User talk:Robotsintrouble

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

Aminopterin[edit]

Aminopterin is _NOT_ Amethopterin (methotrexate). Random google image search: http://www.biosite.dk/leksikon/images/aminopt.gif . Will you revert it back so it DOESN'T redirect? Thanks.

G'day![edit]

G'day there, Robotsintrouble, and welcome to Wikipedia! Good authors are always welcome on the project, and I hope you like the place and decide to stick around!

We've got a few pages you might find helpful, such as:

It's all best summed up here: write from a neutral point of view, play nice with others, and don't let the rules get you down.

If you have any questions or need any help, my talkpage is always open for business, or you can see Wikipedia:Newcomers help page. Here's a tip to start you off: if you type four tildes (~~~~) at the end of any messages you leave on talkpages (like this one) Wikipedia will automatically insert your name and the current date and time after your message. Cool, eh? Happy editing! fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 10:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Trichloroethanol image[edit]

I just wanted to let you know that I replaced your image of the chemical structure of trichloroethanol with another that I created. The structure you drew had one too many carbon atoms. Thanks for your contributions to chemistry related articles; if you're interested, we would welcome participation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry and Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals. --Ed (Edgar181) 18:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

I'm a newly registered user, so I am unfamiliar with uploading images. If I add a rationale to Image:Ffaamack.jpg and Image:Ffakkreuk.jpg, can I get rid of the disputed fair use tag? - Rts freak 07:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep it a secret between us about these images if I remove the tag? If we can't then plz don't tell anyone I suggested this otherwise I'll be hunted down and killed ;). Well thanks anyway, goodbye! Rts freak 08:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Invite to CLINMED et al.[edit]

I've noticed that you've been editing medicine related articles -- from your contributions and that your user page states you are a med student. We have a place where the medically minded people hang out: WikiProject "Clinical Medicine". You are invited to join or just browse the talk page, which is also known as the doctors' mess.

If your interests are in nephrology, radiology, GI or pre-clinical medicine-- there are projects specifically for those things.

If you're looking for info on how to do references see WP:CLINMED/Writing_medical_articles. I look forward to more of your edits. Nephron  T|C 01:48, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

It is a pleasure to help people learning the stuff they need to become effective. :)
I don't really know enough about medicine yet to join the full clinical medicine project...
You don't need to know anything. It is just a place where the medically inclined people hang-out.
I've seen the project sites before but haven't figured out an effective way to turn that into good contributions, as opposed to just editing my own way.
The project sites are for coordinating edits and discussions. If there is disagreement with an editor you think is full of hooey, it is a place to recruit back-up/ask for comment. Seeing how you're a first year... based on another post-- there is an anatomy project. You might find the discussion about naming interesting... if you're in the mindst of studying anatomy.
Two little questions: Why do some people add spaces on both sides of their headings (the ones you make with equals signs)? Does it change anything?
The Manual of Style doesn't specify how it should be done and I don't think it matters. So, do it however you like. Nephron  T|C 02:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Howdy[edit]

It's great to meet you. From your comments above, it sounds like you're as timid as I was when I first started on Wikipedia. No worries, that'll pass. :-) Happy wiki'ing, and if there's anything I can help out with, don't hesitate to ask. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Eyes[edit]

Hi there; In the UK the spelling is Hemianopia, which is to say, without the "s". I have, naturally, not touched the article. Is this a UK/USA spelling difference, of which there are a multitude?--Anthony.bradbury 22:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It appears to be one of those.. and you are quite astute to note it, since I have now discovered that we are in need of merging several articles. See Bitemporal heminopia and Bitemporal hemianopsia! Is the spelling "Bitemporal heminopia" correct? (note the lack of an "s" and an "a" in the former article title). Robotsintrouble 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
In this neck of the woods (UK) the correct spelling is "hemianopia". With an "a", without the "s". But if the US spelling is with the "s" then fine; wiki policy is to leave unaltered UK/US spelling variations. But "heminopia" is wrong everywhere. I will go and fix it.--Anthony.bradbury 23:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, done that. Before we start looking at merging two quite similar articles, could you please confirm that in the USA "hemianopsia" (with the s) is the correct spelling?--Anthony.bradbury 23:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I've found that this may not be a USA/UK difference, though I assumed it was because I was working off a gross anatomy noteset with hemianopsia. See the following links:

http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/PublicWebsite/public_rnib003656.hcsp http://www.umassmed.edu/strokestop/glossary.html

So it appears to simply be an alternate name in both the USA and UK, not necessarily a regional difference. Robotsintrouble 23:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, and well researched. I qualified in 1968, and it may be that the usage has shifted a bit in the last 38 years!--Anthony.bradbury 20:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Limb bud creation[edit]

And now, 5 minutes later, I'm still laughing at that page's initial edit labeling it a "stub":) DMacks 20:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I know what the "stub" edit designation means...it's when there's just a tiny start of an article about something, not quite fully developed or expressed into its mature form, etc. Kinda like a limb bud is to its eventual limb? Awfergeeddit, maybe I'm over-tired. DMacks 20:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Rain day[edit]

No problem, everybody's got to start somewhere, eh? In case you didn't know, there are some pretty easy-to-follow step-by-step instructions at WP:AFD (I can never remember exactly what to do, so I always find myself going back there, too). If you already knew that, no problem. See you around! Heimstern Läufer 03:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Listing[edit]

Hi,

I'd like to make some promotion for the Medicine WikiProjects again, as Nephron did before here. They're useful places where you can ask questions, as you did about the pictures of your dean. Consider listing yourself as a participant, which will allow to contact if someone needs somebody that fits a specific profile, e.g. related to medical biochemistry or something, in your case.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 16:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the projects!
If you have questions, don't hesitate to ask. Enjoy!
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 11:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging metabolism[edit]

Metabolism
Metabolic pathway
Catabolism
Glycolysis
Citric acid cycle
Electron transport chain
Oxidative phosphorylation
Glycogenolysis
Fermentation
β-oxidation
Urea cycle
Anabolism
Gluconeogenesis
Protein synthesis
Fatty acid synthesis
Glycogenesis
Photosynthesis
Calvin cycle

I like your efforts to try an merge to gether all these rag tag articles into something more coherent. this is something i have been meaning to attempt for a while. Feel free to ask for support or advice as your get going. Another possible idea for a template is the metabolism one based on the italian wiki. See a copy of it below. This too might be useful here in the English wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 18:51, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Although we do already have a metabolism template Template:Metabolism, we might be able to combine their style and content ideas. David D. (Talk) 18:53, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi! Good work on the metabolism articles! ive been telling myself id do something about them for ages... As you can see the wikiproject is very young and a huge amount of work needs to be done, dont feel bad about ripping apart and rearranging the templates into something more useful. You said elsewhere you didnt know enough about the wiki syntax of template, so (very basically) a template used with the tag {{name}} is found at Template:name, just edit that page to edit the template, hopefully that helps. If you have any questions about templates feel free to ask me on my user page, i regard myself a bit of an expert! - Zephyris Talk 20:15, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs
Protein kinase
Cytochrome c oxidase
Phosphatase
Triose
Geniculate ganglion
Ophthalmic nerve
Zygomaticus major muscle
Catecholamine
Obturator nerve
Tetrose
Phrenic nerve
Maxillary nerve
Iliacus muscle
Popliteus muscle
Helicase
Spermatozoon
Lateral rectus muscle
Medial pectoral nerve
Coenzyme
Cleanup
Methcathinone
Phencyclidine
Cloxacillin
Merge
Parasympathetic nervous system
Neurofibroma
Triglyceride
Add Sources
Gag reflex
Gunting
Muscle memory
Wikify
Gland
Economic Inclusivism
Robert Downey Sr.
Expand
Exergonic
Zygomatic bone
Wrinkle

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 21:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

O.K. Corral[edit]

Anything works from Clanton's left, agreed. But if the attackers are facing squarely off, which I can't imagine them not doing in the circumstances described, it just doesn't work. Also, Billy, if he uses his right arm first to fire with, is going to have right side toward attackers, if anything. Again, no way for a bullet to hit his inside-thumb part of wrist and exit at the back, behind the hand. Not with hand up in surrender. And by the way, we seem to share a lot of the same interests. Welcome to Wikipedia. If I find you editing the JFK assassination pagek it will REALLY get strange. SBHarris 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sbharris"

Gunfight at the O.K.Corral[edit]

Regarding your recent edit, I'm curious about the details of your edit summary. You edited the article text to say:

Billy Clanton was shot through the right arm, close to the wrist joint (Keefe testified the bullet passed through the arm from "inside to outside," entering the arm close to the base of the thumb, and exiting "on the back of the wrist diagonally" with the latter wound larger)

With this in the edit summary:

Difficult for bullet to go from thumb to outside of arm with arm in any "up" position. This becomes important to final Spicer verdict)

I'm not an expert on this particular gunfight or the Spicer verdict you mention, but if you mean to say that the injury would be difficult to sustain if Clanton were in the act of surrender with arms raised, I disagree.. It's difficult to explain using text but if Clanton had his right hand raised that injury seems entirely consistent... especially if the attacker was firing from Clanton's left. Robotsintrouble 07:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Anything works from Clanton's left, agreed. But if the attackers are facing squarely off, which I can't imagine them not doing in the circumstances described, it just doesn't work. Also, Billy, if he uses his right arm first to fire with, is going to have right side toward attackers, if anything. Again, no way for a bullet to hit his inside-thumb part of wrist and exit at the back, behind the hand. Not with hand up in surrender.SBHarris 07:24, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi, pleased to meet you too... but I don't follow your logic. First, the fog of combat and time make this discussion academic without a better record of the original autopsy records. Then again, I'm something of an academic so I don't mind a little intellectual exercise.
In an attempt to show the anatomical contradiction in your argument, let us assume for a moment that the fighters were indeed in a standoff, and that Clayton's pistol was pointed at his assailants. In this posture, the only angles of attack from which a bullet could enter his inner arm and exit through the wrist are at least slightly to the attacker's left (unless Doc Holliday called in aerial support). While this by itself is completely plausible given the close range of the gunfight (mostly 10 feet or less according to the article), the resulting injury track would likely travel towards his elbow before exiting.
This matters because of one detail: I note that you've changed the wording of the original text slightly: according to the quote, the entry wound was at the inside (ventral/palmar surface) of his arm, not his wrist as you just said. This is in contrast to the exit wound, which is specifically described as being from the back of his wrist. If Clayton were pointing his pistol anywhere near his attackers, it should be the other way around-- entry wound closer to the hand (distal end of the arm), exit closer to the elbow (proximal end of the arm).
In order for the wound to exit from the back of the wrist after entering the inner arm near the thumb, one of the following is true:
  • One or more of our many assumptions is wildly incorrect (most likely)
  • The attacker was almost directly to Clayton's left (or to the left of where his pistol was pointed)
  • Clayton had thrown up his hands, in which case this wound is completely plausible: he would have turned his hands, and thus the inside surface of his arms, towards his assailaints. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Robotsintrouble (talkcontribs) 08:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
  • Back in the bad old days there often were no autopsies-- certainly not full ones-- and there was none here. The doctor acting as temporary Coroner in the case, Dr. Harry M. Mathews, only describes the fatal wounds (and then only from superficial exam of the stripped bodies), and ignores the wrist altogether. The ONLY description we have of Billy's wrist is that of Thomas Keefe, a witness and carpenter, who felt the wounds on the dead Billy, and even poked a finger into one to the bone (rather in the matter of Thomas the Apostle, one supposes) to see for himself. He testifies in the Spicer hearing. Nobody else says anything about the matter until Judge Spicer declares in this judgement that "William Clanton was wounded on the wrist of the right hand on the first fire and thereafter used his pistol with the left. The wound is not such as could have been received with the hands thrown up, and the wound received by Thomas McLaury was such as could not be received with his hands on his coat lapels." Regard this, Spicer had seen during the trial a demo, and the only document we have of this reads exactly:

    In response to shot on wrist: "It went from the inside to the outside." Course of ball was diagnonal across the wrist [here witness illustrates upon the arm of Mr. Fitch, the direction in which the ball passed through the arm of Billy Clanton, by showing that the ball entered nearly in line with the base of the thumb, and emerged on the back of the wrist diagonally.] Says the orifice on the outside of the wrist was the largest. Did not see any powder burn on Billy Clanton's body or clothing."

    So far as I know, that's all the info history has for us. Except that we know the demo apparently convinced the judge. From our description we can put this in various ways-- obviously in anatomic position the base of thumb is lateral with arm down and there's no way to get a bullet into it except to rotate the forearm somewhat inward so the thumbside (what we usually call the lateral side of the forearm) is more forward, so it can receive a bullet. You can do that easily with the arm down and rotated 45 degrees inward, naturally. It's very hard to get into that position (thumb forward, ventral surface diagonally exactly behind, to allow a posterior exit on the ventral/back wrist) with the arm UP. Because you really have to crank that arm around to get the thumb in front, with the arm raised. That's what the judge apparently concluded. We have only verbal description.

    Finally, I might add that the bullet may well have hit Billy while he was in the act of drawing his pistol from a holster, which would for a moment have put him in exactly the right position to get a bullet above the thumb and out through the back of the wrist. Try it. SBHarris 19:31, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

commons:User:Robotsintrouble[edit]

I assert to be the same user as commons:User:Robotsintrouble. Robotsintrouble 18:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Cell Metabolism Merge[edit]

Just wondering why you didn't finish the job? :) --Seans Potato Business 05:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Metabolism[edit]

I'm envisioning a broad principles article that avoids "carbon counting" and tries to explain to the reader what is generally true of metabolism in all organisms and what approaches different types of organisms take to solving the common metabolic problems. Help would be much appreciated. TimVickers 01:54, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, all done. TimVickers 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good stuff you added last night. Should we use US or British English in this article? I'm going to edit the Xenobiotics section, thought I'd warn you to avoid edit conflicts. TimVickers 22:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is true that feeding acetyl-CoA to the TCA cycle doesn't increase its rate, see this full text abstract paper for measurement of increase in TCA rate upon feeding fatty acids in heart. Were you meaning that fatty acids cannot replace glucose or TCA intermediates, since they are not a substrate for gluconeogenesis and humans don't have a glyoxylate cycle? TimVickers 22:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
This stems from a lecture point in my biochemistry class. Yes, I mean that the presence of glucose is necessary for fatty acid oxidation (in humans, at least) without the formation of ketone bodies. It's important that pyruvate from glycolysis doesn't necessarily become acetyl-coA because the carbon in acetyl coa can never be used for gluconeogenesis. I have very little experience with organisms other than animals and common pathogens due to my medical training, but yes as I understand it it is due to the lack of a glyoxylate cycle. While acetate from acetyl-coa can drive the krebs cycle, it can never increase the quantity of oxaloacetate.
Thanks for the copyedits. I often waffle by saying "many cells" if I don't know for sure that every single known cell does something. I know very little about cyanobacteria and bugs that eat sulfide.
You're making too many edits for me to keep up with every one, but I like the direction the article is taking. It's already far better than it was, and we have a lot more work cut out for us. Robotsintrouble 00:30, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, a lot to do. I'm taking my wife out to dinner this evening, so edit away without fear of conflict! TimVickers 01:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
I've added an oxidative phosphoylation section today, I'll work on chemolithotrophs and photosynthesis this evening. TimVickers 22:21, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Hey there, if it is over with, I hope the exam went well and if it is later this week - good luck! TimVickers 18:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A rough guide is under 80 kb total size and less than 40 kb readable text (excluding images and references). See Wikipedia:Article size. At present it has 27 kb of readable text and is 45 kb in size. It is still pretty small compared to may last FA Antioxidant which is currently 76 kb in size. TimVickers 22:45, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer-review of Metabolism[edit]

Hi there, this article has been re-written and expanded. Any comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Metabolism/archive1 would be very welcome. TimVickers 04:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

This article is now a Featured Article candidate, any suggestions or comments at it's nomination page would be very welcome. TimVickers 20:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Allochrome[edit]

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Allochrome, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Propaniac 19:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Cardiology task force[edit]

Cardiology task force[edit]

-- Addbot (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion[edit]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Wiki Med[edit]

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)[edit]

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

  • Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
  • Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
  • If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:33, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

Next
Released: Fourth quarter, 2013
Editor: LT910001

Hello WP:ANATOMY user! This is the first of what I hope will be ongoing quarterlies, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. 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

What's new
What's going on
How can I contribute?
Quarterly focus - GA nominations

I would like to take some time on this first quarterly to evaluate the state of the project. We have the benefit of having a relatively-small group of articles that are, for the most part, relatively non-controversial. Additionally, for the majority of our articles, it may indeed be possible to create an article that reflects a significant proportion of the published literature. This is quite distinct from other projects.

However, it appears we only have 5 GAs (Anatomy, Brain, Clitoris, Human tooth, and Leonardo da Vinci) and 4 FAs (Immune system, Hippocampus, Cerebellum, and Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom), none of which relate to purely anatomical items, which constitute most of our mass. By 'anatomical items' I mean muscles, nerves, bones, blood vessels, veins, foramina, and so on, that constitute the vast majority of our articles. In fact, we only have one 'system' (Immune system) at FA class, and none at GA class. We indeed only have 70 articles out over 4,000 at B-class. This scarcity is, I believe, for the following reasons: (1) lack of model articles (2) lack of appropriate guidelines, and (3) general sparsity of sourcing on many articles. How may these be addressed?

  1. Nominating good articles. In addition to suspensory muscle of the duodenum I will be working on Mylohyoid muscle, Genioglossus, Foramen spinosum and an as-yet undecided article.
  2. Revamping the MEDMOS guidelines for Anatomical articles to make them more appropriate. That discussion is here.
  3. Using books as sources. Books are readily available in libraries and have the superb quality of being able to aggregate information, which can be used to source thousands of anatomical articles.
  4. Collateralising sourcing. Anatomical sources often refer to several structures in a single source. Therefore an editor on one article could quickly add a source to another two articles in a related topic. This incremental approach will hopefully accrue for future editors
  5. Tagging articles for cleanup, to let future editors know to use sources
  6. Templates, which will soon be available, to post on the wall of new editors thanking them for their edits and encouraging the use of sources.

I hope that we are able to revitalise this project. Wikipedia has the capacity to become an excellent resource for anatomical information. I again welcome feedback on this quarterly or any aspects therein on the talk page for the quarterly, on my talkpage, or on the WP Anatomy talk page here. Kind regards, LT910001 (talk)

  • This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WP:ANATOMY users.

WikiProject Anatomy quarterly newsletter[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#2)

Previous -- Next
Released: First quarter, 2014
Updated cleanup listing and recent changes list in third quarter, 2014
Editor: LT910001

Hello WP:ANATOMY participant! This is the second quarterly update of goings-on in WP:ANATOMY, documenting the current state of WP:ANATOMY, current projects and items of interest, and any relevant news. 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
How can I contribute?
  • Reword anatomical jargon: jargon is widespread and not helpful to lay readers.
  • Contribute on our talk page
  • Continue to add sources, content, and improve anatomical articles!
  • Replace images with better images from Wikipedia commons, or if there are too many images, remove some low-quality ones
Quarterly focus - Where to edit?
One of our two new featured images! (Also featured on the Signpost)

On any given week we have at least 4-10 editors making significant contributions to our articles, with probably more than double this making minor edits. As an editor, I am often wondering: with so many articles, where to start? There is so much to be done (as always, on Wikipedia!), and I aim here to provide a comprehensive list of venues within our project. If I've missed any, please let us know on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page.

An editor might edit:

  • By importance. A user can use our assessment table to view articles by their importance and class. The vital articles project provides a list of designated 'Vital articles' for Wikipedia.
  • By popularity. One way to edit is to edit the most popular pages -- the majority of these need help, and editing is sure to bring benefit to many users.
  • By need. There is always cleanup that needs to be done, whether commenting on mergers, adding infoboxes or adding images. A cleanup list of all tagged articles is now available here: [1]
  • By interest. A series of inter-project categories has been developed to help facilitate inter-Wiki and inter-professional collaboration. These categories sort our articles into organs, system, gross anatomy, neuroanatomy, and several other categories. This should offer a buffet of articles for any interested editors! See here for more details.
  • By topic. Wikipedia's anatomical categories may provide impetus, as may editing a suite of related-articles, using a parent article such as ear for direction. A collection of series are slowly being rolled-out, including one for epithelia and for articles about the gastrointestinal wall, which also act as groups of topics. Templates, as documented on our main page, provide a similar categorisation.
  • By demand. Discussions relating to Anatomy are frequent occurrences on the talk pages for WPMED and WP:ANATOMY. Such topics almost always cry out for more editing.
  • By recent changes. One way to choose a destination for editing is to check the recent changes, revert vandalism, integrate/source edits, or generally collaborate in improving articles that are receiving contributions from other editors. This can be found in the here.
  • By chance. A user is always welcome to improve articles that they randomly 'bump into' by Wiki-surfing or by having bumped for other reasons into a particular article or topic that needs improvement

Delivered on behalf of WikiProject Anatomy by User:Mdann52, using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy Newsletter[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#3)

Previous
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