User talk:Was a bee

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

The Signpost: 11 December 2013[edit]

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

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#1)

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.

FMA template[edit]

Hi there. I saw you added the FMA template, this is great! I was wondering on what your opinion was on adding similar links to other kinds of articles, and what procedure should be followed from doing this - for example, to add a link to the Gene Ontology on the Apoptosis page. Disclosure: I work on many of these community ontologies. I also wanted to mention that I curate a set of cross-references between FMA and Wikipedia (via another ontologies), if this is at all useful to you I would be happy to help. Not sure what the correct forum to go through here, so I thought I would ask on your page, apologies if this is not the correct place. Thanks! Cmungall (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello Cmungall. Thank you for message! I'm glad to see your message. I know the your cross-species ontology project. Your experience is great benefit for Wikipedia project. There are several ways to put scientific identifiers into Wikipedia infobox. The most simplest way is to request adding section (e.g. GO ID section) at each infobox note (e.g. Template talk:Infobox anatomy). After that, adding GO ID to the article. This is the simplest way. What I'm doing is like this.
More systematic way is to use Wikidata. I don't know in what style you can collaborate with Wikimedia project, however I'll put here basic procedure of editing Wikidata anyway (if you are not interested in editing Wikidata, please skip this section). For inserting new data into Wikidata, we have to request new property (e.g. request for TA ID) at wikidata:Wikidata:Property proposal/Natural science. After that, adding statements to each item. This step can been done by manually with hands or semi-automatically with bots. (An example of well developed item is, for example, wikidata:Q128581. You can access to this Data item from left side bar of the breast cancer article in Wikipedia). Once data is stored in Wikidata, all Wikipedia project can retrieve these data easily. For example, if the code {{#property:MeSH ID}} is put in the article breast cancer in English Wikipedia, it returns text D001943 (for details, see meta:Wikidata/Notes/Inclusion syntax). Major part of data in Wikipedia infoboxes will be someday replaced by this centralized data storage system, Wikidata.
Speaking in a straightforward manner, if you think it is ok to export cross-species ontology data into Wikidata, I think it would be ideal collaboration (not only for English Wikipedia, but also all over the world). There are many potential partners are listed in Wikidata (wikidata:Wikidata:Data collaborators). I think you are very good candidate of partner.
Possibly my response was pointless. More message is always welcome. Adding to here, good forums for you would be... WP:Anatomy, WP:Medicine and wikidata:Wikidata:Community_portal. Thanks! --Was a bee (talk) 06:33, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 25 December 2013[edit]

The Signpost: 01 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 08 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 15 January 2014[edit]

The Signpost: 22 January 2014[edit]

VF source request[edit]

Hi there, I have been looking to Vandal Fighter latest source to make some modifications, but the svn link has been put offline. Can you help? Thank you in advance, M/ (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi M7. I posted about that at the project talk page though, here is my old wesite[1]. After downloading the Jar file, change the file extension from ".jar" to ".zip". Then you will be able to get the archived source. I hope you can get source code. thanks. --Was a bee (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. --M/ (talk) 14:55, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject Anatomy quarterly newsletter[edit]

WP:Anatomy quarterly update (#2)

Previous edition
Released: First 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.
  • 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 external watchlist, or the (recent contributions for Index of Anatomy), a relatively comprehensive on-wiki list.
  • 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)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject![edit]

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology 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 can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology 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!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 13:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

A barnstar for you![edit]

Graphic Designer Barnstar Hires.png The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For all the wonderful work you've been doing for WP:Anatomy. Your images are really helpful to the project. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:46, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I was meaning to ask you how you got all those images from Blender. I haven't got blender to import .obj files myself, so I tried using the link function at Anatomography to create rotating gifs. They work and look fine, but won't be made into thumbnails. Currently I put one over at Quadriceps, but almost none of the others are working:
Is there any simple way to fix this, and what am I doing wrong in Blender when I can't import them - all I see is a gray square?
Thanks -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi CFCF. I'm glad to barnstar :D Thank you.
  • The problem of animation thumbnail comes from image size (commons:COM:MAXTHUMB). Practically, I'm using "450 pixel * 450 pixel and 60 frames or 72 frames". This size can work well always.
  • When importing polygons into Blender, original Bodyparts3d data is extreamly big. My importing method is as follows...
1. From menu bar, select File -> Import -> Wavefront (.obj)
2. Move to "BodyParts3D_3.0_obj_95" forder (polygon reduction rate = 95.0%, high quality mesh)
3. Set "Clamp size": 50 (scalling size of object) Sometimes this value must be "10", rarely "1" or "1000" (i dont know why, this is strange.)
4. Set "Forward": Y Forwad (direction of mesh)
5. Set "UP": Z Up (direction of mesh)
6. Press "Import Object"
In some day, I want to make simple manual for this kind of tips. --Was a bee (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a whole lot, I've seen your guides and they helped me fix some of the images. These things aren't always so straight forward. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:36, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Because you thanked me[edit]

Thanks extension ThankYou.png You thanked me for one of my recent edits, so here is a heart-felt...
 YOU'RE WELCOME, Was a bee!
It's a pleasure, and I sincerely hope that you enjoy your continued improvement of this inspiring encyclopedia! – Paine Ellsworth CLIMAX!

08:52, 3 August 2014 (UTC)