Talk:Navel

Anatomy: Gross Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been classified as relating to gross anatomy.

Archives

Archive 1

Split culture[edit]

More than 80% of this article is dedicated to the culture of navel exposure, under the heading "Navel exposure in world cultures." I suggest a split. Perhaps to navel exposure. ENeville (talk) 15:40, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article has very serious issues. I came here searching for information on umbelicus sinus, and instead of an actual article on anatomy, we have this article, which has little to do with the actual anatomical feature and is almost completely about pop culture. I'll make some extreme bold edits and see if they stick. Gigs (talk) 19:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lotus Birth and Loss of the navel[edit]

In the Loss of the navel section there is a sentence that references Lotus Birth -- does a Lotus Birth actually result in the person not having a navel? It's implied by the section name, but not actually stated as such. The paragraph in the newspaper article used as a reference is: " And while it is standard practice to clamp, cut, then seal a newborn's umbilical cord to prevent infection, in lotus births - or umbilical non-severance births - the cord and placenta are left to drop off naturally. "But that's not at all common in this country, and there's always still something there to show where the cord was attached," says a Royal College of Midwives spokesman."

Can we add a picture of a belly with no navel (there is a bad picture in the aforementioned newspaper article)? And a belly after a lotus birth?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.254.24 (talk • contribs)

Lotus birth leaves a normal navel, there's no reason for it to be mentioned in that section, so I have removed it. Gigs (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Other animals" section[edit]

Is this wiki going to leave it at "placental mammals" as the only content of the section and call it a day? It's bad enough the article's human-centric, but at least admit on top that the editors have no interest talking about animal biology. This is really embarrassing to look at. - 175.140.90.14 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

At least it does not talk about planarian

s or citris fruit. In Correct (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

90% Of Humans:[edit]

That "90% of humans" sentence should not be here. It is unsourced. The reference is to a dead link. It appeared to have originate from somebody's blog. I doubt the person who wrote the blog has any medical or scientific basis. In Correct (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and tagged it with ^{[unreliable medical source?]}. because it can't be true, unless there are billions of mothers taping coins to the infants based on some social norm or fear of umbilical hernias. Also I checked more of the sources and most if not all of the sources seem to be a bunch of ^{[unreliable medical source?]} from the same blog or from other blogs. In Correct (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, somebody added this sentence. It will be promptly removed once again. There is no way to verify that claim, and just because multiple blog sites copy this statement from each other does not make it true. In Correct (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All Unreliable Medical Source Information Will Be Deleted.[edit]

This article is supposed to be about medical facts from reliable medical sources, not opinions from blogs. Many statements added will be reverted because they have unreliable medical sources. The edit summaries were left blank and so the edits are unexplained. These blog sources need to go, and so does the "source" about Alfred Hitchcock. That website itself says that it is a myth and they could not find any credible source! On the same website that these edits reference to! One of the other "sources" points back to THIS VERY ARTICLE ON WIKIPEDIA as its source! These edits will now be reverted. In Correct (talk) 02:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also remember both WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS apply. Small surveys conducted by doctors who analyzed Playboy aren't considered medical sources either. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:51, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Navel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120612184258/http://www.divinecaroline.com/112925/75422-ins-outs-belly-buttons to http://www.divinecaroline.com/112925/75422-ins-outs-belly-buttons

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innies Vs. Outies, (Again)[edit]

No one yet knows why some human navels are concave (an 'innie' belly button) or convex ('outie') without navel. It has nothing to do with how the umbilical cord is cut or clamped after birth. About 10% of people have outies which are usually just extra scar tissue. Some outies are hernias caused by the stomach muscles not fusing properly. [source not included because it is not a source.]

I am making this announcement to anybody to keep those words out of the article. Those claims are baseless hypothesis that make absolutely no sense. (and even in that example paragraph literally contradicts itself!) It is only some opinion on which shape is best. I requested this to remain deleted before but I guess nobody knows what I am talking about. This time I have pasted the example. Also I have thanked the editor who deleted the gibberish from the article. In Correct (talk) 06:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scar ?[edit]

I find the use of the word scar a very strange choice of word to describe the navel.--Iztwoz (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Internals of navel...[edit]

The article mostly refers to the external appearance. A surgeon or physician anatomic point of view is needed to describe/picture all tissues, ligaments, attached to the navel inside an adult abdomen; where they attach, and functions if any.75.227.81.33 (talk) 19:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)Externet MB[reply]

Belly Button[edit]

Belly Button The belly button is the most important part of our body. It is the great gift of Allah Almighty. It is also known as Navel. It is the first scar of our body. There are many benefits of putting oil on belly button. When we apply oil on belly button every day. we get a lot of benefits of this. When we apply mustard oil we can get rid of knee pain and also headache. we can apply only 3 to 4 drops of oil on daily base. You can apply oil at least 3 month. And after that you can get better and good result. click below to read the full article of belly button http://healthycarestuff.com/belly-button/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahilsafdar (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image Reversion[edit]

Materialscientist has reverted an image edit Omphaloswirl deemed necessary, due to the blurriness, darkness, and low quality of the current image (Human navel, female.jpg). Omphaloswirl uploaded a superior image that is not blurry, brighter, and a much higher quality image. Materialscientist has stated that Omphaloswirl is "replacing a clean image with hairy one, taken by yourself". This argument is invalid and frankly insulting to anyone that is hairy, as Materialscientist is making the leap that to be hairy is to be unclean. Omphaloswirl will refrain from jumping to the conclusion that the motive behind these actions are racial or sexist for now. Ompahloswirl also sees no reason why the image can not be taken by them, as they gain no benefit from placing the image on this page. Omphaloswirl would very much appreciate Materialscientist's comments in defence of their actions. User:Materialscientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Omphaloswirl (talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2019[edit]

Navel Girls, please discuss your proposed changes, rather than simply reverting, thanks. I see no improvement in the suggested changes, and if anything the article suffers somewhat. Chaheel Riens (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Size of hernia[edit]

This article had an incomplete sentence, missing the information of the average size of a hernia. I added it. Websterwebfoot (talk) 19:17, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Missing information[edit]

The "Disorders" section contained an incomplete sentence, so I added the information on the average size of an umbilical hernia. Websterwebfoot (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Hokkaido Belly-button Festival" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Hokkaido Belly-button Festival. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 4#Hokkaido Belly-button Festival until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 02:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Disorders"[edit]

Under the "Disorders" subsection:

Navels that are concave are nicknamed "innies".

Is having an "innie" considered a disorder? This subsection rambles. TricksterWolf (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Stylish navel piercing.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"innies" and "outies?"[edit]

I'm 75 & have no medical background, but I mention my age for a specific reason. I was born in the USA in 1947. Most of the kids & teens I knew in my close age group seemed to have innies. but 3 to 5 years later there were far more outies. it was a harmless fascination among young teens at the time to just ask if you had an innie or an outie. That is why I happened to notice the time differential. Ever since, I have wanted to know if there is some obstetric technic which creates the different types of belly buttons. This has been a life long obsession. I was hoping to find enlightenment here. Alas not. Forgive my obsession with naval gazing. I have no children & so that has provided no clue, either. [REDACTED] 50.102.6.20 (talk) 07:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]