Talk:Anatomical terminology

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has not yet been associated with a particular anatomical discipline.
 
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Anatomical terminology is part of WikiProject Organismal Biomechanics, an attempt at creating a standardized, informative, comprehensive and easy-to-use resource covering organismal biomechanics. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

History of this article[edit]

This article originated here: User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terminology. Its history can be found there. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Human anatomical terms redirects here[edit]

Human anatomical terms redirects here, to see older discussion see Talk:Human anatomical terms -- CFCF (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Anatomical terms of motion[edit]

The following discussion 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.

I have proposed this merge because:

  • This article duplicates all content that is provided on the other article
  • It would be better to have a single article that would have enhanced readership with a greater chance of improvement rather than a small array of low-quality other articles.

--LT910001 (talk) 23:25, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should stay. Will try an expansion to justify this tomorrow, need to get some sleep now. CFCF (talk) 00:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
This is very much a draft, but here is a suggestion, see the glenohumeral joint: User:CFCF/sandbox/Anatomical terms of motion. This would make the article behave more like a list, filling that function better, without intruding into this article. -- CFCF (talk) 12:19, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
I've also been reading up on different types of motions and Clinical Kinesiology and Anatomy by L. Lippert seems to be a good source. It speaks of motions in different ways such as linear, rectilinear, curvilinear and angular. -- CFCF (talk) 12:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Not too good at kinesiology and biomechanics, but I'll give it a shot. CFCF (talk) 12:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Did some work, I think it's going to need more, but I think this should be the article people turn to for an entry level explanation, while the main article is more of a list and takes into account kinesiology as well. Please comment or help expand on the work I did over on that page. CFCF (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Marking this discussion as closed. There was no consensus for the change, and Anatomical terms of motion is now a featured list. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2014 (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.


Sources[edit]

For general overview:

  • Kachlik, D.; Baca, V.; Bozdechova, I.; Cech, P.; Musil, V. (2008). "Anatomical terminology and nomenclature: Past, present and highlights". Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy 30 (6): 459–466. doi:10.1007/s00276-008-0357-y. PMID 18488135.  edit
  • o&Rsquo;Rahilly, R. (1989). "Anatomical Terminology, then and Now". Cells Tissues Organs 134 (4): 291–300. doi:10.1159/000146705.  edit
  • Sakai, T. (2007). "Historical evolution of anatomical terminology from ancient to modern". Anatomical Science International 82 (2): 65–81. doi:10.1111/j.1447-073X.2007.00180.x. PMID 17585563.  edit
  • Terminologia anatomica: international anatomical terminology and Terminologia Histologica: International Terms for Human Cytology and Histology [1]

Proposed merge with Anatomical landmark[edit]

The following discussion 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.

The article Anatomical landmark, as presently written doesn't warrant article status. "Anatomical landmark" is a vague, indefinite term that can describe points of reference in any organ system, not just gross external regions. There is no sense in having a separate article with a title that basically means "anatomical parts in an area of interest". A selection of Google Scholar results for "Anatomical landmark" yields "Antomical landmarks of": radical prostatecomy, femoral nerve block, rhomboid fossa, anterior fontanelle ultrasonography, and sacrospinous colpopexy operations performed for vaginal vault prolapse. A term with such broad usage is hardly worth creating a separate article for. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:30, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Quite possible, but in that case I belive we need an article at List of anatomical landmarks CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
That would probably entail making a list of all nameable parts of the human body, and would not really help define what an anatomic landmark is. A reader interested in every nameable part might start with Glossary of anatomy or Category:Human anatomy. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Agree that we should merge these two articles, 'landmark' is a nebulous quantity that is hard to define and I feel unlikely to be expanded in the future. --LT910001 (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I have completed this merge. --LT910001 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (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.


Proposed merge with Supine position[edit]

The following discussion 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.

A merge has been proposed with Supine position (not by me).--LT910001 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose I think that this article has social and cultural, as well as medical implications, and couldn't be neatly merged into this article. --LT910001 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Ping to CFCF who may have proposed this merge.
  • Oppose. Resting positions might be mentioned on this page, but I don't think it warrants a merge.--Animalparty-- (talk) 05:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

With no consensus for the merge, I'm removing the merge tags and closing this discussion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2014 (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.


Hyperflexion[edit]

The following discussion 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.

This term redirects here, but there's no mention of it in the article. I'm not convinced we should redirect arbitrary anatomical terminology here - we should be directing the user to Wiktionary instead. Philipwhiuk (talk) 08:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for picking this up Philipwhiuk. The link's been redirected to the appropriate article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:46, 19 September 2014 (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.


Proposed merge with International morphological terminology[edit]

Article appears to directly relate to anatomical terminology, and could be easily represented in a #History or #Society and culture or other section Tom (LT) (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)