User talk:LT910001

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please ping me ({{u}}) if you'd like me to contribute in a discussion on an article talk page.

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#3)

Released: 1 November, 2014
Editor: Tom (LT)

Hello WP:Anatomy participant! This is the third quarterly update, documenting what's going on in WikiProkect Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest. I'd greatly value feedback on this, and 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
What's going on
  • We fly past 10,000 articles (now already up to 10,150). Why is this important? Articles under our scope are automatically included in popular pages, the cleanup list, and will be included as the recent changes list is updated.
  • A discussion about the formatting of infoboxes.
  • A lot of editing on the heart article -- can it make it to GA?
  • The medical newsletter, WP:PULSE finds its feet, and Anatomy and Physiology are featured as a subsection!
  • A new WP:WikiProject Animal anatomy (WP:ANAN) is created to focus on animal anatomy.
How can I contribute?
  • Welcome new editors! We have a constant stream of new editors who are often eager to work on certain articles.
  • We are always looking to collaborate! If you're looking for editors to collaborate with, let us know on our talk page!
  • Continue to add high-class reliable sources
  • Browse images on WikiCommons to improve the quality of images we use on many articles.
Quarterly focus - Anatomical terminology

Anatomical terminology is an essential component to all our articles. It is necessary to describe structures accurately and without ambiguity. It can also be extremely confusing and, let's face it, it's likely you too were confused too before you knew what was going on ("It's all Greek to me!" you may have said, fairly accurately).

In the opinion of this editor, it's very important that we try hard to describe anatomy in a way that is both technically accurate and accessible. The majority of our readers are lay readers and will not be fluent in terminology. Anatomy is a thoroughly interesting discipline, but it shouldn't be 'locked away' only to those who are fluent in the lingo – exploring anatomy should not be limited by education, technical-level English fluency, or unfamiliarity with its jargon. Anatomical terminology is one barrier to anatomical literacy.

Here are four ways that we can help improve the readability of our anatomical articles.

  1. Substitute. Use words readers are familiar with -- there is no need to use anatomical terminology unless necessary!
    Innervated by
    The nerve that supplies X is...
  2. Explain. When using terminology, remember readers will likely not understand what you mean, so consider adding an explanation and providing context. Use wikilinks for terms that a reader may not know.
    "The triceps extends the arm" may not be readily understood. A small addition may help the reader:
    "The triceps extends the arm, straightening it". Consider:
  3. Separate. Do not use long, complicated sentences. Don't write discursive, long comparisons unless needed. Start with simple information first, then get progressively more complex. Separate information by paragraph and subsection. Bite-sized information is much more easier to digest for readers who don't have a solid anatomical foundation
  4. Eliminate. Not all information is necessary on every article. Hatnotes are a simple and effective way to direct readers to another article. Don't provide long lists of synonyms of names for structures that an article isn't about. If a sentence has been paraphrased to the hilt, consider that several editors are indicating it may need to be simplified.
    "The other branches of the trigeminal nerve are the opthalmic nerve (nervus opthalmicus) and mandibular nerve (nervus mandibularis)"
    "The other branches of the trigeminal nerve are the opthalmic nerve and mandibular nerve" is much more easily digestible

This essay is provided in full on WP:ANATSIMPLIFY.

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


Hi Tom, not sure if you are still reorganizing all these templates, but I have integrated Template:Acquired tooth disease and Template:Developmental tooth disease into Template:Oral pathology. I have a long term goal to make one overall template including all oral and maxillofacial pathology articles, and another for all symptoms in the same region (currently we lack).

This leaves these 2 (very in need of work) templates a bit redundant. Do you think I should replace all instances of these 2 with the parent Oral Patholgy template? Or possible even they should be nominated for deletion>? Thoughts? Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 20:56, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Wow, what a template! Let me rummage around a bit and get back to you. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:12, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
OK, here we go. I'd suggest merging them and proposing a merge first (it may be defeated but at least that will safe trouble secondary to someone reverting...). Do you have twinkle enabled? (one of the gadgets) Click 'TfD' (templates for discussion) and there'll be a merge tag somewhere in there. If you are going to propose this merge I'd suggest using something like Template:Navbox with collapsible groups (the groups can all be expanded) so that you can organise the box first... at the moment it's very large and hard to read at the moment but I'm sure that it's just in a developmental stage. Did you see my other comments at WP:DENTISTRY? I left 4-5 templates there that could do with some oversight from a knowledgable user :P. Anyhow I hope that you're well, Matthew Ferguson 57! --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
Collapsed sections might be the way forward. What do you think of changing the categorization to a surgical sieve format instead of by site involved?
Yes a few symptoms still mixed in. I will be removing them to Template symptoms and signs involving head and neck. As for the others, unfortunately no plans to tackle them any time soon. Oral pathology is my only real focus now. Dentistry articles in general, and their organization, are too depressingly poor to work on... Matthew Ferguson (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
I think by structure is probably the best for navigation, unless the scope of the template is smaller. Good hunting! --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)


Tom: Sorry I missed it. Still lots to do. Thanks. Anatomyczar (talk) 15:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Development of CNs[edit]

Tom, I appreciate your comments. I removed it b/c I incorporated what was relevant to the CNs in the Function section. I thought you had agreed that this section was very confusing. The functional components of the nerves (e.g., GVE, SVE etc) really require some knowledge of neuroanatomy to understand. They are not discussed in my entire book on the CNs. If you really think they need to be there, then I can try to redo it but I do think I covered the essential information in the Function section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:21, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

More Development[edit]


I read over the Development section again and it is simply loaded with errors. Further, terms are used that the normal reader would have no idea what they mean. Function in the sense used here is not the sense as most people would assume. How would a normal person know the difference between somatic and visceral? What is a branchial arch? I submit that this section as currently written does not contribute to a better understanding of the CNs and would discourage readers from reading further. If you really want it, then I suggest it be moved to the end of the page. And again, look at the Function section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talkcontribs) 14:14, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes Anatomyczar, I suppose you're right, now that I read over it carefully. In fact it doesn't really contain much useful information about 'development' per se at all, but we do need a section on development :/ (and variation, which is not often mentioned in our articles). I'm reticent to remove it completely although that may be mainly because I've been on the wiki too long, but wouldn't object if you went ahead and did it. If you are correct that it is historical in nature, we could summarise the columns briefly as a subsection in the 'history' section, although we'd need some strong sources as undoubtedly there will be future users who are completely confident that such information is vital. What would be your thoughts on a move to the history section? --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Your development idea[edit]

Thanks for thinking about what I wrote. There might be a place for a rewritten development section at the end, but I need to see what is now written on the Brainstem page. Let me work on editing the other sections so that the entire page reads well, and is consistent. Then I can embellish with Development and Figures. Really, to understand the Development issue, a figure is essential. And I keep staring at the Extracranial course figures that are there - just not sure what to do with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anatomyczar (talkcontribs) 14:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to worry. If we are going to have a section about embryological development, we normally put that in the anatomy / structure section (WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy), however if we're just going to talk about the columns then we can put that into either the general 'history' section or something like a 'historical concepts' section. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

edit box[edit]


I didn't know that. I will use the box. Thanks and thanks for the support. Wikipedia anatomy will be my retirement project. I am trying to recruit other anatomists. I have an editorial about Wikipedia and Anatomy that will be published in Clinical Anatomy. If you send me an email address I will email you a pdf version. Anatomyczar (talk) 12:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)