D model can make the information on the lungs more inclusive for visually impaired individuals who may benefit from tactile or auditory representations.
• Global reach: The model can be accessed by users worldwide, regardless of their geographic location or language barriers
• Interest: 3D models can make the Wikipedia article more visually appealing and engaging, attracting a wider audience.
• Contextualization: The model can be used to illustrate specific concepts or diseases related to the lungs, such as asthma, pneumonia, or lung cancer.

Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

What elements on the model needs to be improved for it to work? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Not to mention the advantages if Wiki ever really want to move into the virtual reality space? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Lung damage coverage missing

-- Beland (talk) 00:42, 14 October 2024 (UTC)