Talk:Anatomical terms of location

Anterior redirect and other redirects going to the Human anatomy section

Because of this edit by Tn9005 (talk · contribs), I've become aware (or reminded) of the fact that the anterior redirect goes to the Human anatomy section of the article. And yet the Anterior and posterior subsection of the "Other vertebrates" section states "Anterior redirects here." That's because it used to, obviously. The redesign of this article has made it so that the anterior redirect and other redirects, such as Posterior (anatomy), point to the human section even though these terms are not only used for humans. While we do give humans more weight in various ways on Wikipedia, I don't see that humans should have primary designation in these particular redirect cases. I'll alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Animal anatomy to this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 03:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that trying to cover so many animal groups in one article just doesn't work. Parts of the introduction, for example, although supposedly an introduction to the whole article, apply only to vertebrates. The invertebrate stuff at the end, including the Spiders section, aren't properly integrated. I suspect the page should be split and/or material moved elsewhere. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The entire article is a mess, and I don't even understand why we make the distinction between human and non-human anatomy here - it makes them look unrelated. I think the best solution is to split and rewrite the entire article from the ground up, and have thought so for a long time. The problem is that I don't have the time to undertake such a project right now. CFCF 💌 📧 17:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Flyer22, there is no need for us to redirect to humans here.

In brief, I made the split between humans and other vertebrates, which should properly be titled "Humans and bipedal vertebrates" and "Other vertebrates". It was previously very confusing because of the extensive amount of material about humans that was integrated with material about other vertebrates. The reference points and some terms are quite different. I am not sure how to integrate this without trimming a lot of material or splitting the article or continually saying "However," which is confusing for readers. I think we also have a useful split between species for readers who may be interested in particular species. Also some sections of the article refer to terms that are species specific, so it's confusing to lump them all together. Not too sure what to do here, some things we could consider in the future:

1. Regroup into general titles and trim a lot of material, have a section title "Variations between species" at the end
2. Move a lot of the species-specific information to the overall "Anatomical terminiology" article where it is quite relevant
3. Continue status quo, alter redirects to animal information.
4. Jettison species divisions entirely and remerge content.

I'm leaning towards the "Variations between species" section with most content moved over to Anatomical terminology where it serves as a useful reminder of difference between species. Thoughts?--Tom (LT) (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Subsections

Relating to the discussion above, I've retitled the sections "Humans and two-legged animals", "Four-legged animals" and "Other animals"

The main reason that I have previously made the division is that there is a lot of difference between the terms used to describe two-legged animals four-legged animals. That said, CFCF and Flyer22_reborn perhaps we could consider merging them all together. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Actually on further thought as you state CFCF this article would be better with all the bits brought together. If we flip the phrasing round "The nose is the anterior --> The anterior, or frontal part, is the nose" it's much easier to represent both human and animal portions together. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I actually don't think the section names are correct. Birds use the same terminology as everything else, because the spine is held horizontally; ditto for non-avian theropods. I think the only non-humans for which the terminology might be the same as humans are other orthograde apes and penguins, but I can't confirm either and I suspect the latter will simply use standard bird terminology since they're only orthograde when terrestrial. HCA (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out, HCA, you make a good point. This is a very confusing article to edit because there are so many nuances to convey yet still make it understandable to the lay reader :(. Any additional thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not really; at the end of the day, it's all terminology, which requires some degree of memorization. The presentation manner here is about as good as usual, and I'm not really aware of any ways to make it more accessible other than just encouraging students to practice using it. HCA (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Ping Flyer22 Reborn because I don't think it went through.
The biggest difference between animals is if they have radial or bilateral symmetry. The differences between humans and other bilateral animals is only down to the neuraxis and basically only covers the different position of the head, and different use of anterior and posterior. Worth noting is that even in human embryology ant/post mean the same as in the rest of biology, so maybe we could narrow down the entire difference to a single paragraph in the intro section? CFCF 💌 📧 19:40, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Also after reading the Comparison between animal and human anatomical terminology section I'm pretty positive it can be scrapped in favor of a single 4-5 sentence paragraph. The table is completely superfluous and the text repeats itself and uses excessive examples. CFCF 💌 📧 19:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I've removed the table, I agree it does not add value to the article. It would in my view also enhance readability if we stripped the constant references to (eg) 'Anterior and superoior form Anterior-superior axis ' in lieu of just using the single 'axes' subsection. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the subsections are not being used correctly. They create oddities when linking anatomical terms being used to describe the "wrong" kind of animal (i.e. one that is not the topic of that section). Thus I linked distal in a spider article, but the text so linked then begins "As in other vertebrates, the terms proximal and distal are used ...", which is off-putting to the reader. Given the title of the article, I think it would be much better to deal first with standard terms, used in essentially the same way in all animals, and then afterwards explain any terms with different uses. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments too, Peter coxhead. I've merged the two sections per yours and multiple comments above and will give the text a thorough copyedit as well. I agree this new approach seems to make much more sense. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:38, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK I've given this article a thorough washing down. Will continue in 1-2 days over the "other animals" section. As stated by multiple commentators this structure is, I feel, indeed a better structure, having all the animals lumped together. I've also tried to unify all the etymology using the {{ety}} template; remove as much superfluous information as I can, and remove the two large tables, which I strongly feel added to the confusion rather than reduced it. I have moved the specific information about humans to the 'specific animals' section. Please let me know what you all think :) --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:47, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

That's about it from me. Not sure I can take too much more of reading over and over this material, feel free for other editors to contribute :). --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tom, I think you've greatly improved the article. I'm now inclined to remove the "improve" tagging, unless anyone thinks otherwise. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:45, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Use of "proximal" and "distal" with an explicit reference point

When "proximal" and "distal" are used without any explicit point of reference, they mean proximal (near) and distal (far) relative to the main body mass. Thus in this usage, it can be said that the upper arm is proximal and the hand distal, meaning that the upper arm is near to the trunk and the hand is far from the trunk.

The article says that "proximal" and "distal" can also be used with an explicit point of reference (i.e. other than relative to the main body mass). Thus if the reference point is the hand, the wrist is proximal to the hand and the elbow is distal to the hand (being separated by the wrist and forearm). I'm not sure that this usage is sufficiently common to be worth including, but if it is, the example must be chosen so that it doesn't exactly match the normal or default use, otherwise the example doesn't make the required point. Peter coxhead (talk) 18:42, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you are misinterpreting the article (statement now removed). In your example the hand is distal to the wrist and the elbow is proximal to the hand. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm very happy to remove the entire reference to the uses of these terms with an explicit point of reference other than the main body mass, as it was previously written, and I've now removed the last bit in the article.

I've now added what I think is the normal "relative" usage. Peter coxhead (talk) 12:05, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Other uses There are uses of "proximal" and "distal" that are not defined in relation to the main body mass but in relation to some other anatomical feature, which is what I assumed the article was originally attempting to explain (badly), but I may have been wrong. In the normal sense, you would expect the "proximal" part of a tooth to be the part closest to the jaw, and the "distal" part to be the part furthest from the jaw. However, this isn't how dentists define tooth surfaces. The "proximal tooth surface" is defined relative to the neighbouring tooth, not relative to the main body. The "distal tooth surface" is defined relative to the midline of the jaw, not relative to the main body. See e.g. here. Is this usage worth including in the article? Peter coxhead (talk) 12:17, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry Peter, I should have replied earlier. I agree it is worthwhile including a (short) afternote, something like: "Proximal and distal are occasionally used with a point of reference that is not the main body mass. In dental terminology, the "distal tooth surface" is defined relative to the surface nearest to the midline of the jaw, and the "proximal tooth surface" is defined relative to the neighbouring tooth." [1]. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

How about merge with Standard anatomical position?

I think these two articles should be merged. --Osteology (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This would make the article even more biassed towards human anatomy, the way that Standard anatomical position is written. That article needs fixing first, or its title changed to "Standard human anatomical position". The standard anatomical position to describe insects or spiders, for example, is rather different. There needs to be a major rethink on how to cover the animal kingdom properly. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Peter coxhead. I agree. I previously split the articles because it was (1) very confusing to have so many topics covered in this article, and (2) standard anatomical position is referred to in numerous articles and (3) I think it is notable enough to deserve its own article. This article covers animal anatomy rather well as far as our anatomical articles go, and I don't want to lump too much extra human content here, which may confuse the reader away from the main focus of this article - the terminology. As Peter states currently "Standard anatomical position" does not mention animal anatomy - which I hope future editors will expand it to include. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Also a quick welcome to Osteology, who appears to be a new editor :). I hope you're not too discouraged by other editors disagreeing with you (WP is all about discussion!) but rest assured there's many other ways to improve the encyclopedia! Let me know if there's anything I can do to help you on my talk page. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ping Osteology—who may not otherwise have seen this. CFCF 💌 📧 22:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)