Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 71: Line 71:
Will someone with competence in the evolution of the eye, please look at today's comment(s) on the [[Talk:Eye]] page? Some clarifying is needed in the article. Thanks, --[[User:Hordaland|Hordaland]] ([[User talk:Hordaland|talk]]) 17:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Will someone with competence in the evolution of the eye, please look at today's comment(s) on the [[Talk:Eye]] page? Some clarifying is needed in the article. Thanks, --[[User:Hordaland|Hordaland]] ([[User talk:Hordaland|talk]]) 17:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
: See [[Evolution of the eye]]. This project is is a medical project about human anatomy. Evolution is outside its scope, since evolution involves animals that are not humans. If you need further help, you could try [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy|WikiProject Animal anatomy]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology|WikiProject Evolutionary biology]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology|WikiProject Palaeontology]]. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
: See [[Evolution of the eye]]. This project is is a medical project about human anatomy. Evolution is outside its scope, since evolution involves animals that are not humans. If you need further help, you could try [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy|WikiProject Animal anatomy]], [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biology|WikiProject Evolutionary biology]] or [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Palaeontology|WikiProject Palaeontology]]. --[[User:Epipelagic|Epipelagic]] ([[User talk:Epipelagic|talk]]) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

== RfC: References for anatomical images (or other images) at the [[Human sexuality]] article? ==

Opinions are needed on the matter: [[Talk:Human sexuality#Should the anatomy images or other images have references?]]. A [[WP:Permalink]] for it is [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Human_sexuality&oldid=706547418#Should_the_anatomy_images_or_other_images_have_references.3F here]. [[User:Flyer22 Reborn|Flyer22 Reborn]] ([[User talk:Flyer22 Reborn|talk]]) 22:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 22:51, 23 February 2016

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Midriff is listed as part of this project, but the topic doesn't appear to have any relevance to medicine. The article's content is entirely focused on the perception of women's public display of the midriff.

Any thoughts from members of this project about this? Is this article relevant to include in the Anatomy Project?

Peter Isotalo 14:28, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In summary yes. I should write an essay WP:ANATNOTMED which lists our points of difference, but in short, anatomy is concerned with the structure and layout of living things (and this project mostly concerns itself with that of humans). This is usually, but not always, related to medicine - which seeks to exploit knowledge of these to improve our quality or quantity of life. Two separate fields. So yes, midriff does relate to anatomy, but not to medicine. --Tom (LT) (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, Tom. A discussion has started at talk:midriff about what to do with the article (which is pretty bad overall). The current suggestion is to redirect to a different article, either navel or abdomen. Input from this project would be helpful.
Peter Isotalo 10:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Innervation

Think I saw somewhere that the use of the word innervation was to be changed in favour of nerve supply - if I did has there been any further advice on this as I don't think I've seen its use anywhere.? --Iztwoz (talk) 17:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this would be a good idea. It would removed one bit of jargon without any "loss of information" or specificity that I can think of. Can anyone think of a good argument why not to change it? JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember specifically discussing this in general but it seems like a good idea, because it's much simpler and easier to understand. Perhaps we can add it to either WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy and/or the essay WP:ANATSIMPLIFY --Tom (LT) (talk) 16:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's here Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Simplifying anatomical terminology --Athikhun (talk) 16:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Femur as possible GAN

Hi. Over the last couple of years I have been working on femur and have recently been wondering if it could be brought up to Good article status. I do not have any real experience with this process and was wondering: Is the article even within reach of a nomination? Three years ago an IP editor nominated it for GAN but it was rejected prior to review with the explanation: "Removing GAN tag (article is completely unready, added by brand-new IP), bumping to C-class per discussion below". Since then a bit of content has been added and a bit of polishing has been done. Even if the article is not ready for GAN I am looking for ways to improve it. The first things that comes to mind is a clean up of the gallery. Do you have any other suggestions? Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 14:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article looks good, although I will swing by and help later too. Good articles are reviewed against six criteria here: WP:GA? In my experience the sticking factors are whether the article is verifiable, and all the parts are addressed with adequate references, and whether the article is broad enough - meaning it adequately covers all its major areas. Other concerns like images or prose can be dealt with in the bulk of the review.
Specifically for femur, I'd recommend giving it the once-over to make sure everything is copyedited, add references to the sections without it, and expand the "clinical significance" section (consider including signs, symptoms and investigations, information about the location of the fracture and how it affects these, maybe compartment syndrome and pressure ulcers (at the trochanters) hip replacements (including elective), avascular necrosis of head of femur, and maybe Ewing's sarcoma). I'll try and help out this week but I might not be able to until next week. When you've done the above and feel ready in 1-2 weeks to nominate, go for it :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Add: and Hip examination and use of femoral trochanter as an anatomical landmark and for calculating apparent leg length could also be included. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:18, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brachial plexus help

Could someone please help fill in the empty boxes in the table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brachial_plexus#Specific_branches ? 173.225.249.190 (talk) 16:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The information isn't missing, rather the nerves don't have a muscular or cutaneous innervation. Mrfrobinson (talk) 00:14, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome listed on Twinkle

We have a welcome that can be transcribed to the talk pages of new editors that may be interested in our project:

  • {{subst:WPANATOMY-welcome}} --~~~~

This has now been integrated with the "Twinkle" tool. If you have the tool enabled, you can now to go the talk page of a new user and click "TW->Welcome". If you view a change made by a new user you will also seen a new link "(welcome)" next to the diff, if the user has no talk page. Click on it, and you can then go to "WikiProject welcomes" and you'll be there :). It's much more convenient than the older method, in my opinion. See WP:TWINKLE for information on how to get it set up.

Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Animations and Illustration requests accepted

Hi, just wanted to thank you guys for inviting me to this project. I am willing to make a few animations and release them on creative commons. Please feel free to request them here. Have a nice day! DrJanaOfficial (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's fantastic! I can't think of any right now but there must be many :). Thank you for making yourself available! --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome aboard. Please let us know here if there is anything we can help you with. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, let me know if there are any image requests... Thank you.DrJanaOfficial (talk) 06:25, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eye -- help needed

Will someone with competence in the evolution of the eye, please look at today's comment(s) on the Talk:Eye page? Some clarifying is needed in the article. Thanks, --Hordaland (talk) 17:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Evolution of the eye. This project is is a medical project about human anatomy. Evolution is outside its scope, since evolution involves animals that are not humans. If you need further help, you could try WikiProject Animal anatomy, WikiProject Evolutionary biology or WikiProject Palaeontology. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: References for anatomical images (or other images) at the Human sexuality article?

Opinions are needed on the matter: Talk:Human sexuality#Should the anatomy images or other images have references?. A WP:Permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]