User talk:Anatomyczar

Welcome!

Hello, Anatomyczar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~~~~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:20, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomyczar some links above may be helpful. I'll take a look at what you've been editing and see if I can help. cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Anatomy Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form -- most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages!

I know strictly that you've already signed up and introduced yourself, but this message has some decent links that are important when getting started. Best, -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Anatomyczar. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by David Biddulph (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.[reply]

RE: references

Hi Joel. I just added {{Reflist}} to the section where the references should be and removed the banner for you. I will get back to you soon when I have some spare time and explain in more details. In the mean time; if you click on "View history" and compare your last edit and mine you can see what changes I made to the syntax. I also added the article to my watchlist and will keep an eye on it for some time and do some minor edits and help out a bit. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again. Good to hear that you now know how to make references. As you might can see on the article I also removed the "jargon template". The article does not have to be more "easy-read" than it is now; and generally speaking you do not have in any way describe what or where the e.g. the humerus is on such an article if you only link to it. I could not see if you had made any links on the article. If you do not know how to it is very simple: [[humerus]] links to humerus, if you want the link text to say something else than the article title; you write [[Medial epicondyle of the humerus|Medial epicondyle]] then the reader will only see a link saying medial epicondyle but it directs them to the right one.

By the way I also added a infobox to the article and I have not filled it out yet. We have a couple of different infoboxes but we do not have one for tendons so in this case I used the one for muscles. They are however all similar in design. There are some predefined parameters in the e.g. origin and insertion and you just "fill out the box" by writing the after the =-sign (It is all ways best to use a lot of links in the infobox). If you do not fill the parameters out they will not be shown so do not bother looking for e.g. MeshNumbers if you do not want to. Most, if not all, of our infoboxes can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Templates and it is only the infoboxes that need filling out. JakobSteenberg (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: please send example

Thank you. If you try to search for common flexor tendons (with the S at the end) you will get the search page since no such page exist yet. You will however see this text: "You may create the page "Common flexor tendons", but consider checking the search results below to see whether the topic is already covered." If you click on the red link you will create the article and if you insert this code: #REDIRECT [[Common flexor tendon]] the next time you search for the plural form Wikipedia will send you directly to the singular form (the real article). This is a redirect. There are tons of these on wikipedia for abbreviations, misspellings and everything else. An example; if you search for Obama you will be send to the article Barack Obama (notice the text on the very top: " (Redirected from Obama)"). What I am talking about with tagging the articles with WP:Anatomy banner is inserting another template on the REDIRECTS talk page. If you look at Talk:Common flexor tendon you can see a WP:Anatomy banner. If you look at the code (just like the articles, just press "edit") it will look like this {{WikiProject Anatomy|class=start|importance=mid|field=gross}}. There are 3 parameters here; class, importance and field. Class is the quality of the article but there are also a class for things that fall out of this category these are "redirect", "list" and others. These two examples does not requires rating on the importance scale as well. Field is to subdivide our articles into animal, embryo, gross, meta, micro, NA, neuro, organs, systems. ...by the way if you want to have some of these often used codes close to hand: When you edit an article you can see a drop-down menu between the edit window (where you write) and the edit summary. Try changing from "Insert" to "Wiki markup" then you can just click on the most used syntaxes. I know it is not easy to start editing Wikipedia but learning curve is step and after 10-20 edits people often know 90 % of what they normally will need. Thanks for your respond JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE: more quesitons

Infobox

To switch the image in the infobox find the parameter called image after the = is the name of the current image. Delete the name and insert the name of the new image. Have you found an image on Commons? ...Commons is Wikipedias image database. If you want to use an image on Wikipedia it has to be located here... if you have a good image and own the rights to it you can upload it to Commons. Have a look at Commons webpage.
If you want to change the imagetext in the article find the parameter in the infobox called caption and change the text after the =. Remeber t

Template

The "upper limb muscle templates" "insertion code" is {{Upper limb general}} you if you want to edit the template you can search for template:Upper limb general or click on on the V in the upper left corner of it. Then you get to the "template-site" and you can just press edit and make the changes. On this side (template:Upper limb general) the template is just a table and can be edited just as tables in any article. But if I was you I would stay far far from this at the moment since this is more code heavy.

I hope this helps to clarify, but just try to make a change and see what happens when you click Show preview. If you end up saving it and you make a mess of things I have the article on my watchpage and will fix it for you when I get the time.

Infinite seems to describe the scope of the project. We have about 5000 articles about anatomy plus about the same number in templates, redirects and other things and are at most 50 people (20 is a better guess) who edit them.

If you are looking for something to work on

Hi. Good to see that you figured out how to insert the image... If you are looking for something to do besides common extensor tendon you could take a look at gluteal muscles. The article might be a good one for you since it is only start class at the moment (our second lowest rating), references in the article are sparse, the article already have a couple of sections that could easily be expanded and contrary to common flexor and extensor tendon it is much more heavy on text at the moment and generally easier to write about. We have some okay articles on gluteus maximus, gluteus medius and gluteus minimus but gluteal muscles are below their standard. In regards to images I know there are plenty on commons. ...I it is just a suggestion but I stumbled across the article and thought it might be a good place for you to start. JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, again.

What you are describing is called a disambiguation page you can see and example at abductor pollicis muscle. This is one way to go. However with an article such as gluteal muscles it is normally preferred (especially when an article already exist) to simply write about three separate encyclopedia subjects (gluteus maximus, gluteus medius and gluteus minimus) in one article. There are generally to ways to go about this:

A textbook approach where you write about the all three muscles as a whole; start with a lead and the following subheadings could be; attachments, function, innervation and so on. Here you more or less write about the three muscles as one subject and point out differences where needed.
You could make/or keep the lead and subdivide the article into the subheadings gluteus maximus, medius and minimus where each of the three articles are reduced in text to give the reader an overview; lets say 10 lines for each.

The first approaches would be my first choice when possible. If there is some information which you think is not relevant to the muscles fell free to remove it, but it would be best to see if it is already described under buttocks subheading anatomy with covers the gluteal region (at least gluteal region redirects here).

...or a gluteal region could be turned into a proper anatomy article and we could link to it from buttocks. JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RE:article for Clinical Anatomy

Hi. I have send you an e-mail. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your talk page messages

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Talk:Cranial nerves, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

optic nerve

Thanks for the explanation. It seems that the technical terminology and the consensus terminology of gross anatomists are in conflict. The last paragraph in the cranial nerve lead seems clear (to me at least) at the moment. Biolprof (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cranial nerves and WP:Verifiability

Cranial nerves is a "Good article" WP:GA and to keep it at this standard we should try and ensure all edits are well-sourced. This means that all parts of the article should have a source. If a source is a book it needs a page number or range when it's used -- otherwise it's very unfair and difficult to "verify" because an editor will have to sift through the entire book. And AnatomyCzar can you please not remove good sources unless you're replacing them (eg [1]). --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing reliable sources with your book

On further investigation I can't help but notice you've been making minor copyedits and replacing a number of reliable sources, including widely respected textbooks, with a book of your authorship:

We welcome all editors but we also have conflict of interest guidelines here. It may be worthwhile for you to read those and in future edits to add content, rather than replace existing sources with your own, particularly if you plan on advertising it to other users [8]. I'll be happy to help out if there are any problems. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:14, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

April 2015

Hello, I'm IronGargoyle. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Cranial nerves with this edit, without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. IronGargoyle (talk) 16:18, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content again

If some sections have some worth and convey some value to readers (eg the development section) please do not remove it as you have done [9]. Wikipedia is a collaborative endeavour and the idea is that other users will improve on content as it goes along. By completely removing content we go from a section that is (let's say) 20% useful to 0%.--Tom (LT) (talk) 01:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edit to Cranial nerves

Hi there, I noticed that you removed some content from Cranial nerves without explaining why. I see you are a seasoned editor, so please can you give a summary of changes for other editors, or it will be picked up via various anti-vandal tools. If you continue to remove content without saying why, it will certainly be viewed as unconstructive vandalism, but I'm sure that's not the case.If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you! Mediavalia ^talk 15:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Response to recent edit to Cranial nerves

Hi again. Yes, I can see from the contributions you have made that you're obviously an expert and we are clearly benefiting hugely from your wealth of experience on this subject. However, as I stated before, please be mindful of the way you edit articles: blanking large amounts of content without edit summary and reference to discussion with other editors (which I see you've done a lot of) will always result in a rollback from those of us patrolling Wikipedia for vandalism as it will be flagged in our various tools. Thanks and happy editing! Mediavalia ^talk 16:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AnatomyCzar is a relatively new but very valued editor. AnatomyCzar, there is a small box at the bottom you can fill in when you make an edit, where you can write a short summary of each edit (see Help:Edit summary). That summary will display when a user views an article's history, and helps other editors keep track of changes made to the article over time, and understand the logic of different edits. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I can see that. Thanks a lot, Tom. Cheers, Mediavalia ^talk 12:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cranial nerves, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ptosis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your continued edits

Thanks very much and for your continuing edits Anatomyczar -- and if you'd be so kind as to include a chapter name in the book reference it will make life much easier for future users. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Some sustenance for continued edits. Tom (LT) (talk) 01:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Good articles and featured articles

Last note while I'm here.

I'll briefly tell you about article ratings and what the terms "good article" and "featured article" mean.

All articles are given a rating by editors on their talk pages. The ratings go from stub (short undeveloped article) to start-class, C, B, good article ("GA") and featured article ("FA").
The ratings are given by editors based on a scale, but are somewhat arbitrary and don't have much meaning, except for GA and FA. To get these two ratings, an article first undergoes a review.
A good article (WP:GA) is an article that is reviewed by a single user. It has a green star in the corner and "GA" status on the talk page (such as Cranial nerves). The reviewer may or may not by a subject expert. The reviewer users six criteria (WP:GA?) to determine if an article can be promoted. Often this comes down to making sure the prose is well-written and everything in the article has a source. An article has to be broad but does not have to completely cover a subject in all areas to become a GA. When requesting a GA, an article can take some months to receive a review, and during a review the nominator has time to respond to suggestions by the reviewer.
A featured article (WP:FA) is a good article that undergoes an intense peer review by many users. These articles require a lot of discussion and are given a lot of scrutiny. Such articles are considered Wikipedia's best work and must be comprehensive. These articles are often featured on our main page, and have a star that says "featured article" on them (eg Cerebellum).
Many articles have changed since the reviews, as they are edited and improved.

There are currently 15 "good" anatomical articles and 4 "featured" anatomical articles (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Article_assessment_statistics). I hope to expand this in the future. I hope this short introduction is useful, it is something that crops up in many Wikipedia discussions. Kindly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:34, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter #4

Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is the fourth update, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. We've had a quiet time over the last half-year or so, so I've slowed down the release of this newsletter and will probably release the next one around the end of the year. If you'd like to provide some feedback, if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talkpage or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new

A related WikiProject is formed, WikiProject Women's health
Cerebellum, promoted in 2006, receives a long overdue featured article review
Heart and Glomerulus receive a peer review
Our article base explodes from about 10,000 to 12,775, with most new articles being redirects.
Sympathetic nervous system, Autonomic nervous system and Parasympathetic nervous system all receive significant makeover, and cry out for more attention!

What's going on

Should Vermiform appendix be retitled to its more common name (Appendix)? The discussion continues!
A large number of "back end" changes are made, and integration with Wikidata continues -- see the focus for more.
Our set of cranial nerve-related articles receive a review by a subject expert

How can I contribute?

If you're interested in a topic area, let other editors know by creating a 'drive' in that area
Continue to reword articles in language lay readers can understand
Search Wikimedia commons for high-quality coloured images that can be used to replace some of our older, lower quality images.
Don't forget that anatomy isn't always about gross anatomy! A number of other fields, including articles about embryology and histology ("microanatomy") cry out for attention.

Issue focus - technical changes

This issue was originally going to focus on how far we've come as a project. However, that encouraging news can wait until next issue, as there are simply too many changes going on at the "back end" of our project not to write about. What do I mean by "back end"? I mean changes that are not necessarily visible to readers, but may have a significant impact on the way we edit or on future edits.

Templates

A number of visible changes have been made to our templates. Firstly, the way our templates have been linked together has changed. Previously, this was a small bar with single-letter links. This has been replaced by a light-coloured box contained within all our templates with fully-worded links, which provides links to relevant anatomy and medical templates. This should make life a lot easier, particularly for students and other readers who are struggling with the vastness of anatomical systems and their related diseases and treatments.

As part of this, almost all our templates have been reviewed and cleaned up. The previously confusing colour scheme has been removed and colour standardised. The titles have been simplified. References to "identifiers" in the titles of navigation boxes (such as Gray's Anatomy and Terminologia Anatomica numbers) have been removed. Where possible, the wiki-code of templates has been updated to give a cleaner, more standardised, format that is hopefully more friendly to new editors. The cleanup continues , please feel free to contribute or propose templates which need attention.

Anatomy infobox

Most of our articles have an infobox. Previously, there were 11 separate infoboxes for different fields, such as muscles, nerves and embryology. These have been united so that at the "back end", every template will take formatting directly from the main anatomy infobox -- however at the "front end", there is little difference for readers. This will make future changes much easier -- including adding new fields, formatting, and reordering the contents. Several changes have already been made: infoboxes now link to a relevant anatomical terminology article; contents are now divided into 'Identifiers' and 'Details' headings, making it easier to grasp content for new readers; and new fields have been added, including Greek and UBERON, with several more under discussion.

External links

An editor has reviewed all our template-based external links. These are the links that often fill the "External links" category, and sometimes used as citations. At least thirty different links sets, with the number of links stretching into the thousands, have been fixed, and if not functioning, deleted. A number of non-functioning dead links (with no archived websites available), and one or two others, have been deleted. This helps keep our 'external links' section relevant and functioning for those readers who want extra information about articles.

Wikidata

Perhaps our most important change has been integration with Wikidata. This is because of both its current uses and potential future uses. Wikidata is a service related to Wikipedia focusing on storing information. Data relating to a Wikipedia item (such as a muscle or bone, or even a template) can have related "structured" infomation stored systematically alongside it. For example, a muscle can have information about its embryological origin, nerve supply, and the relevant sections of Terminologica Anatomica (TA) stored alongside it. Much information that was stored within articles on infoboxes is now stored on Wikidata, including the TA, TH, and TE fields. An immediate benefit is that Wikipedias in every language will (as they update their own infoboxes, be able to automatically include this information. New data can be entered in a much easier format, and data can be batch entered by bots making future updates much easier Future uses include data visualisation. I personally am looking forward to the day when a reader can view a wikidata-based "tree", clicking mesoderm and seeing all of the derived structures, then selecting the intermediate mesoderm, then Pronephric duct, mesonephric duct and vas deferens. The possibilities of using Wikidata for data visualisation are really quite encouraging!

Our next issue will focus on how far WikiProject Anatomy has come in the past 2 years.

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy newsletter #5

WP:Anatomy newsletter (#5)

Previous - Next

Released: November 2016

Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is our fifth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. There hasn't been too much worthy of news, and I have less time to dedicate to this project, so I've slowed down the release of this newsletter.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list

What's new

Adrenal gland, thyroid ima artery, Ear, Heart, Esophagus and Lung are promoted to good article status
Our previous barnstar has changed to the new shiny "Golden galen" barnstar to celebrate contributions to anatomical articles
We are featured in the journal Clinical Anatomy [10]

How can I contribute?

Participate in discussions - a number of discussions such as those on our talk page or about our infobox would benefit from your opinion!
Continue to add content to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!

Focus - how far we've come

How far have we come since our first newsletter... the answer is quite a lot! Here goes:

Hundreds to thousands of articles improved and standardised by many, many editors.
14 new good articles created or added to our project [11]
Improved quality of our articles - subjectively and objectively. GAs quadrupled from 5 to 16, B-class articles doubles from 62 to 115, C-class article well on the way to trebling from 219 to 611, Start-class increased from 1,082 to 1,570.
Tens to hundreds of mergers performed between tiny, unedited articles - a remnant of our Gray's Anatomy (1918) heritage.
Layout guidelines changed and layout standardised for the majority of our articles
In the project space:
- WikiProject Animal Anatomy created
- 20-30+ new members
- 200+ new editors welcomed with our new welcome template
- Interdisciplinary category system to help new editors
Active integration with wikidata in our infoboxes
Overhaul of all of our navboxes
Review and integration of all of our templates
External link templates reviewed to ensure they all work
To help improve anatomical literacy:
- Creation of a suite of five Anatomical terminology articles, and overhaul of existing articles
- Creation of the {{Anatomy-terms}} template created
- Links provided in infoboxes
- Simplifying anatomical terminology essay released

These are substantial improvements and my thanks go out to our many editors who played a part in this. These improvements are almost always the result of consensus, compromise, collaboration and discussion between multiple editors.

I hope we can continue to improve in the future. How can you help? Continue to edit, add content, and create a welcoming atmosphere so that new editors will join us.

Well done to us all, and the many anonymous editors who've helped along the way!

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

Message delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:21, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Anatomy newsletter (#6)

Released January 2018 · Previous newsletter · Next

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our sixth newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:48, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

	new good articles since last newsletter include Thyroid, Hypoglossal nerve, Axillary arch, Human brain, Cerebrospinal fluid, Accessory nerve, Gallbladder, and Interventricular foramina (neuroanatomy)
	I write an Introduction to Anatomy on Wikipedia in the Journal of Anatomy [12]
	Vagina receives a lot of attention on its way to good article status.
	We reach two projects goals of 20 good articles, and less than half of our articles as stubs, in July 2017. [13]
	A discussion about two preferred section titles takes place here.

Introduction to WikiProject Anatomy and Anatomy on Wikipedia

We welcome all those interested in anatomy!

Seeing as we have so many new members, and a constant stream of new editors to our articles, I would like to write in this issue about how our project and articles are arranged.

The main page for WikiProject Anatomy is here. We are a WikiProject, which is a group of editors interested in editing and maintaining anatomy articles. Our editors come from all sorts of disciplines, from academically trained anatomists, students, and lay readers, to experienced Wikipedia editors. Based on previous discussions, members of our project have chosen to focus mainly on human anatomy ([14]), with a separate project for animal anatomy (WP:ANAN). A WikiProject has no specific rights or abilities on Wikipedia, however it does allow a central venue for discussion on different issues where interested editors can be asked to contribute, collaborate, and perhaps reach a consensus.

Project and article structure

Wikipedia has about 5,500,000 articles. Of these, about 20,000 fall under our project, about 5,000 of which are text-containing articles. Articles are manually assigned by editors as relating to our project (many using the rater tool). As well as articles, other Wikipedia pages in our project include, lists, disambiguation pages, and redirects. Our articles are improving over time, and you can have a look at our goals and progress, or last newsletter, to get a better idea about this.

Our articles are structured according to the manual of style, specifically here. The manual of style is a guideline, which "is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply", and prescribes the layout of anatomy articles, most of which follow it.

Our articles are organised in a particular way. Most articles have a infobox in its lead, describing key characteristics about the article. Because we have so many articles, articles are often linked together in different ways. An article tends to focus on the primary topic it is written about. Further information can be linked like this, or piped (like this). We use navboxes, which are the boxes at the bottom of articles providing links to similar topics, as well as hatnotes. Typical hatnotes in articles include {{main}}, {{see also}} and {{further}}. This lets us link to relevant and related articles. The bottom of articles also shows categories, which store groups of related articles.

Tools

For interested editors, our project offers a number of additional tools to help edit our articles. On our main page appears a log of the most edited recent articles. An automatic list of recent changes to all our articles is here. We have a list of the most popular pages (WP:ANAT500). To keep abreast of news and discussions, it is best to monitor our talk page, newsletters, and our article alerts, which automatically lists deletion, good article, featured article, and move proposals. We also have a open tasks page for editors to create lists of tasks that other editors can collaborate with. Articles are also manually assigned to a "discipline", so interested editors in for example, gross anatomy, histology, or embryology can easily locate articles via here.

Our project has all sorts of smaller items that editors may or may not know about, including a barnstar, user box ({{User WPAnatomy}}), welcoming template ({{WPANATOMY welcome}}) and fairly comprehensive listing of templates (here).

Invitation

We are always happy to help out, and I invite new editors, or for those with any questions relating to how to get around the confusing environment that is Wikipedia, to post on our talk page or, for a kind introduction to questions, at the WP:TEAHOUSE.

How can I contribute?

Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask!
Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, leave a message on the talkpage of Tom (LT) or remove your name from the mailing list

Wikiproject Anatomy newsletter #7

Released September 2020 · Previous newsletter

Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our seventh newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.

I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.

Yours truly, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What's new

	new good articles since last newsletter include Epiglottis, Human nose, Pancreas, Prostate, Thymus, Trachea, T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review
	A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article
	We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years
	In the real world, Terminologia Anatomica 2 and Terminologia Embryologica 2 are released ([15], [16]). Terminologia Anatomica 2 is now included in anatomy article infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well
	A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}})
	Portal:Anatomy receives some attention, and two related portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals)
	Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ([17]) and Hippocampus ([18]) are published in Wikiversity.

Newsletter topic: anatomy and featured articles

I have been asked to write up something introducing the Featured article (FA) process to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.

A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikipedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to standard—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!

Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The Anatomy WikiProject has tagged 4 FAs, 1 Featured list, and 30 Featured media. Working towards upgrading and maintaining older Featured articles could be a worthwhile goal. Immune system is a 2007 FA promotion, and bringing it up to date would make a nice collaboration between WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.

Whether tuning up an older FA at Featured article review, or attempting a new one to be reviewed at Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay is helpful.

You can read the essay "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.

SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations

How can I contribute?

Ask questions! Talk with other editors, collaborate - and if you need help, ask at our project page!
Continue to add content (and citations) to our articles
Collaborate and discuss with other editors - many hands make light work!
Find a space, task or type of article that you enjoy editing - there are lots of untended niches out there

This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, remove your name from the mailing list

Inactive WikiProject Anatomy participant

Hi Anatomyczar, you're receiving this message because you were previously listed at WikiProject Anatomy as a participant, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 years.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the participant list, so that we stop spamming you with newsletters and have a better idea of who to contact for active discussions. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting here when you become active again.

Thank you, and all the best on your WikiVoyages! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:02, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]