Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy

WikiProject Anatomy Talk Page
Main page	Discussion	Things To Do	Tools	Article alerts	Manual of Style	Resources

RfC: Use of "Human" in Anatomy article titles.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There seems to be some disagreement about whether or not major Anatomy articles should be split into two: a "Human" article, and an article about another species. For example: Mandible and Human mandible; Nose and Human nose; Liver and Human liver, etc.

There appears to be disagreement on many levels regarding this. On the one hand, there are legitimate concerns that the majority of users will be searching for articles relating to humans. Additionally, splitting articles may reduce the quality and impact on readability. On the other hand, it is more than encyclopedic to cover anatomy in other articles, it could be argued that this is an example of one of Wikipedia's systemic biases, and there is no reason why comparative anatomy shouldn't be covered.

Due to the scope of the issue, involvement of multiple wikiprojects and users on multiple articles over an extended period, I feel it will be useful to gather feedback using the RfC mechanism. I have stated four principles here:

1. Articles about comparative and human anatomy should be provided on the same page, when such differences are minor.
2. Articles about comparative anatomy should be provided on a separate page, when such differences are major.
3. When provided on separate pages, the primary page (eg Liver) should be about the human organ, and a secondary page (eg Liver (animals)) provided to describe other animals.
4. When provided on separate pages, -the primary page (eg Liver) should be in general form about all manifestations, and a secondary page (eg Human liver) provided for the human organ.

A list is provided here:

Please state whether you agree or disagree with the above principles, and it would be wonderful if you would be able to substantiate this with a constructive argument about what to do here, so that we can work out a way to deal with this situation. I have notified WP:MED and WP:VET, in addition to posting on this page. Kind regards, --LT910001 (talk) 03:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose use of Human in the title. I agree that, when provided on separate pages, the primary page should be about the human organ, and the secondary page should describe other animals. I also agree that articles about comparative anatomy should be provided on a separate page when such differences are major, but only if there is a lot of material to cover about the non-human aspect. Otherwise, it is unnecessary WP:Content forking, unnecessarily causing our readers to go to more than one article for that information. Per my statements in the aforementioned liver discussion, I don't see this as a systemic bias issue. I stated there: "A lot of the times we dedicate our articles significantly more to humans with an Other animals section, as Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections shows, because the topic has been studied significantly less with regard to non-human animals and our readers will usually be looking for the human aspect of that topic. ... I'm concerned with such splits being unnecessarily made. Again, if a topic is barely studied, or otherwise significantly less studied, with regard to non-human animals, I believe that it is a terrible idea to then create a content fork for that information instead of covering it with the human material. I will never be in favor of such splits. We should strive to have our articles be as comprehensive as possible (WP:Summary style-wise of course). For Wikipedia articles regarding topics that pertain to humans and non-human animals, unless that article is specifically about humans or specifically about non-human animals, such a Wikipedia article is more well-rounded if there is information in it about both humans and non-human animals. Non-human information should only be made into a separate article when a split is needed, per WP:Content fork. If there is no WP:SIZE issue in such cases, I see no issue." Flyer22 (talk) 03:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. I take it therefore you agree with principles (1), (2) - only if there are size issues - and (3). --LT910001 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose use of human in the title. The main article should be about humans. We as humans have a greater interest in the subject about humans. At the end of the article we can have a section called "Other animals" and than link out to the anatomical subject in other animals. We do not have our pneumonia article called "pneumonia in humans" even though other animals get pneumonia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your input. I take it that you agree with principles (1) and (3). Not trying to be reductionist, but will catalogue these so as to reach a degree of consensus. --LT910001 (talk) 05:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Support use of Human in the title if the article does not cover the organ in other animals. Logically at some stage the anatomy of non-human organs will be described in the encyclopaedia, and the general term is reasonably used for the general case. Comparative anatomy is unquestionably within the scope of Wikipedia, if not necessarily Project Anatomy, and this should be considered when planning style recommendations.

• Principle 1 is appropriate as a starting point, and would logically be titled with the general term. (eg: Liver) The title is then suitable for all information on the organ, and is good until the article grows to a size where splitting is desirable.
• Principle 2 is appropriate when the article is large enough to justify a split, and the general term should be reserved for the general case, and a specific term used to identify species where appropriate. Comparative may be a suitable modifier where the article compares between species, but the general term would normally be adequate. (eg: Human liver, Mammalian liver, Fish liver, Liver) Hatnote links can be used to direct the user to the human organ or other taxonomic group when a separate article exists.
• Principle 4 should apply to the names of the articles. The encyclopedia is about all knowledge (subject to the usual caveats), and although people may be generally more interested in their own species, we should strive to deal with the widest range of topics in a way which will cause the least confusion and terminology contortions in the long run.

This system will allow users to find what they are looking for. I agree with Flyer22 above that unnecessary content forking is counterproductive, but foresee eventual conflict with the rest of zoology if an anthropocentric naming convention is imposed.• • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 07:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Oppose use of Human in title. As Doc James says I agree that the primary page should be about humans, but also concede that a great deal of work will be required to change this, ex. Lung, Heart etc. There are for example articles such as Liver (food) that fill gaps concerning livers in general. My original split of Liver to Human liver was because I thought there was consensus due to the number of articles e.g. Human lung, Human heart etc. Further I think the anthropocentric argument is slightly off the mark. Nothing is denying the existence of articles that focus on animals and comparative anatomy, but the fact is we live in a very anthropocentric society, and most individuals looking for an article on the heart will be looking for the human heart. To get a good consensus that will hold we will probably need to contact relevant zoologists on Wikipedia. CFCF (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, CFCF. I take it that you agree with principles (2) and (3) explicitly. Unfortunately I don't know who these editors would be, but I would certainly like to get their input on this matter. If you know of any, would you be so kind as to reach out to them and invite them to this discussion? --LT910001 (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

I contacted a few Wikiprojects, Biology, Tree of Life & Organismal Biomechanics. CFCF (talk) 22:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• support use of Human in title. Ultimately, we should follow the lead of our sources. Brittanica, for example, has an article on "Heart", which is about all hearts. I disagree that most people will be looking for the human heart. The term "heart" is much broader than humans, obviously, and wikipedia is not a medical reference text (or, it probably shouldn't be). That said, I don't think we should *oblige* the use of the term "human" for every condition that affects humans - I don't think we should rename Breast cancer to Human breast cancer even though it mostly covers human cases of same. But, if we have two articles, generally the species-generic article should occupy the primary topic and the human-specific version, if it exists, could be called "Human x" or "X (human)"--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Obiwankenobi, the sources show that the human heart is usually the topic of discussion when discussing the heart. Also, like I just stated below in addition to this post (same time stamp), "[t]ime and time again, the default article has proven to be the article that the vast majority of our readers wind up at because they are looking solely for the human material." I state this based on general comments in relation to such splits. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I therefore take it you agree with principle (4). --LT910001 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• support. While I do think that interest in the human organs will be more common, using "Human ____" instead of just "_____" when there is significant diversity will help convey cases in which humans are not the norm within vertebrates or broader animals. It's largely stylistic, it shouldn't impede people's searches, and it doesn't leave other taxa to be 'swept under the rug'. However, I'm also flexible - as I said on another page, I think the key questions should be "Can someone interested in the human organ find that information quickly and easily?" and "Can someone interested in the organ in other species find that information quickly and easily?" HCA (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, I take it you agree with principle (4) - applied in a flexible way. --LT910001 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Technical Note: A label like "Liver (animals)" logically includes humans, since humans are animals. Perhaps "Liver (non-human)"? Then again, any organ page about multiple taxa will wind up encompassing human variation, since we're fairly anatomically uninteresting aside from a few odd adaptations here and there. HCA (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment-- we occasionally do this for non anatomy articles too, e.g. dental caries and dental caries (non-human) (stub). Lesion (talk) 22:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but the keyword there is "occasionally." I can't at all understand how it can be considered a good idea to generally not have the default article be mostly about humans with an "Other animals" section (which is what WP:MEDMOS has mostly done for years), while leaving room to have an article solely about the non-human aspect if needed. Time and time again, the default article has proven to be the article that the vast majority of our readers wind up at because they are looking solely for the human material. The Penis article, as compared to the Human penis article, is one such example. Our readers, what appears to be the vast majority of the time (from what I have seen of people visiting these two pages and commenting on them there or elsewhere on Wikipedia over the years), go to the Penis article looking solely for human material, then have to click on the Human penis link at the top of the article just to get to that information that is solely about the human penis. Sometimes, even with that hatnote, it's overlooked that there is a Human penis article, even by our own editors, such as in this case with Liz. Other editors in that discussion, such as NeilN, Johnuniq, Taylornate and Guy1890 (in that order), all seemed aware of the Human penis article (I know that NeilN was already aware of it). But I do wonder how many of the others in that discussion, such as Anthonyhcole (who, like Taylornate, is a fellow WP:MED editor) and Equazcion, knew of it. Clearly, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should generally play a role in cases such as these. Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, I got pulled into that talk page conversation and don't normally read articles on anatomy. So, consider me your average reader, not an editor with expertise in biological topics. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Exactly, that's my point; I'm talking about the average reader. You are an average reader in this case, but you have an advantage because you are a generally active Wikipedia editor. If even a generally active Wikipedia editor missed that there is a Human penis article, just imagine how the non-Wikipedia editors who read this site fair. Sure, the existence of a non-human anatomy article can be similarly overlooked. But I believe that it's more important that the human aspect is not overlooked. And if both aspects are on the same page, with the non-human aspect only being made into a separate article when needed, that helps avoid overlooking anyway. Flyer22 (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Is there some way of more formally investigating how many people visit an anatomy article and then end up clicking on the hat link to visit the page they intended? Lesion (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, you just have to create a custom redirect that is only used in the hatnote. Then measure hits to that redirect. If that redirect is linked from nowhere else you can easily measure how many people went to heart and then clicked on human heart for example at the top.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Conflicted: I can see good points in both sides, but I am sure that whatever this RfC decides, there would be opposition from many editors once article renaming was noticed. Therefore, if it is felt that some significant renaming may occur, please get wider input—use Template:Centralized discussion if many pages are involved. I do not think that a generic RfC can really address the issue unless there is a list somewhere showing what a change would probably involve.

  Re penis and human penis: most commentary about that comes from attention-seeking editors who want to push NOTCENSORED, and it's not a good case to consider when wondering about issues like lung vs. human lung.

  Re "other animals": that may be fine in a theoretical manner, but it would get a fair bit of opposition from those who would think it quaintly human-centric (with a "lung" article focused on humans rather than lungs), and Lung (animal) is rather like Far East. Johnuniq (talk) 01:54, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. There are about 29 articles (possibly a few more that I haven't identified) that are the crux of this discussion. I therefore don't think involving the entire Wikipedia community in this matter is necessary. --LT910001 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, and thanks for the list of 28 articles above (I slightly formatted that, and put it into alphabetical order—I hope the original order was not important). Johnuniq (talk) 05:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose change. On reflection, it would not be appropriate for lung to be devoted to our lungs (very parochial and human-centric), with lung (animals) left for a discussion of the concept, range, and development of lungs. Articles are generic—we start with city, and move to New York City and all the rest. The fact that a hypothetical Joe Reader may not want to read about anything other than humans is too bad—Joe can click the link to the human article. This issue should not be decided solely by those who monitor anatomy pages as the articles are part of core encyclopedic content. Maybe I'm misreading this RfC because some of the above comments confuse me. A very quick look at the liver issue makes me agree that content forking should not occur until a solid alternative article is available, so human liver should exist only if it contains significantly different information from liver. Johnuniq (talk) 05:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Johnuniq. I think in many of these cases (e.g. Rib cage and Human rib cage) a single article is warranted. I would urge a note of caution about being too generic though. For example Pharynx includes images of invertebrates that have something called a "pharynx", but I think the focus here should be chordates. Cmungall (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your input (have responded more in full below), it appears you agree with principles (1), (2) and (4). --LT910001 (talk) 01:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Although the given list of principles is a useful beginning as it stands, the very idea of speaking in terms of "primary" and "secondary" articles is mistaken and is divisively pernicious in its temptation to the biologically challenged to assess one topic as more "prime" or "important" than another, instead of each being important in the logic of its own context, both individual and in mutual perspective. The theoretical ideal would be a single article dealing with everything in global perspective, but that being unpractical and unwieldy in the contexts of the various topics of interest among our readers, it makes perfect sense to split topics into separate but complementary articles. But then the mode of splitting is not "primary" and "secondary" (down to "denary" or whatever the subject of the digestive system of the Strepsiptera might be); it should be along the lines firstly of most general, as in "Liver" with an unqualified title, and then of subsets with titles qualified to reflect the subsetting (Liver (human),Liver (surgery), Liver (worship) and so on). There might be a disambiguation page when that seems useful, but I reckon that in most such cases distinguishing hatnotes and the like would be both efficient and adequate. There also should be adequate linkage between all the articles wherever this might seem helpful. The breathtaking parochiality of the likes of "...only if there is a lot of material to cover about the non-human aspect..." is hard to make sense of. Such broadminded concession that there might so much material to cover, concerning about 60000 non-human species, that they might merit a a minority note alongside one other species (...which was that again? Some Eutherian or other?) might upset some readers, but the conceptual structure of the topic could justify not merely such gracious concession, but even a more logical reference to say liver in general, with an unqualified title, with as many other articles as necessary to address separate categories, such as hepatology and hepatopathology, whether human or reptile. Even the majority of readers who wanted general information about human liver function might find all they need in the lede to the general article; those who wanted specifically human detail should find what they want at most one click away, and without distortion of the articles (both human and other) by an artificial hierarchy worthy of the chain of being popular in pre-Darwinian days. What next? A primary article on the Chinese liver because there are more Chinese interested in Chinese livers than Americans interested in American livers? Relegating American livers to a "secondary" article? Or to a tertiary article subordinate to a secondary article about Andorran livers because Andorrans are particularly passionate about Andorran livers? (A strictly academic example; I have no idea how Andorrans might or might not feel on the topic; I chose Andorra only because there are fewer Andorrans than Americans.) Or should we make the primary article on Liver recipes because more people are interested in cooking than anatomy? For heaven's sake let us structure our choice of articles, their titles and their contexts on something a little more encyclopedic than some individuals' lack of interest beyond particular splinter topics. JonRichfield (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you are referring to my comment when you stated "'...only if there is a lot of material to cover about the non-human aspect...' is hard to make sense of," I will state that I disagree with that; I believe that it's very easy to make sense of, per the guidelines I pointed to above. There is no need to create a stub article about the aspect with regard to non-human animals if that material can be adequately covered in the default article. WP:Content forking is very clear about WP:SPLIT; we should only split content when we need to or at least when it makes great sense to do so. If the material that is being split cannot or can barely be expanded beyond a stub, then it should not be split. I made it perfectly clear above that "A lot of the times we dedicate our articles significantly more to humans with an Other animals section, as Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Sections shows, because the topic has been studied significantly less with regard to non-human animals and our readers will usually be looking for the human aspect of that topic." It is often that there is not much to state about the non-human aspect. We should not be content forking simply on the principle of not seeming anthropocentric. We should be thinking about what is best for the encyclopedia/our readers. And like CFCF stated above, "we live in a very anthropocentric society." That is true, as is reflected by the sources; the vast majority of sources on anatomy and medical topics focus on those matters with regard to humans far more than they do with regard to non-human animals. Flyer22 (talk) 17:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think just about everyone is saying that articles should not be forked without good reason. I find the RfC rather confusing because in its attempt to be totally neutral, it's not clear what the proposal is. Also, several issues are mentioned, and my response, like a couple of the others, is focused on the suggestion that the plain title (Liver) should be about human livers, while some other title would be used for livers in general—all that is on the proviso that it is actually desirable to have two articles. In many cases that may not be necessary, and articles should not be forked until sufficient encyclopedic information is available to support both. Let's talk about a specific proposal to rename some articles (which?) where there is no controversy about whether the articles are unnecessary content forks. Johnuniq (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have requested comments only on this issue, without picking up particular issues, so that this discussion may provide some general indication as to where the community stands on this issue. Although there are certainly factors unique to each article, with sufficient input from other commentators I feel it is useful to have this discussion as a reference point for future discussions. --LT910001 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support proposal #1 (same page when similar) and #4 3 (corrected to reflect my original intent - simply wrote the wrong #), with the exception that someone is likely to type "Liver" into the search box whether looking for the general topic or the human organ, so the page titles should be "Liver" and "Liver (human)", because the latter is more specific. This is similar to "Avatar" and all of the various parenthetically-modified titles - it's easy to find the one you want without going to another page first. I think it would be a terrible idea to start with "Human ..." - the resulting list would be incoherent. -- Scray (talk) 05:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Human Anatomy is more focused in research and content readability. Eduemoni^↑talk↓ 18:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
• Strong support for a combination of approaches 2&4 It's not exactly a SNOW issue by any means, but I still feel this one really only has one way forward to be consistent with general policy. The fact of the matter is that many of the organs and other anatomical features in question are likely to have massive amounts of content rising well above the level where a split is warranted, and there is no better criteria for this delineation than to take the content that the vast, vast majority of our users are clearly going to be looking for (that pertaining to the human variant) and separate it from the more general subject. Not only does this serve to keep together that content which the reader has the most likely need for, but in general it will almost certainly lead to the best averaging of sizes between split articles and maximize their digestibility considerably. What's more, putting aside those practical benefits, there's also the empirical consideration that many organs may share the same name and basic function and yet still can be vastly different in terms of physiology (even histology) between organisms. Obviously we can't spin out an article for every intersection of a given animal and a given organ, but, given the undeniable most likely needs of our average reader, the human articles, with their specific (and much more robust) clinical, physiological, and medical content, are unimpeachable as justified, as far as I'm concerned. All of that being said, I also strongly believe that the article for general content should reside at the default page (Heart, Eye, Lung, ect.), for the obvious reasons that A) it is the superordinate and inclusive subject, and B) this is probably closer to how the average user will search for the content if they want more general information (and the general article is likely to have many wikilinks to the specifically human article, and will certainly have a disambig/"for the human heart" link at the top, in any event). Basically I feel this is about as clear cut a case as you get on Wikipedia of "if it's not broken, don't fix it". Snow (talk) 23:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Snow Rise (Snow), "if it's not broken, don't fix it" is what I (and those with the same or very similar sentiments) am basically arguing above; that is the standard practice -- to have the default article be mostly about humans with a section about other animals until a separate article is needed for other animals, and to have the default article remain mostly (or become solely) about humans even when the article is split. Not just for medical articles, such as Rabies or Cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and anatomy articles, but topics in general. The "splitting the article so that the default article is about all animals and there is a different one specifically about humans" direction is the more recent approach, an approach that I disagree with...disregarding the exceptions that I do agree with. Flyer22 (talk) 23:39, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough; my past impressions with these articles seemed to suggest that the "Human [feature]" titling was the more common approach than "Animal [feature]" when a split occurs, but I've never actually surveyed the titles. Regardless of which is the traditional approach though, my support is still firmly behind allowing the broader subject to reside at the article space with the simpler title. Human organs (and other anatomical features) are variants of features shared by millions of species throughout billions of years and as such, the generalized article has relevance and context that is vastly larger than the article which focuses upon the human variety. Now obviously, with regard to most (if not at all) of the anatomical features covered by the articles in question, the human variant is by far the most researched single variety of that feature, but that does not mean that its relevance outweighs that of all other variants and the vast number of subjects they are of relevance to. I also believe you are most likely mistaken in your assumption that in general Wikipedia articles are titled such that the most popular topic within a category of similar topics supplants the superordinate topic which covers them all. This is difficult to evaluate and prove with any certainty, but all across Wikipedia, it seems to me that the opposite rule is applied (and for good reason as it is arguably the most intuitive, straightforward and least problematic approach. But even putting aside the fact that the organization of the project is better served by allowing the broader topic to remain at the simplified location by virtue of representing the root subject, there's the even more important consideration that we ought to use the format which serves the needs of our readers and I feel that the root=root (that is, the subject which is broader conceptual category gets the title with the least additive elements) serves that purpose as well. All in all I just haven't seen any argument which suggests even nearly comparable benefits for doing things the other way around with a reverse-hierarchical ordering. Doing things in such a fashion leads to a less accurate title for the articles in question and a less intuitive searching process for our readers. Snow (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Snow Rise, I stand by my views on this matter above and don't have a lot more to state on it (not a lot more that wouldn't be mostly redundant). Definitely don't see how I am mistaken in the least on this matter/how it is at all difficult to evaluate that the vast majority of our readers will be looking for the human topic (especially given the fact that the vast majority of sources usually cover the human topic significantly more than the non-human topic and our readership has consistently shown themselves to be looking for the human topic first and foremost). So to briefly reiterate, the only times that I see splitting articles as acceptable is what I agreed with above on that direction. Flyer22 (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

And regarding this: "I also believe you are most likely mistaken in your assumption that in general Wikipedia articles are titled such that the most popular topic within a category of similar topics supplants the superordinate topic which covers them all."

I didn't state that. In this regard, I basically stated that, when a topic concerns humans and non-human animals, humans are usually given top priority; the reasons for that have already been addressed above. But again, to reiterate, we know far more about humans than we do about non-human animals. For the vast majority of topics, whether sociology or biology, there is usually going to be a lot to state about humans. Whether there is a lot to state about non-human animals is more so a case-by-case matter, but, on average, the topic is studied significantly less with regard to them and there is often not much to state about the topic with regard to them. Thus, I cannot see what you are arguing for as more beneficial. And that humans are usually given top priority on Wikipedia is a fact that is easily observable. Flyer22 (talk) 03:29, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support #4 or whichever will give a high-level overview of the concept. I'm not very familiar with anatomy articles. As a reader, I would first assume that Skull is about all skulls, much like how someone else pointed out that City should be about high-level concepts concerning cities in general, not New York City. Similarly, Language should be about the concept, not about English. One should be able to find a good overview of the concept at the main article without having to click on other pages. Other issues can probably be settled on individual talk pages, but I guess I'd expect to see some discussion of comparative anatomy on the main page. Tail provides a half-decent overview of tails, while Stomach seems overly concerned with human anatomy. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• $0.02 The solution here, to me, seems rather simple. An article titled "heart" should cover every aspect of hearts. We can call this a "parent article." Within this article, the subject of hearts should be defined in its broadest sense, and then divided into its different aspects. (It shouldn't be for in-depth analysis, but just a broad overview.) If enough information exists, there should be individual sections on the different variants, such as "human," "mammal," "insect," etc... Provided there is enough information, of course, each different section should have a "main-article link" to its own subordinate-article. In this way, the parent article introduces the subject, and then guides the reader directly to the subarticle for which they are looking. This simple, fractal format can be found in many artilces all over Wikipedia, like the parent article potential energy, whose subarticle are gravitational-potential energy and chemical-potential energy etc..., or articles like Basic fighter maneuvers, whose subarticles are the maneuvers themselves. If there is enough information, the parent article really becomes somewhat of a DAB page that provides a summary of each different aspect. Zaereth (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose the use of human in the title, by default it can be expected that humans are most interested in content related to humans, it may be "systemic bias" but as it reflects the real-world bias found in the sources that humans give more importance to topics concerning humans, that's the correct and desired result. If there's a small amount of content related to non-human animals, that can be covered in the main article in at Other animals section. If there's a lot of content related to non-human animals that can be spun off into a separate article and the main article can have the {{Main}} template pointing to it. For anatomic features that the sourcing doesn't show is mainly related to humans, say for example Cloaca, the article will be about this feature in non-human animals. Just follow the emphasis found in the sourcing. If the sourcing is mainly about humans, the article should be mainly about humans. If the sourcing is mainly about other animals, the article should be about other animals. Zad68 15:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

I created this topic to request comments from various editors regarding this issue so that, at a future date, these comments may prove valuable in forming the basis for a policy or statement regarding this issue. As it is, it appears there are significant amounts of editors who support and oppose this topic, with the predominant theme that articles should not be unnecessarily forked. Although there is no consensus on this matter, if there are no objections and no ongoing conversation, I'll close the topic on the 14th (January, 2014), and provide a more detailed summary and tally of opinions on that date. --LT910001 (talk) 23:36, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary

Tally of votes

• Tallies don't always add up to 15, as not all contributors made reference to all points.
• Total contributors: 15
• (1) Articles should be provided on the same page, when differences are minor. For: 10.
• (2) Articles should be provided on different pages, when differences are major. For: 8
• (3) If on separate pages, the main page should be about human anatomy. For: 4
• (4) If on separate pages, the main page should be about the item or organ in general. for: 11

Tally of votes as recorded by LT910001
Flyer22: 1, 2, 3. Jmh649: 1, 3. Pbsouthwood: 1, 2, 4. CFCF: 1, 3. Obiwankenobi: 4. HCA: 4. Johnuniq 1, 2, 4. Cmungall 1, 2, 4. Note: states "agree with Johnuniq". JonRichfield: 1, 2, 4. Scray 1, 4 Eduemoni 4 Snow_rise 2, 4 NinjaRobotPirate 4 Zaereth 1, 2, 4 Zad68 1, 2, 3

Conclusion

• There appears to be strong support (11 / 4) for the focus, when articles are large enough to warrant separate pages, of the main article focusing on the item in general form. The articles proposed were:
  • This is reflective of the encyclopedia in general form, with the root article being about a subject in general, and then separate sub-articles.
  • This structure helps reduce confusion in terms of article titles and organisation, duplication of content, and in terminology
• There also appears to be strong support to maintain articles with minor differences as single articles (10 for, 0 against), and for articles only to be split when content differences are major (8 for, 0 against).

If I may be so bold, I would note that it seems that the majority of the proponents of having a main article about humans are active WP:MED editors. It seems that there may be some variation in views towards these articles between medically-orientated and other editors. This may be due to anatomy being a separate but related discipline, regarding the structure of living things, with medicine being the treatment of disease primarily focused on humans, as distinct from veterinary medicine.

Perhaps the overall take-away message from this RfC is that there is a strong consensus that articles should only be split when there is sufficient content to justify it.

At any rate, the net amount of articles affected is 29. If in the future this issue affects multiple articles and there is a wider discussion, it may be fruitful to discuss this issue in relation to major structures, about which major variation or knowledge exists about animal anatomy (such as bones and organs), and minor structures (viz. muscles, nerves), about which the majority of knowledge relates to the human form.

I thank all the contributors for contributing to this discussion, and wish you all well on your wiki-voyages. --LT910001 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Please discuss this below: --LT910001 (talk) 07:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You stated, "Perhaps the overall take-away message from this RfC is that there is a strong consensus that articles should only be merged when there is sufficient content to justify it."

What I see is "the overall take-away message from this RfC is that there is a strong consensus that articles should only be split when there is sufficient content to justify it." And even then, editors above are not too much in agreement with regard to when to split. For example, it's pretty clear that I don't think that just because there is enough material for more than a stub that this means the content should be split from the main article. As for WP:MED editors being strong supporters of having the main article primarily focus on humans... Like I stated, having the main article primarily focus on humans is the way that Wikipedia generally works. It's the way that anatomy articles should generally work as well, for reasons I've already addressed above. Flyer22 (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I intended to type 'split' and my fingers got away from me. --LT910001 (talk) 08:36, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close discussion

Regarding Gaijin42's close of this discussion above, I'd like to know how it is "in accordance with general wiki convention and consensus" that the primary article be about non-human animals instead of about humans. I don't see that at all, and stated as much in the above discussion. It's not true for medical articles (except for some anatomy articles), it's not true for articles in general, and it has only been a recent convention with anatomy articles. Furthermore, as noted by others in the above discussion, the the way that the WP:RfC is set up can be confusing. Given the arguments above, I don't see how any WP:Consensus can be taken away from it.

If Gaijin42 responds to the above, I'd rather he respond on this talk page here in this section instead of taking the matter to my talk page or creating a new section on this talk page just to reply. Flyer22 (talk) 21:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

It is my opinion an analysis of policy that the general practice is that we start with general articles and drill down to more specific articles, on all subjects, not just anatomy. WP:SUMMARY WP:DETAIL. However regardless of my opinion, there were (11) clear !votes for #4, and (4) for #3. An almost 3:1 ratio is a very strong indicator of consensus (although certainly WP:NOTDEMOCRACY) As the clear majority is in line with my analysis of policy, it makes the close quite easy. I did not make a call on #1 and #2 as they are not mutually exclusive to #3 and #4 and appear to just be restating WP:SUMMARY and WP:SPLIT using local examples. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, then I disagree with your analysis of policy; WP:Summary style (what you mean by WP:SUMMARY) and WP:DETAIL (an aspect of WP:Summary style) are not policies, by the way. I also disagree with your analysis that there is any kind of WP:Consensus from that discussion, with the exception that "articles should only be split when there is sufficient content to justify it." WP:Consensus also most assuredly should not be weighed by the tally of votes, but by the strength of arguments. Even LT910001, the starter of that WP:RfC, was unsure about the WP:Consensus of that discussion...other than the "articles should only be split when there is sufficient content to justify it" aspect.

Anyway, you closed; I disagreed. Nothing more to state. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

There are no strong policy reasons to weight votes in this case. Its primarily a preference of how we arrange our own content. In that case the tally is much more important. We disagree on the interpretation of the two guidelines. Shrug. If you believe my analysis of consensus was incorrect you may

"request a Closure review at Administrators' noticeboard with a link to the discussion page and the policy-based reason you believe the closure should be overturned. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Closure review archive for previous closure reviews."

However, unless my analysis was grossly incorrect, "Simply believing a closure is wrong, even where reasonable people would have closed a discussion differently, is not sufficient for requesting review. Most closure reviews need to be based on context or information left out of the discussion, or new information that would have altered the discussion outcome were it held now." Gaijin42 (talk) 03:43, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I stated above, you were not citing policy for the basis of your closure. You were citing guidelines; one guideline, actually. And I don't at all see where that guideline agrees with your view. The arguments that, if there is to be a split, the main article should be devoted to humans and the spin-off article should be devoted to other animals were/are indeed strong and based on solid Wikipedia reasoning. Not to mention that having the main article devoted to humans is the standard practice, as is the case (except for some anatomy articles) with Wikipedia's medical articles, various other type of Wikipedia articles, and articles such as Pregnancy compared to Pregnancy (mammals). I didn't state that I was going to request a review; I very clearly relayed above, "Anyway, you closed; I disagreed. Nothing more to state." I wanted to know why you closed the way that you did; I got my answer. Flyer22 (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Pudendal nerve

Fairly narrow scope anatomy article I will be working on in the next few days ... starting tomorrow =) A good opportunity to see the new anatomy guidelines in an article and to get familiar with them.

See also discussion on Talk:Pudendal nerve entrapment about renaming the page Pudendal neuropathy to reflect the wider scope of the article beyond entrapment injury (neuropraxia I presume). Lesion (talk) 04:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

See also discussion on Talk:Pudendal plexus, not sure how this article is different from pudendal nerve. I think "pudendal plexus" might simply refer to the 3 roots of the pudendal nerve. Possible merge. Lesion (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I have online access to one of the sources in the Talk:Pudendal plexus (nerves) article (which I'm guessing is the one you meant), but the website seems to be down right now. Will take a look again tomorrow. CFCF (talk) 21:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes I meant nerves. When you find out pls post your findings, thanks, Lesion (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is late, but the book wasn't available through the internet so I borrowed it from the library. Essentially page 471 states the Lumbar plexus L1-L4, Sacral plexus L4-S4 and "Pudendal" plexus S2-S4 together form the lumbosacral plexus, and has one frontal schematic illustration of the pudendal plexus. From Gray's 1918 you have this [1], which gives some insight into the differences at least as they were percieved back then. I'd say the second statement is WP:Synth, and we could probably clarify by merging all the articles on sacral, coccygeal, pudendal plexa into one, and clarifying differences there. Just my two cents. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:22, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

We have External sphincter muscle of urethra, which is essentially a dab to external sphincter muscle of male urethra and external sphincter muscle of female urethra. While I can sort of understand the rationale to have different pages, I think it is better to have male and female subsections on the same page. Thoughts? Lesion (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Agree completely. Have also made some edits to pudendal nerve. With any luck in a few weeks it will be able to be promoted to GA status. I'm having some difficulty finding information about the history of the nerve, though.--LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Wisdom tooth (again)

Please comment on a discussion about how to arrange wikipedia's content relating to human third molar teeth and their associated pathologies. Thanks, Lesion (talk) 18:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

• Talk:Wisdom_tooth#Article_name

Request for WPANATOMY comment: Use of in-text (cranial nerve N)

Am finding in quite a few articles not about cranial nerves this: "the X is a branch of the vagus nerve (cranial nerve X)" or this "it is innervated by Y, a branch of the oculomotor nerve (cranial nerve III)

When writing articles about places, we do not write: "Nottingham is a suburb in Nottinghamshire (ONS code 37)"; or when writing about programming, we do not write: "Element is a part of programming language Y (ISO code N)"; when writing about films we do not write: "Bill Cosby is a character in The Cosby Show (Production code Y)"

The reason this is not done is that it doesn't add any useful information to the text: knowing that Y is innervated by the oculomotor nerve is useful, but knowing that the oculomotor nerve is cranial nerve III is not useful. It is tangential, tautologous, and one of the ways that readability is being impacted on our articles. I have no problem with including it on the cranial nerve pages, but I do when seeing it on other pages. Lumping the two phrases together is a mnemonic device used by anatomists and medical practitioners but I don't think it helps lay readers. Anyhow, this is just my opinion, what are the opinion of other Anatomy editors about of the extra "(cranial nerve N)" after every mention of a particular cranial nerve? An odd gripe, I know.

Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 02:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Had missed your question, but I'm totally behind you on this one. I don't think there is any need to explain what the vagus is in every article that refers to it. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 16:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Have to disagree, I think for the first instance when the nerve is mentioned on an article it is potentially useful to mention its roman numeral. Disagree that it does not help "lay readers". We should not hide this standard way that cranial nerves are referred to, and it keeps consistency with spinal nerves. Lesion (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

That brings up a good point, and I would be for something along the lines of:

the nerve is question is a branch of the vagus - X

or

the nerve is question is a branch of the vagus, (cranial nerve - X)

That I find quite informative and still consise enough for an encylcopedia.

What I'm against it the long and tedious phrasing at the top such as:

it is innervated by Y, a branch of the oculomotor nerve (cranial nerve III)

CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, some very reasonable points for keeping this formatting.LT910001 (talk) 13:22, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

New neuroanatomy atlas (1960)

I've uploaded a new atlas to the commons, and a few of the images are very good.
Currently the page covering the images is not complete, although there is a link to the source where captions can be found, and a table of contents displating the different chapters. It is avaible here: User:CFCF/Lawrence
To get an idea of what images there are, it may for now be best to use: commons:Category:Lawrence neuroanatomy
The atlas in question is A functional approach to neuroanatomy, and has lapsed into the public domain.
It offers a simplistic approach, and has a number of images and diagrams which can explain complex topics in a simple manner. --CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

• There is one of hypoglossal nerve weakness (I think), which made makes me suggest that if many of these images have clinical relevance, might be an idea to cross post on WTMED so editors will see them and start to incorporate them into articles. Lesion (talk) 12:15, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
• Some more stellar work, CFCF. I like the way this set of images presents symptoms, although I would prefer to use colour images where possible. LT910001 (talk) 13:32, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Images of microanatomy

Zellfaze has kindly offered to help upload some pathology images to Wikipedia. I think this would be a great opportunity to get some images of basic structures uploaded as well. We have a small partial list of microanatomy structures here: Category:Anatomy_articles_about_microanatomy, and almost all the pages would benefit from a high-quality image if you are able to provide it, Zellfaze. This would not only help improve the quality of articles here, but also help the innumerable amount of physicians and medical students who use Wikipedia as a reference tool.LT910001 (talk) 13:12, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

• Ping to CFCF, Lesion and WhatamIdoing, active anatomy editors who may be able to expand this list of basic structures needing images. As a reminder, you can use the rater tool to automatically add articles to the mictoanatomy category using the rater tool as described in WP:ANATOMY#Tools
• Give me a list of things that you guys want and I'll see what I can do to get them. I have full access to our slide scanner (well, as long as it isn't in use for a study), and I may or may not be able to get slides of things made. I'm currently working on trying to get a blood smear made and stained H&E so that we can get some photos of white blood cells. Its worth noting that I myself know close to nothing about pathology or medicine, I'm just the IT guy here at the lab (and office). It just occurred to me a week or so ago that I work at a lab and most editors probably don't have access to the sorts of things that I have access to. Zell Faze (talk) 14:34, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
• Missed a colon (luckily this isn't surgery ;) ), the category above now displays properly. It has 29 pages, almost all of which could do with real images. In a week, when I regain better internet access, will post some more requests. Other users may also have some specific requests. No rush to get things done, and again thanks for your enthusiasm! LT910001 (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Zellfaze, I have a specific request of something that should be easy to obtain: high-quality images of epithelia. The current images tend to show epithelia with a lot of other tissues. If you were able to obtain high-quality images that mainly focus on just the epithelia (rather than with a lot of surrounding tissue, which could be quite confusing to readers), this would improve the set of epithelia-related articles greatly. --LT910001 (talk) 02:42, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I'll add it to the list. I should be uploading some photos of equipment today. I still haven't managed to get everything together to get images of slides yet. Things have been busy here the past few weeks. Zell Faze (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Pageview stats

After a recent request, I added WikiProject Anatomy to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the Tool Labs tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Mr.Z-man!! Have added to WP:ANATOMY#Tools. On a sidenote I'm note sure whether it is depressing or inspiring that the primary focus of our readers is reproduction. LT910001 (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Great news, thanks so much! CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Discussion of popular articles

Now that we've got a list of the most popular articles, what to do with it?

At first blush, I think one goal might be to aim for no Stub-class articles on the list (I am happy to propose some 'soft' and achievable goals), and no Start or Stub - class for the top 100, but will spend some time thinking about some things we can do with this list, and would invite other editors to do the same. LT910001 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I think those are great goals, and quite achievable. Seeing the list gives me incentive to immediately get working on Cranial nerve which I was planning to engage in, seeing as I hadn't realized it was such a popular article.

Apart from that, is there any way to get sex-related articles off the list? Are articles marked with N/A importance included in the list, maybe thats an alternative? They are definitely included in the projects scope but they are so disproportionately popular, I think we should remove them from the top lists. Some of them on the other hand could do with quite a bit of work, as there is misinformation abound, but I feel they are too much of a time-sink to focus on for now.

Another goal which is achievable in the short run would be to get the top 20 to B, and eventually increasing that to the top 50.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

It would depend on what you mean by "sex-related." The sex organs are sex-related and obviously belong on the list. I was definitely thinking of removing the Sexual intercourse article; that is already covered by WP:MED, and it's one of the few sex-related articles that WP:MED is fine with being tagged within WP:MED's scope. There are not a lot of articles that are primarily sex articles on the list. There's Erection, but hardly any more than that. So if you also mean the sex organs, they should stay. Like recent sources have stated, that's just the way it is that so many readers have so much interest in, for example, the Human penis size article over all other anatomy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 20:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I suggest to remove all of them. Despite being in the projects scope they would only make setting up goals harder. The articles are notoriously hard to edit and dilute efforts that could be better spent improving other articles. The project scope covers them, but that doesn't imply they need be ranked in our most popular list. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Your reasons to remove all of them are invalid. The articles that are primarily sex-related and are largely not about anatomy, I could understand removing, as noted above (though the topic of erection is actually largely about anatomy, in addition to being primarily sex-related, despite the way that I mentioned it above). But proposing to remove sex organs from the list, which would also leave the list as inaccurately reflecting what are the most popular anatomy articles on Wikipedia, is ludicrous. Those articles, given that there is so much reader interest in them, indicate what Wikipedia, not just this WikiProject, should also focus on, as recently noted by media sources. You don't have to engage in editing them if you don't want to. Like WhatamIdoing told you in this WP:MED discussion you started, "Can you explain why you decided to start with one of the most contentious areas? I'd have taken the opposite approach: use [images] in all sorts of articles, and then come back in a couple of years and say, 'Look what normal anatomy articles are doing. Why don't we do the same here?'"

Do not try to deprive people from knowing what are actually the most popular anatomy articles on Wikipedia or from working on those articles if they so choose. Perhaps if you would enter such articles more so with the desire to work with, or take the time to work with, the editors of those articles instead of against them (such as insisting on certain images at the Human penis article), they would not be "notoriously hard [for you] to edit." Repeatedly reverting instead of amply discussing things on the article talk page and trying to reach some kind of WP:Consensus hardly ever works out. Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

You are missing the point. This is about internal work to improve the project, and the goals of the project are determined by those who engage in it. Concerning the other things you brought up, I'm generalizing as per what other members of this Wikiproject have expressed to have encountered. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you are missing the point, as is clear from your responses above. If we are to note members of this WikiProject, as you noted below, then I'll take the time now to point out that I have been a part of this WikiProject for some time (years) and have edited Wikipedia anatomy articles for several years...though I have usually not edited them heavily. And in those years, I have never seen comments like the ones you made above with regard to sex organs. The reason that the sex organs are even listed is because they are tagged with the WP:Anatomy banner, which they rightfully should be. And this recent edit you made to the Penis article talk page, stating that "non human anatomy does not belong in scope Assessment: -WikiProject Anatomy" is as odd to me as your comments about sex organs above. Furthermore, keep in mind that the Penis article also broaches the human penis topic. Putting the Human penis size article at the bottom of the list is also odd to me, since that topic overwhelmingly deals with anatomy. There is no "Bottom" assessment field for WP:Anatomy, by the way; the "Low" field is what you should put instead if the Human penis size article is low on the importance scale. Since you pinged some people below, I'll go ahead and ping Taylornate, Grayfell, TBM10, IdreamofJeanie, Zad68 and Johnuniq. With the exception of Johnuniq, these editors have been heavily or somewhat involved in editing sex organ articles. I listed Johnuniq because in addition to helping me with sex-related articles, he often offers good reasoning. Flyer22 (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I see your point very clearly. The discussion on the other hand concerns how we improve the articles within the scope of the Wikiproject, and how the sex-oriented articles fall somewhat out of the scope of what the majority of editors in the project work on. We're not debating whether or not sexual organs and what-not are anatomical features, but whether it makes sense to include them in the scope of our own internal popularity ranking. The same issues have been brought up on WP:MED, having resulting in removal of many articles from their listings.

If you truly perceive yourself a member of the project then it would be great if you could engage more fully in discussion here as well as add your name to the member-list at WP:ANAT. As you haven't I don't think I am in the wrong stating you up until now haven't been a member. I edit articles concerning sex, but I don't see myself as a member of WP:SEX as that isn't my main field. I suggest we wait and hear what editors who are experienced and anatomy or medicine focused have to say instead of simply berating back and forth. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 20:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't think you see my point very clearly at all. Otherwise, you would recognize how absurd your proposal to remove sex organ articles is. Sex organ articles don't fall anywhere outside of the scope of WP:Anatomy, and you are the only WP:Anatomy member so far suggesting that they do and that they should therefore be removed from the list. What you speak of with regard to WP:MED members (mainly Jmh649) having removed sex articles from WP:MED's scope, is something that I am well aware of; after all, I am the one who pointed you to those prior discussions. Also note that when Jmh649 does remove the WP:MED banner from a sex organ article, he states, "WPAN sufficient." In this discussion now at WP:Anatomy, we are not only talking about sex articles (as in non-anatomy focused articles), and I already agreed that we should remove primarily sex-related articles that are largely not about anatomy. Sex organ articles, however, are a completely different matter. You are a WP:Newbie when it comes to editing Wikipedia anatomy and medical articles (and in general, with the vast majority of your edits, often sparingly, taking place in 2006-2009 before 2013), this WikiProject does not have a lot of members (not a lot of ones actively editing anatomy articles anyway), and yet you feel comfortable stating "what the majority of editors in the project work on" and that I am not a WP:Anatomy member because I don't heavily edit anatomy articles and my name is not on "the list." The vast majority of anatomy topics are not about sex organs, which surely contributes to the fact that the majority of WP:Anatomy members do not work on such articles. And that the majority do not do so is no valid reason, in my opinion, to say "We must do away with these annoyingly popular sex organ articles."

With regard to all the WikiProjects on Wikipedia, there are many editors who are a part of a particular WikiProject but are not heavily involved in editing articles related to that project or don't have their name on "the list." I could name several WP:MED members other than myself who are no doubt WP:MED members but don't heavily edit WP:MED articles (or in general) and/or only occasionally (or sometimes) participate at WP:MED. If you would like me to WP:Echo/ping them to this discussion in addition to the other editors I have pinged here, I surely do not mind. You can call yourself whatever you want, but you don't get the right to decide what type of member or editor I am. I decide that for myself, and long ago I decided that I am a WP:Anatomy and WP:MED member. You may not have any expertise with regard to sex topics, but I do. And I have it with regard to anatomy topics as well. Especially female anatomy, as I already told you. I'm nowhere close to being an "I only edit this area" or an "I barely edit any other type of topic" editor, as is clear from my user page and as many at this site are aware of. You want to be that type of editor? Fine. But I'll keep editing anatomy articles at my own pace with as much involvement in them and this WikiProject as I want. There is no "up until now," and this is far from the first time that I have participated at this WikiProject. Obviously. So keeping all of that in mind, it only seems logical to me to call myself a WP:Anatomy member. I could not care less that you don't see me as a WP:Anatomy member. I certainly don't need your respect; I have such respect from other WP:Anatomy members, such as Taylornate, and various WP:MED members. As for berating, we are not simply "berating back and forth," but you most assuredly initiated such unpleasantry...as usual. If you wanted to "wait and hear what editors who are experienced and anatomy or medicine focused have to say," then it would have been best that you had not replied to me yet again at all. Flyer22 (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Refrain from WP:PersonalCFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:16, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I told you before, educate yourself on what a WP:Personal attack is by thoroughly reading that policy. Because if anything that I stated above counts as a WP:Personal attack on you, then surely what you stated above counts as one against me. So the lesson of the day, folks? Don't behave toward others in ways that you would rather they don't behave toward you. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have stated nothing about you at all if you go back and read my text. You have portrayed me as a newbie and whatnot and commented on my credentials. I commented on the fact that you are as of yet not on the list of members of the anatomy project. I strongly suggest you refrain from stating what others are or are not. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:29, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Don't play games with me. What I stated above with regard to you is no worse than what you stated about me, which falls more on the topic of credentials than what I stated. I mentioned nothing of your credentials; and by "credentials," I mean any true expertise you have outside of Wikipedia. Stating that you are a newbie when it comes to editing Wikipedia anatomy and medical articles is the truth, as your edit history (including your user page and talk page histories show). The same goes for your Wikipedia editing experience in general, which is clear by you not knowing things that very experienced Wikipedia editors know. And for you to state that you "strongly suggest [I] refrain from stating what others are or are not," when you started this mess by stating that I am not a WP:Anatomy member, is just more silliness. Not only do I not appreciate less experienced Wikipedia editors trying to tell me what's the deal when it comes to editing Wikipedia, I do not appreciate being condescended to. I strongly suggest you WP:Drop the stick. Or do you want the last word that badly? Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

So since I have fewer edits to Wikipedia than you I am by definition a WP:Newbie? If that is so I strongly suggest you read what the article you linked to says. I have not condescended, rather pointed out that you are not on the list of members, and have not been before. This is indisputable fact. I made no remark as to whether you considered yourself a member or not. Having more Wikipedia experience in no way makes you immune to criticism, nor does it imply deeper knowledge of the subjects concerned. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 22:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

If you don't know what I mean by having called you a WP:Newbie above, I suggest you re-read what I stated. I also suggest you note the other ways that the WP:Newbie guideline suggests that an editor can be a newbie (it's there in the lead of that page). You have indeed condescended to me in this discussion. And yet another example of your inexperience with editing this site is to suggest that a WikProject member needs to be on "the list" to be a member of that WikiProject. Yes, you made "no remark as to whether [I consider myself] a member or not." You made it clear that you do not view me as WP:Anatomy member because I don't heavily edit anatomy articles and am not on "the list" for this project. And let's not for get your "wait and hear what editors who are experienced and anatomy or medicine focused" emphasis. Yes, it's time for us to refrain from speaking to each other on this matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

CFCF, do you know what article assessment's main purpose is (why we rate by class and importance)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

LT910001,Lesion,Was a bee,Wouterstomp,Jmh649 Ping! Need some additional views here, especially from editors who regularly engage in this WikiProject. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

This discussion began with LT asking what to do with a list of popular articles in anatomy. Goals like getting the top 100 to C class above sound commendable.

Then there was a tangent where it was suggested by CFCF that "sex-related" articles be removed from WP:ANAT's scope. Agree with removal of some of the articles mentioned in this thread: sexual intercourse, and possibly erection (this is more physiology imo...but I don't think there is any WP:PHYSIOLOGY so probably it is best to keep tagged with WPANAT for now. Agree with Flyer that articles directly pertaining to the sex organs, including such as human penis size should remain as WPANAT. CFCF, suggest bring forth a list of articles that you feel should be removed from WP:ANAT to move the discussion forwards. Also, ping me if/when you start on cranial nerve, I could use some revision on that topic and I will try to help out. Lesion (talk) 17:24, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

No, I merely suggest a number of them be removed from the popular article listing, owing to the fact that they take up a large portion of the top of the list. This makes it hard to suggest a goal that the top 20 or top 50 articles could be improved to B-class, similar to the well functioning goals of WP:MED. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 23:02, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Erection is under WP:MED, which should suffice. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 23:03, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OK I understand now, you proposed to remove them from the popular pages list only and not from the scope of AP:ANAT. I don't really have a problem with that, but I don't really see the point in it either. Popular pages list should list the most popular pages, without interference, otherwise the reason of the list in the first place is kind of defeated. If you do create such a list, should keep the original "unabridged" list with a note to explain that accompanies each link (from the project page presumably). Lesion (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lesion, he should not be removing them at all, per the reasoning given by me, you and WhatamIdoing above. The Human penis size article, which he recently removed from this project's scope altogether, and which I reverted, clearly belongs within WP:Anatomy's scope and on the popular pages list. There's not much more that I can state on this topic, other than what I stated above (without the bickering). Flyer22 (talk) 11:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't notice I thanked you for your edit reinstating the article. It was removed in accident, when I was removing the article mentioned below. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC) Also would like to know how you know I'm a he? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Might be an idea for people to bring forward articles they do not feel fall under WPANAT scope to this page and/or WTMED for discussion. One such notification is below (pectus excavatum), so this is good. In all honesty I have in the past removed WPMED tags from articles I felt fell under WPANAT alone, and vice versa without making any notification. I shall correct this. Lesion (talk) 11:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

And then he rated the importance level of the Human penis article as NA to get it off the popular pages list. If I have to take this type of thing to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council (a part of WP:Assessment), start a WP:RfC about it or take it to the appropriate noticeboard, I will, as I surely do not feel like WP:Edit warring with CFCF over it. Flyer22 (talk) 11:30, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Have regained internet access. Agree that anatomically-orientated articles should remain in our scope, I feel is a waste of effort to work on a metric like the list itself rather than the thing it measures. However this is a storm in a teacup. If there is an edit war going on please stop it. There is no actual harm to anyone if the article is or is isn't part of this project. Given the above discussion and heated views, it is best if delisting or marking as NA is first discussed here. Kind regards, and looking forward to continued collaboration on actual article development, LT910001 (talk) 11:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Mostly agree (and no WP:Edit war currently going on between us). Per what has already been stated above about popular pages, I feel that there is harm to Wikipedia and therefore anatomy editors by not accurately reflecting what are Wikipedia's most popular anatomy articles. He also removed the Human vaginal size article from this project's scope (though I'm not yet sure how popular that article is and, yes, of course it is an extremely poor article and there has been discussion on its talk page to merge it). Was that removal also an accident? Flyer22 (talk) 12:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand common ground has been reached by agreeing to discuss changes here first, and the aggravating editing has stopped. What's been said has been said and now let's focus on improving some Anatomy articles, which is why we are here. LT910001 (talk) 12:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Cranial nerve

Working on this article now, I want to get it at least to B-class before I roll it out on to the main page. Its currently at User:CFCF/sandbox/Cranial nerve, and I haven't done very much work yet. I plan on making a smaller section for each cranial nerve if that is a good idea. Ping Lesion CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, Lesion (talk) 08:36, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've got to go out now, but after very quick review, I think the whole section "Mnemonic devices" is not encyclopedic (although I was happy not to see any of the less polite mnemonics listed!). I have also xfd'd the main page List of mnemonics for the cranial nerves where I give the rationale for this. Lesion (talk) 08:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

As many anatomy books give mnemonics for them I think we should mention that there are a number of mnemonics in common use. On the other hand I would be completely fine to forego any mention or listing of individual mnemonics. Lets see where the deletion process goes for that list. It really seems like people have only added any mnemonic they've made up.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Am unsure. CN has been on my todo list also. There is a List of medical mnemonics, I think it is worth merging any sourced mnemonics from CN to the list. I feel the list is useful as a place to collect the various mnemonics which are edited into articles, and also as a sink that can draw related editing (i.e. well-meaning but not encyclopaedic) away from articles themselves.LT910001 (talk) 12:05, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Pectus excavatum

I've removed this article from the ranking as it doesn't fall under our scope. It should be only under medicine in my view. Please respond if you disagree. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Agree, it's pathology not normal anatomy. WPMED appropriate. Lesion (talk) 11:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

List of muscles of the human body by action

Am considering merging the diaspora of List of flexors of the human body, List of extensors of the human body, ... into a single listing muscles by their action. Thoughts? LT910001 (talk) 12:09, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree this would be a good idea, no need to have a bunch of hard to navigate lists. I recently split List of movements of the human body from Anatomical terminology. Don't know its of relevance, but they could complement each other well. If we really want major work, they could even be merged, but seeing as we would need to list all compound movements and any muscles involved I've been apprehensive myself. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:33, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, I was going to create a similar list myself. I would support keeping them separate, the list of human muscles article is already very long.LT910001 (talk) 13:40, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular articles - goals added

Have added a list of goals to our popular pages list, intended as motivation only. Have left a note explaining that it is liable to change month to month alongside assessment and fluctuations in popularity. Hopefully the stats will improve over time. LT910001 (talk) 14:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Reasonable and good goals. Flyer22 (talk) 14:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism

We seem to be experiencing a spike in IP vandalism throughout our articles, must be a mid-February thing. At any rate, if the vandalism appears to be an ongoing phenomenon, please do not hesitate to request page protection for a few months. The easiest way to do this is to enable the twinkle tool, via preferences --> gadgets --> twinkle. A new tab will appear on all pages, one can then easily click 'rpp'. LT910001 (talk) 03:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Peer review of Anatomical terms of motion

Peer review is here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Anatomical_terms_of_motion/archive1, would be grateful for some comments. If we can get this to GA-status, we can use it as a template for the other Anatomical terminology-related articles. --LT910001 (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked over the article a little but, but I don't feel I can conduct a review as I was part of the creation. But as a suggestion maybe the following could be merged:

• Sagital plane
• Coronal plane
• Transverse plane
• Anatomical planes

--CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Also found Human positions, don't know what to do with that one. It isn't of very high quality. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I think we should move the planes articles, and the majority of content on Anatomical terms of location, to a new article, Anatomical planes. It feels very strange tacked on to the end of Anatomical terms of location. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 12:42, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

I have transferred these comments to the review so that we can have a more central discussion there. --LT910001 (talk) 05:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Galleries

Have just discovered the existence of this tag: {{Cleanup gallery}}. When we get cleanup listings available, this may prove very useful. --LT910001 (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Anatomical series

{{Anatomical terminology series}} {{Anatomical lists}} Have created two 'series' sidebars for Anatomical terminology-related articles with this template, and lists with this template. They have can show different images, although if no image is specified they will show a default image. I hope this provides more organisation and navigability for these two series of articles. Any suggestions or comments, or suggestions for future series (which I think provide an excellent way to standardise and link closely-related articles), would be welcome. --LT910001 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I may expand this to include Cranial nerve-related articles. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 04:23, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that would be great. I like the idea of a cranial nerve series template. Maybe also a spinal nerve template? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of infoboxes in epithelia articles

Have created and am rolling out the above template. Have noticed that many of these articles are tagged with Anatomy infoboxes. Am considering replacing the infoboxes with the series template. Reasons:

• These infoboxes currently are used to store images and the terminology histologica entry only
• These articles are not about specific items
• Items are very small and I worry that if I insert this series and the infobox it will look very ugly.

Would request comment, as I feel infoboxes are hallowed ground. Thoughts? --LT910001 (talk) 15:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I like the template you created, but at the same time I think there is a real need to at least display one large image in the lede of articles. For example on endothelium and mesothelium I think the infoboxes do a good job. On intestinal epithelium they wouldn't. Maybe it would be possible to use the anatomy infoboxes on longer articles with sufficient content for an infobox, while shorter articles could benefit from only the template. No? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Also articles like Inner enamel epithelium are very specialized, I'm not sure if they would benefit from losing their infobox. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 15:55, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind. --LT910001 (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Removal of popular articles under our scope

Have removed the following articles, relating to medical states, from our scope:

• Anterior cruciate ligament injury
• Mitral valve prolapse
• Rotator cuff tear

Have removed the following articles, relating solely to animal anatomy (at least in my corner of the world :D):

• Beak

Am happy to discuss if there are any disagreements. --LT910001 (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

So though we work on non-human animal anatomy, and there were recent claims here of anthropocentrism, we don't put non-human animal anatomy within our scope unless it is sharing an article with human anatomy? Any good reason for that? I don't mind much in this case, but I still want to know how valid the reason is. Flyer22 (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

When revitalising the project we inherited the statement that this project is about human anatomy, and I am happy to keep it that way, leaving animal anatomy to WP:ANIMALS and WP:MAMMALS. When assessing I generally keep topics that have even some relation to human anatomy under our scope, but I feel Beak is a bridge too far. Not too sure about what other editors think though.--LT910001 (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I added Hair loss when I was going through a number of hair-related articles, as it is a physiological process, but I'm not sure about that one, additional input appreciated.
I also omitted adding articles such as beard, while adding terminal hair and vellus hair. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Hah, by way of tangent we at one point had about 30-50 moustache and beard-related articles under our scope. --LT910001 (talk) 13:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I surmised as much when all the hair related articles had been removed. We need to draw the line at anatomical structures, not things that can be done to them. Just in the same way we shouldn't cover genital mutilation or ear-rings. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:14, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Removed from pop list CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:12, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

• Umbilical hernia
• Anal fissure

Have removed the article Atlas from our scope as it is not about the bone (that article is Atlas (anatomy)). --LT910001 (talk) 11:37, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

• Plantar fasciitis

CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 12:29, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Featured media nomination of File:Normal gastric mucosa intermed mag.jpg

A section of the stomach antrum, illustrating the layers of the gastrointestinal wall.

Discovered this beautiful image whilst editing. Nomination is here: Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Stomach mucosa, editors are invited to comment. --LT910001 (talk) 03:50, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

It should definitely qualify, unsure what the rest of the feature image crew think, but its worth giving it a shot. (also made the preview smaller). It does' t look exactly as I was taught, as the crypts aren't visible in the deep portion of the image. Where from the stomach is this from? Antrum?CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Just saw the caption, and yes it was antrum CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 08:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology

Why create this, when we already have WikiProjects that are sufficient enough to deal with physiology, and when it's been a struggle to even have an active Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy? For example, there was more than one discussion about merging WP:Anatomy with WP:MED because of WP:Anatomy's general inactivity. Of course...WP:Anatomy is significantly more active now, but I don't think CFCF, who created Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology minutes ago, knows what it takes to see to it that a WikiProject flourishes. If the creation of Wikipedia:WikiProject Physiology is to simply get the physiology articles (as in primarily physiology articles) out of WP:Anatomy's scope (based on the #Discussion of popular articles commentary above), then I don't see its creation as valid at all. Flyer22 (talk) 09:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

As Wikiproject anatomy doesn't cover physiology as it is I don't understand what is being referred to. Suggest users read the title page at WP:Physiology before drawing baseless conclusions. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Before recent removals of primarily physiology topics from WP:Anatomy's scope, WP:Anatomy did indeed often cover primarily physiology topics. There have been recent discussions at this very talk page about whether topics that are more so physiology are within this project's scope. And there are currently articles within this project's scope that one can validly argue would fit better within WP:Physiology than WP:Anatomy, such as T cell or Rod cell. Not to mention that Lesion commented in the aforementioned linked section that the Erection article seems to be more so physiology...before you removed it from this project's scope. Either way, I see no need for WikiProject Physiology. Flyer22 (talk) 10:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles may fit under both projects, and both those are anatomical features which do fall under our scope as defined on the main page of this project. WP:PHY could be of use for articles that receive little love form neither WP:ANAT nor WP:MED, such as RAS system and the entire Renal physiology group of articles. As of now the goal of the project would simply be to categorize articles, with future discussion and internal article improvement goals.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 11:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they can fit under both projects. We'll see how it works out. Flyer22 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I wish you all the best in creating and maintaining the project, CFCF, and am sure there will be like-minded members to work with you. I advise you to make liberal use of the formatting available from other projects to make this easier (:D). I am a bit tied up with WP:ANATOMY work at the moment, but will incorporate WP:PHYSIOLOGY tagging into my page assessment and will enable rater assessment for the project. At least for the first 6 months to a year, would recommend WP:PHYSIOLOGY (which I assume will be the sobriquet) articles are not de-tagged from other projects. If you need any help please let me know, LT910001 (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

I feel you mirrored my sentiments, just more eloquently summarized. For now I'll keep it as a pet-project until we have a sufficient article base to do something useful. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:17, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Adding multiple articles

Is there any quick way to add all these articles to the project with the neuroanatomy sub-group : Category:Neuroanatomy stubs? I find I'd rather not click through several hundred pages to check if they have been added or not? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 09:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

This is the closest I could find, a list of articles under our scope marked with that category: [2]. Unfortunately looks like there is at least 100+ articles that have not been added...--LT910001 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I might just take a look over by some of the programmers if there is any quick way to fix this. HotCat doesn't have that functionality right? CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:26, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. --LT910001 (talk) 10:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Methods category

I've added the methods subsection to the rater application. Examples here would be H&E stain and Dissection. Please take a look to see if its all right. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 14:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

CFCF I worry that such a category would be very small; I've created most of those categories so that users of a particular inclination (eg embryological, micro-anatomy) can easily be provided with a list of articles. As there are some additional changes that also need to be made (alterations to the template and creating the category), would you be OK if I removed this categorisation instead? The articles above could be reclassified as microanatomy and gross anatomy / metaanatomy. --LT910001 (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, I just felt I had nowhere to place the stains articles (many weren't in any wikiprojects at all), but most of the stains could go under microanatomy/histology upon further reflection.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 10:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Human penis size and human vagina size

Per points raised by Flyer22 above, I've reinstated Human penis size as having a quality rating, and Human vaginal size as being part of this project. It seems very, very strange to include one and not the other, and my (admittedly limited) understanding of importance ratings is that they should only be omitted when the articles are redirects, lists, or similar. These articles were neither, and they are also both very clearly about human anatomy. Let's not ignore them because they are in bad shape, and let's especially not ignore them because they are popular! Grayfell (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

I obviously agree with Grayfell. Good move on this and this. Flyer22 (talk) 04:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

And for more on how the rating system works, see Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Release Version Criteria#Importance of topic, which is linked in the WikiProject banners. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for making the change, Grayfell. --LT910001 (talk) 05:44, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Popular pages tool update

As of January, the popular pages tool has moved from the Toolserver to Wikimedia Tool Labs. The code has changed significantly from the Toolserver version, but users should notice few differences. Please take a moment to look over your project's list for any anomalies, such as pages that you expect to see that are missing or pages that seem to have more views than expected. Note that unlike other tools, this tool aggregates all views from redirects, which means it will typically have higher numbers. (For January 2014 specifically, 35 hours of data is missing from the WMF data, which was approximated from other dates. For most articles, this should yield a more accurate number. However, a few articles, like ones featured on the Main Page, may be off).

Web tools, to replace the ones at tools:~alexz/pop, will become available over the next few weeks at toollabs:popularpages. All of the historical data (back to July 2009 for some projects) has been copied over. The tool to view historical data is currently partially available (assessment data and a few projects may not be available at the moment). The tool to add new projects to the bot's list is also available now (editing the configuration of current projects coming soon). Unlike the previous tool, all changes will be effective immediately. OAuth is used to authenticate users, allowing only regular users to make changes to prevent abuse. A visible history of configuration additions and changes is coming soon. Once tools become fully available, their toolserver versions will redirect to Labs.

If you have any questions, want to report any bugs, or there are any features you would like to see that aren't currently available on the Toolserver tools, see the updated FAQ or contact me on my talk page. Mr.Z-bot (talk) (for Mr.Z-man) 04:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

New Contributor to WikiProject Anatomy

Just stopping by to say 'Thank You' to everyone who has made contributions to wiki, it means a whole lot to humanity.... keep it up!! : D HiYahhFriend (talk) 08:09, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks,HiYahhFriend, and thanks for your recent edits! I sometimes feel like we're standing on top of a large pyramid of previous editors, who have all contributed. PS. if you're ever looking for something to edit, the list of Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Popular pages is a good place to start, as these are the articles most viewed by Wikipedia's readers. Cheers! --LT910001 (talk) 05:10, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

HiYahhFriend was reverted on this at the Testosterone article; clearly inappropriate text. And HiYahhFriend was reverted on this at the Hormone article for WP:Copyvio (a copyright violation), though this portion of HiYahhFriend's text was restored by what appears (appears being the keyword) to be a different editor. From what I see, HiYahhFriend needs to become far more familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines, including WP:MEDRS, and the others way things generally work at this site before editing any more medical/anatomy articles, especially the popular medical and/or anatomy articles. Flyer22 (talk) 05:35, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

In fact, Jmh649 (Doc James), you encounter editors like HiYahhFriend often at Wikipedia medical articles. How concerned do you think we should be about HiYahhFriend's other contributions to various Wikipedia medical and/or anatomy articles? Seems like something WP:Copyvio expert Moonriddengirl should look into. Like I just stated in this edit summary, "Be careful to look into, or more closely into, the editing background of editors before we trust those editors to edit these articles." Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hopefully any such matters can be resolved, we need to work hard helping editors join our Wikiprojects. Getting an understanding of the requirements isn't easy, but the welcome message on your (HiYahhFriend) talk-page is a good start. Getting yourself well understood with WP:MEDRS & WP:MEDMOS gives insight as to what our goals are. For example this needs to be sourced.CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 07:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Looked at more edits. They all appear to be copy and pasted. Someone needs to go through all his edits and review them. Maybe we simply need to delete all contributions. I am busy today. Will block this user indefinitely if it happens again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, James. Very much appreciated. A few other contributions by HiYahhFriend that I looked at also appear to me to be copy-and-pasted text because they are similar in style to the aforementioned copy-and-pasted text. I'm still waiting to see what Moonriddengirl has to state about this, including what she thinks is the best course of action. Moonriddengirl, if I've gotten your sex/gender wrong, let me know and I'll correct the "she" part. Flyer22 (talk) 16:51, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi guys. Most of my edits were not copyright violations... but for those that were, I very much apologize. I am a new wiki editor, and I didn't know how seriously it is disregarded by the wikipedian community. When I have a chance, I will certainly go through my previous edits and help weed out all that is copvio. To repeat, I'm sorry, and it won't happen again.(HiYahhFriend (talk)) — Preceding undated comment added 18:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. What is your association with Anty? Are you both in the same class? Is there a bunch more students like yourself? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:46, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I know AntyJusteen through my university's biology department. I don't know of anyone else partaking in wiki editing. I'm omy to deleating all that was copyvio...Best (HiYahhFriend (talk) 00:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC))

We have an issue

It appears that we have a bunch of accounts that have started at the same time and are madly copy and pasting content into Wikipedia. Looks like maybe a class of students.

I have started a list of accounts below but am sure there are more.

List of accounts

• User:HiYahhFriend
• User:AntyJusteen

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Anyway these finds of copy and pasting are always depressing. Especially when there is a technical solution that could address it but the WMF doesn't seem interested in putting development resources into WP:TURNITIN. It makes one wonder how much we are missing and if a significant portion of Wikipedia just becomes copy and pasted bits and pieces from other sources, should we all just throw the towel in. Gah. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:47, 25 February 2014 (UTC)