Talk:Extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand

Merge

I have merged the following articles into this one:

• Common extensor tendon
• Abductor pollicis brevis muscle
• Extensor pollicis brevis muscle
• Extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle
• Extensor carpi radialis longus muscle
• Extensor pollicis longus muscle
• Extensor indicis muscle
• Extensor digitorum muscle
• Extensor digiti minimi muscle
• Extensor carpi ulnaris muscle

I may merge in brachioradialis, anconeus muscle, and supinator and move the article to muscles of the posterior forearm.--Taylornate (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be a good idea to unmerge the individual muscles? Searching for, e.g., "extensor indicis" redirects here and because of this and the use of abbreviations on this page it is difficult to get a quick definition/anatomy for the individual muscles. I would at minimum recommend reducing the use of abbreviations here (particularly in the definitional table).--Xris0 (talk) 20:20, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There is simply not enough material for them to each have a separate article. Do you have any ideas for rearranging the information in this article to make it more accessible? I support your idea of reducing the use of abbreviations. We could certainly get them out of the table. For the article body, it may be tricky to find the ideal balance but I'm sure we could improve it from my current overuse. I gave your post the standard indentation—I hope you don't mind.--Taylornate (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, mentioned this on your talk and WP:anatomy but I think there's enough material to deserve separate articles. I'm all for keeping this article as it's quite cool, I love the chart, but the giant pictures of the individual muscles helps to identify them, I love those individual pages. Please initiate a "moveto" discussion before making all the moves before consensus is achieved. So I concur with Xris at preferring the old setup. Have asked for additional input. Y12J (talk) 10:00, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Moved from user talk:Taylornate#Your_merge:

I noticed you merged some parts of the posterior compartment of the forearm (the ECRB and ECRL muscle, the ECU muscle into the new page you created extrinsic extensor muscles of the hand. But it appears you didn't initiate a Template:Merge before doing so. It's pretty standard to have distinct articles for each muscle since they're notable enough to deserve them. I'm concerned that not all of the content may be included in your new article. That's usually why merging is done as a gradual process to make sure nothing is lost.

For the moment I'm going to revert the redirects (as well as others on the talk to restore that content. Please feel free to nominate them for merging. Your overview page is valuable but I think the old pages should link to it, rather than redirect to it. Y12J (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that every muscle is significant enough to have its own article. This is evidenced by the fact that these articles have been around for years, yet many remain stub-class. They are stale. There is also a great deal of information shared redundantly among them. These two reasons are straightforward justification for a merge. I did seek comments before I completed the merge on the project pages for medicine and anatomy, and got a total of two comments. I did not notice the comment by Arcadian because by the time he posted, the discussion was stale. Looking back, he did not comment on the reasons I gave for the merge.

Do you really think 46 words is enough information to warrant a separate article? I think you reverted my work without really looking at it. You say your are concerned that I may have left something out, but that does not justify a revert. You are welcome to look for missed information and point it out or merge it yourself. I put significant effort into this and you should exercise due diligence. The merge template process is not required by policy and if the merge itself didn't spark a discussion for seven weeks, obviously that process would not have. Your revert may have been appropriate six weeks ago under WP:Bold, but that time has passed. At this point, your edits are the bold ones and I would feel justified in reverting them. I would be happy to have a discussion, but that discussion should start from the current status of the articles, not from seven weeks ago.

As a side note, if you seek comment from other users or projects, please direct them to comment here rather than have multiple places of discussion.--Taylornate (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

This is insane! Of course every muscle is important enough. Most articles are stubs, virtually every article started as a stub, and most of them remained so for a long time. All those stubs had references and most of them also had interwiki links to other languages. In contrast, the English Wikipedia is (AFAIK) the only to have an article on the "extrinsic extensor muscles". "I put significant effort into this." Really? Most of the references are copy-pasted from articles where I added them. Did you even look for a reference before doing all those merges? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is every muscle important enough for a separate article? I've never seen an anatomy book with separate chapters for each muscle. It's just not a sensible way of arranging the information. There was a lot of redundancy. If you look at WP:Merge, duplication of content and minimal content are both listed as reasons to merge.

Of course I copied the references, that's what a merge is. Looking for new references is not the point of a merge. That doesn't make the task trivial.--Taylornate (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Taylor I can see you disagree with those of us who think there should be distinct articles. The thing is: while we should be bold in adding content, we should be more conservative while removing it, and by spuriously redirecting the articles to your new page, you've essentially done that. This has also created a lot of problems because bots have gone around redirecting disambiguatory redirects to your article. Even after I switch the redirects back, the bots will not revert their changes, and this causes problems.

Please read WP:MERGEPROP. Using things like Template:Merge (or specialized to/from) helps to attract discussion to the issue. You have redirected these articles to your page a second time even in light of multiple objections to it.

To use another example, while we do have a quadriceps article, we also have distinct articles for each of the 4 muscles. It's fine that you are discussing the muscles as a group, but having individual articles allows the muscles to be discussed in more specific detail. It allows the use of highlighted pictures to show the muscle (something not included here) and the ability to be more concise and speak on point about that individual muscle and how it relates to others, as opposed to generalizing and making a bloated article jamming all the minutia into a single place.

"Minimal" content is a subjective issue. The muscle articles were not many pages long, but they were at least a page each, so that's not minimal to me. As far as 'duplicated content', that is only because you chose to duplicate it.

A very significant problem with your redirects is that they also lack specificity. Your article is not at a high enough state to be redirecting the other pages to it yet. At the very least there should be distinct sections for each muscle. You have only redirected the names to the page, and not to specific sections to say what the muscle is.

Another important issue is the etymology. Each muscle has reasons why they are named what they are named. Individual pages allow space to explain this. Your article doesn't. It simply lists the names. You have only included generic pictures with multiple labels and expect people to click on the image and search until they find the vertically-written name. That's not user-friendly. The previous articles had special highlighted photographs which made it very easy to locate the muscle. This is the kind of extensivity that makes anatomy approachable by laymen. Had I as a teenager come across your page rather than the previous ones, I would've been very put off, because I'd have no easy way of seeing what was where.

I would like for you to notice: when I reverted your redirects, I actually added links to your new page in a 'see also'. I believe they can coexist. There is no need to remove the previous content. Muscles are important and each distinctively named muscle in the body is important enough to have its own article. I believe anatomists created unique names for these muscles for good reasons, as opposed to lumping them together under a single name like we do with triceps/biceps. Please do not restore your redirects until there is consensus about doing them. Y12J (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Taylornate: why do you mind stubs at all? Palmar plate was a stub when I found it. One of my own favourite contributions (I discovered it because someone created a stub) is Levator claviculae, defintely not an important muscle. I did a Google on extensor pollicis longus filetype:pdf, there is obviously a lot of people around considering it an important topic.

The fact that there are a lot of stubs only reflect the fact that it's very simple to start an article but a lot more effort to add useful content to it. Obscure topics such as human anatomy are doomed to attract only a few editors. Besides, my anatomy books all describe every muscle separately as do a lot of pages online.

--Fama Clamosa (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• Taylor I can see you disagree with those of us who think there should be distinct articles. The thing is: while we should be bold in adding content, we should be more conservative while removing it, and by spuriously redirecting the articles to your new page, you've essentially done that. This has also created a lot of problems because bots have gone around redirecting disambiguatory redirects to your article. Even after I switch the redirects back, the bots will not revert their changes, and this causes problems.
  — User:Y12J

I have not removed content. A merge does not do that.

I don't believe I was bold in my merge, but as an aside, below you link to a page that says it is perfectly acceptable to boldly merge.

• Please read WP:MERGEPROP. Using things like Template:Merge (or specialized to/from) helps to attract discussion to the issue.
  — User:Y12J

This very page you link to says it is not required.

You know very well I sought discussion on multiple boards before performing the merge.

• You have redirected these articles to your page a second time even in light of multiple objections to it.
  — User:Y12J

From the project anatomy talk page:

I'm going to be bold and revert them back
— User:Y12J

Maybe you are not familiar with this, but WP:BOLD has a very specific meaning on WP. It means you expect your edit to be reverted. If you did not want your edits to be reverted, you should have discussed first.

• To use another example, while we do have a quadriceps article, we also have distinct articles for each of the 4 muscles.
  — User:Y12J

I acknowledge that what I have done is different from how some other articles currently stand. However, that does not support your position that that is the way things should be. I have supported my position with WP policy. You have not.

• It's fine that you are discussing the muscles as a group, but having individual articles allows the muscles to be discussed in more specific detail. It allows the use of highlighted pictures to show the muscle (something not included here) and the ability to be more concise and speak on point about that individual muscle and how it relates to others, as opposed to generalizing and making a bloated article jamming all the minutia into a single place.
  — User:Y12J

I think anything you can accomplish with separate articles could be accomplished in this merged article more efficiently. If you would step back and discuss how we might do that, then we might get somewhere. If the article were to then become bloated, we could discuss splitting some things off.

• "Minimal" content is a subjective issue. The muscle articles were not many pages long, but they were at least a page each, so that's not minimal to me.
  — User:Y12J

The shortest merged article you reverted was 46 words. I already mentioned this. Please read posts carefully to avoid going in unproductive circles.

• As far as 'duplicated content', that is only because you chose to duplicate it.
  — User:Y12J

No, there was a lot of unnecessary duplication among the individual articles and that was one of my two reasons for the merge. Discussing muscles separately is inherently inefficient. I could elaborate on this. If you want me to, just ask.

• A very significant problem with your redirects is that they also lack specificity. At the very least there should be distinct sections for each muscle. You have only redirected the names to the page, and not to specific sections to say what the muscle is.
  — User:Y12J

This comes back to whether muscles should be discussed individually or as a group. I know your view on this and you know mine, but as I said above, I'm willing to discuss this in more detail. I don't think what you describe here is necessarily a problem.

• Your article is not at a high enough state to be redirecting the other pages to it yet.
  — User:Y12J

Unless I made some errors (entirely probable), all the information from the individual pages exists on my merged page, and the redirects are entirely appropriate. That is exactly what a merge is.

• Another important issue is the etymology. Each muscle has reasons why they are named what they are named. Individual pages allow space to explain this. Your article doesn't. It simply lists the names. You have only included generic pictures with multiple labels and expect people to click on the image and search until they find the vertically-written name. That's not user-friendly. The previous articles had special highlighted photographs which made it very easy to locate the muscle. This is the kind of extensivity that makes anatomy approachable by laymen. Had I as a teenager come across your page rather than the previous ones, I would've been very put off, because I'd have no easy way of seeing what was where.
  — User:Y12J

The merged article is not perfect, but there is no reason we can't try to improve it to address these concerns and any others. There is no reason to jump to reversion.

• I would like for you to notice: when I reverted your redirects, I actually added links to your new page in a 'see also'. I believe they can coexist. There is no need to remove the previous content.
  — User:Y12J

As a merged article, it is a 100% duplication of the content of the individual articles. In that state, they cannot coexist. Again, that is the purpose of a merge.

• Muscles are important and each distinctively named muscle in the body is important enough to have its own article. I believe anatomists created unique names for these muscles for good reasons, as opposed to lumping them together under a single name like we do with triceps/biceps.
  — User:Y12J

I don't see your point. The fact that they have their own names is a red herring.

• Please do not restore your redirects until there is consensus about doing them.
  — User:Y12J

On the contrary, I ask that you establish consensus before reverting my work that I did after seeking discussion, that has been in place for seven weeks. I would like to remind you thatconsensus is achieved by supporting your view by appropriately applying WP policy. So far, I believe I am the only one who has done this. I emphasized that because I think it is the most important point from this post.

• Taylornate: why do you mind stubs at all? Palmar plate was a stub when I found it. One of my own favourite contributions (I discovered it because someone created a stub) is Levator claviculae, defintely not an important muscle. I did a Google on ​extensor pollicis longus filetype:pdf​, there is obviously a lot of people around considering it an important topic.
  — User:Fama Clamosa

Minimal content (perhaps the definition of a stub) is, according to policy, a reason to merge. As stubs, it may have been justified to merge palmar plate and levator claviculae into other articles. That would not in any way have deterred you from expanding content on them. If the merged article became too large with your expanded content, a split could have then been justified.

• The fact that there are a lot of stubs only reflect the fact that it's very simple to start an article but a lot more effort to add useful content to it. Obscure topics such as human anatomy are doomed to attract only a few editors.
  — User:Fama Clamosa

I think it's easier to improve a larger article than it is to improve a stub. I think consolidating will help with this problem.

• Besides, my anatomy books all describe every muscle separately as do a lot of pages online.
  — User:Fama Clamosa

Which books? I have the Netter atlas, Grant's atlas, and the 13 volume Netter Collection, and I don't think any of them separate by muscle the same way they have been on WP. Gray's sort of separates by muscles and maybe others do similarly but not to the same degree that we would have with separate articles. Muscles are much too related to have independent articles and it leads to a great deal of duplication. As I said before, I am willing to expand on this if asked.

• One last note: Please try to be concise and stick to what is most important in building consensus—applying Wikipedia policy. Today I believe I have addressed every last point, but it has been too time-consuming and I won't be able to keep up this level of effort.--Taylornate (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand of WP:MERGE, the policy is ambiguous by design. Main objections to the merge here seem to be centered around #2 of Reasons to Avoid:

"The separate topics could be expanded into longer standalone (but cross linked) articles"

I feel that Taylornate has done a good job creating a summary article. The time and effort involved is not trivial. Since there is no deadline, editors who wish to revert the redirects and expand the individual articles may do so at their own leisure. That does not have to happen right now, as the summary seems to present very nicely the info currently available.

One suggestion I have is to curb the use of acronyms, as they are especially burdensome for the layperson. Wafflephile (talk) 17:31, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Images

Here are some images from the merged pages that I haven't put in the article but could maybe go in.

• 
  Anatomical snuff box
• 
  Bones of the left hand. Volar surface.
• 
  Tendons of forefinger and vincula tendina.
• 
  Cross-section through the middle of the forearm.
• 
  Transverse section across distal ends of radius and ulna.
• 
  Transverse section across the wrist and digits.
• 
  The muscles of the thumb.
• 
  The radial and ulnar arteries.
• 
  Deep palmar nerves.
• 
  Front of right upper extremity. (Abductor pollicis longus labeled at upper left.)
• 
  The mucous sheaths of the tendons on the back of the wrist. (Abductor pollicis longus and brevis visible at center right, going into thumb.)
• 
  Arteries of the back of the forearm and hand.

Dissection

• 
  Extensor carpi ulnaris muscle
• 
  Extensor carpi radialis brevis muscle
• 
  Extensor digitorum muscle
• 
  Extensor indicis muscle