Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tom (LT) (talk | contribs) at 20:14, 3 November 2014 (→Is this picture a featured image?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Shortcut

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

11 different infobox-templates

I'm planning to do some template work within this project, and thought I'd bring it up here first. Currently our project uses no less than 11 different infobox-template for different structures in the body.

And I'm not even entirely sure this is all of them. My suggestion is to merge these into a single Template:Infobox anatomy, if needed with the following format to differentiate (replace bone with w/e): 

| class = bone

This makes it simpler if we wish to introduce a new class in the future, and also allows for maintaining only one page. To avoid extra work this can also be accomplished by redirecting old templates using the following: 

{{Infobox anatomy
| class = bone
}}

Now, as for the why: I suggest we stop using links to Gray's in the infoboxes. There is today much newer, better content on the web, and Gray's doesn't add much. A better way to solve this would be to implement some form of Atlas parameter, which could include Gray's, Sobotta's, Grant's, Anatomography etc. We would want these types of changes to occur on all the infoboxes at once. Additionally I want us to use TA, TH & TE more, and implementing this centrally would be simpler. I don't know if I've explained well enough and this is by no means anything that will occur very soon, but I just wanted to give a heads up that I may work on this. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sound. Not to teach you, but I got this first response in mind (I did a similar merge elsewhere).
First: split the tasks. Step 1: merge them all, and make that work correct. Then take a break. Step 2: when centralized into a single point template, change the Gray-issues you mention. Because, in the first step you might encounter situations of same-parametername with different-result (like calculation or presentation). When solved, the second step can take the discussion. (Not with me, I'm not into this project). -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And I always keep record of these parameters in one big spreadsheet, offline. That is my main control page (so not a wikipage). It even helps me from first overview till into documenting. -DePiep (talk) 19:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I mentioned the Gray-issue simply to give an idea of what could be done with one single template. Thanks for the tips, and this won't be anything fast, I just wanted to know if this was worth putting effort into. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea CFCF. I agree, it is very confusing having this situation. We could start by rolling some of the smaller ones in. While we are talking about infoboxes, some other changes I'd like to see are:

  1. Insert a 'Greek' paremeter so we have the two relevant base languages
  2. Separate content into 'identifiers' (Gray's anatomy, TA) and 'Details' (origin, insertion, ...) and possibly external resources too.
  3. Remove the colouring of artery/vein, as it's distracting and confusing to have so many colours (eg when a structure has artery/vein/lymph/nerve all coloured)
  4. Merge into a single infobox
  5. Have links to the relevant 'Anatomical terminology' displayed relevant to the type of box.

I think there are two main reasons for the existing infoboxes. (1) is to separate out different things, eg for categorisation (2) is because of the unique 'action' parameter for each box (muscle movement, etc). I think we could have a general 'function' parameter that holds this information. I actually created a template here User:LT910001/sandbox/Infobox demonstration to test some things out, the 'mnemonic' parameter is by no means one I feel should be included in an infobox that's used, feel free to play around. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:58, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll take a look – and as for categorization, it is possible to do this with a parameter as well.
  1. As for the Greek parameter, I've already added that about a week ago at Template:Infobox anatomy, and if we merge them it will be present in all of the infoboxes– for uses see Heart, Spleen, Abdomen.
  2. It would be possible to simple have an atlas field and use it to link to templates.
  3. Interesting you say that, I would have thought that to be the major factor behind actually using the templates, but I don't really find them all that useful either, and they aren't present in all the derivation of the infoboxes either.
  4. Once I get a hang of the if-code that is needed this won't be that hard to implement either, it would all be down to the new class= parameter.
-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merging 11 templates seems very nice idea. Without loss of information for readers, we can get easier maintainable infobox. --Was a bee (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Increased adherence to the TA, TH, & TE would greatly improve homology across anatomy pages and simplify the reader experience; I am in favor of that change. If I am reading this correctly it sounds like merging these templates will simplify maintaining and updating individual pages and provide a consistent system for readers to quickly identify relevant information. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why need to classify within anatomy?

Allow me. Why need for your parameter |class=bone in new {{anatomy}}? If you prepare well, you can avoid this requirement. It requires removing double parameter meaning (in those 11).

For example. In {{infobox bone}} there is |Articulations=. Let's assume (for argument, & fun) that {{Infobox brain}} has this parameter too. One better resolve this contradiction within anatomy, before requiring a "class=" parameter. So, best aim at: no |class= requirement at all. -DePiep (talk) 00:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well this would lose us the benefit of applying categories through the templates. While I don't think this is a specially good solution, it would be quite a lot of work to reclassify everything. Then again, much is being reclassified through the rater tool anyway, but those parameters aren't really the same. There we have gross anatomy and embryology, but nothing like bone or muscle. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this requirement relates to some unique parameters, DePiep. For example, muscle templates might have an origin/insertion parameter that others might not. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LT, this will cause no problem. The other way around could: one parameter name, two meanings. But even that is solved by CFCF's approach to keep & use the information that is now in the infobox name (|class=bone). This will auto-classify (& categorize) pages. So my original point here is rejected with good reason. -DePiep (talk) 09:34, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update, CFCF it has just occurred to me that {{Infobox anatomy}} has already been equipped with a 'System' parameter which is more-or-less what you're proposing. Perhaps we could utilise that? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Making some gradual changes

CFCF if there are no objections I'm going to make one or two changes to Infobox anatomy per our above discussions. I won't be changing the parameter names, so this shouldn't affect your merging. I've separated out the issues in case there is any discussion, and also noted this discussion on the Anatomy infobox.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removing colours

OK I want to ask what the opinions of other users are on removing colours from the infobox? CFCF I take it you're nonchalant about changes. I'd like to see them removed, because I think they do not look professional, are difficult to read, are not (with the exception of artery/vein)　easy to read, and I think they look quite ugly (eg. on mobile, screen, and print editions). What are the opinions of other users? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArteryDecent background?
VeinAlso decent?
NerveThis is quite strong
NerveMaybe this is easier on the eyes?
Put it this way, I find them useful. That doesn't mean a reader would, seeing as I'm used to them, and know what they mean. That said the only ones I really like are artery, vein and nerve. I think artery and vein are decent in their color, nerve isn't. Maybe we could get rid of the others and keep these three. Their colors are intuitive, and are therefore likely useful to a reader, as for any of the others, I don't think they help the reader.
Also an example of a nerve color that is easier on the eyes.
As you say, I'm not too bothered if you chose to do away with them completely, but I think these three give some functionality. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 16:11, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Due to an error with infobox formatting, it seems the rowstyles aren't appearing, so you can have a look at what it would look like without the colours (see eg Heart), in my mind a definite improvement. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:41, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Separating content

I think we should definitely separate the content in the infobox into 'Description' and 'Identifiers' areas. This will assist with readability by making things related to describing the structure much more clear, vs. the TA and Grey's resources, which should be placed in a separate section. It also makes it easier to add resources to this section. I think CFCF you propose the same idea, 'Identifiers' being called 'Atlas'. Is that right? Are there any other thoughts on this?--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:17, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have made the change to {{Infobox anatomy}}, separating fields into 'details' and 'identifiers'. I feel this is easier to read, an example can be found at Ovary and other articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diagrams for patellofemoral pain syndrome requested

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.

What images would be best to illustrate the above page,? Currently has no images at all. Many thanks, 94.72.198.147 (talk) 12:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe an image of the patella and femur, with areas affected highlighted in red? Would that work? It would be quite simple to create with Anatomography. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, thank you.

Also is anyone interested in collaborating on the page? Not purely anatomy topic I suppose but worth a try. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 17:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd love to, I'm only very busy at the moment. If I know you're working on it I might pop by! -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 19:39, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply, Matthew Ferguson 57, I'd be very interested in editing any of the anatomy articles that relate to the article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
 Done image created (not by me) --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Mesentery - narrower or broader definition?

Right, there is some talk about whether we merge Transverse mesocolon, Sigmoid mesocolon, Mesoappendix and Root of the mesentery into mesentery - all depends on how narrowly or broadly we define mesentery - either "mesentery proper", which is just of small bowel, or the whole lot - so what do folks wanna do? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to the confusion there is also Mesenteric organ. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 07:03, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See, I've never heard it called that. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:06, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, neither have I, at least not before coming across that article. In any case I think the mesocolon articles should be merged to mesocolon, but I'm still deliberating whether I think they should all be merged under mesentery. As for mesenteric lymph nodes I think it would do much better as part of a larger article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:02, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very invested in medical/anatomy nomenclature so I had to check this out. I found exactly two references to "mesenteric organ" (i.e. Two scientific articles: one on abdominal organ development from 1996 and one on abdominal anatomy naming conventions from 2014). From a strict biology definition the mesentery is an organ. However, I have never heard the mesentery referred to as the mesenteric organ and I just finished my GI block in medical school so there are several sources fresh in my mind. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that Mesenteric organ does sound a little like a neologism. It's strange that we don't have the article heart organ? (this is not said seriously!) --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Broader: We know that the mesentery is a single organ and none of the specific articles appear to be so extensive as to require individual pages. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mesentery, is of course, the mesentery of the gi tract. I think that an article on the mesentery should be the main article for the embryology of the mesentery, as well as basic anatomy. Do not forget that the esophagus has a mesentery in part of its embryological development and looses it. I think that the detail of the subdivisions of the mesentery would be best described in separate linked articles, except for the the mesentery of the appendix could be incorporated in another article. My assumption is that the daughter articles will turn out to be fairly long in the fullness of time. Also, mesentery can be a general term - other structures have a mesentery; see, mesovarium, [[mesosalpinx], and mesometrium. Snowman (talk) 19:34, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments are needed on some topics at the Vagina article

Comments are needed on what image will make the best lead image for the Vagina article, on genital vs. urogenital terminology, and on what to do regarding medical material concerning the vulva and vagina being split into separate articles. Flyer22 (talk) 14:49, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Splenorenal ligament

Aren't these the same thing?

-- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 09:15, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have written on talk page. Iztwoz (talk) 16:54, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What to do with very small nerves/nerve branches?

I have two questions I think we need to address:

1. Very small nerves
I struck upon the Levator ani nerve article, which is a stub in the sense it is a single sentence. With 297 g-scholar hits it isn't insignificant, but I don't know how relevant the article will ever be. Should every nerve have an article, and is this actually an independent nerve or should it be considered a branch of the S4 spinal nerve? Should it be merged to that article?

2. Nerve branches
This also brings up the question whether we really should have articles such as Temporal branches of the facial nerve? And why don't we have Tonsillary branch of facial artery? Nerves are arguably more important, especially as this specific artery is often redundant due to the anastomoses, but this isn't always the case. If we have agreement, I would like to merge all the nerve branch articles, starting with those in the following table:

This would result in a better overall coverage of cranial nerves for a start. I don't think anyone is actually going to find the branch articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:43, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I realized we do have the Tonsillar branch of the facial artery. So that argument falls, but the question arises if we should have this as well? Especially considering most of them are only based on Gray's 1918 entries, and don't mention any modern surgery. (For example damage to the tonsillar branch upon tonsillectomy (with it's signs and symptoms, primarily shock due to bloodloss), and subsequent radiological intervention.) -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 18:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CFCF, thanks for bringing this up, it's been on my mind for a while, too. I have always felt that, essentially (1) these terms are just adjectival, ie there is an end-branch from nerve X to structure Y so we have an article to describe that (2) users are unlikely to search for these articles or view them (3) they should be rolled into the article about the branch from which they emnate, and (4) I agree that we mainly have these articles because of the Grey's 1918 classification that could be easily covered as subsections within larger articles. I agree that this would dramatically improve the coverage of nerves. I'm reticent to perform too many merges though -- ie from the end branch to the main nerve. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm strapped for time at the moment, but I'm going to add "merging of branch articles to main nerve/artery", or something along the lines of that to the projects to do list.
If I understand you, ff something is referred to as an independent nerve you don't think it should me merged? As it would require a major effort in any case, and I think we need to discuss such merges on a case by case basis I will leave the levator ani nerve for now. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:09, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that named branches should "probably" be merged, whereas unnamed branches (eg "branch from nerve X to muscle Y") should "almost definitely" be merged. As I understand it, Iztwoz and I generally propose merges as we find the articles using Twinkle with a short merge proposition, and then deal with it a month afterwards. That way any users who feel strongly about it or want to point out something we've looked over can contribute. In addition some mergers which may seem like a good idea might not when the full spectrum of mergers has been proposed (eg if it turns out you'll be merging 5-10 articles will overwhelm the parent article or turn it into a list) I frankly would not be surprised if there is a neurophysiologist who specialises in Temporal branches of the facial nerve just waiting for the chance to participate... What are your thoughts on a more gradual approach like this?--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the articles are only a couple of sentences, and merging them into the main article will likely increase the likelyhood they will be improved upon. These small articles were created years back by Arcadian, and have barely been edited since their creation. do not use the same citation templates as we have today. I think what we need is some type of anatomical WP:NOTE, and I'm going to be drafting a few suggestions in the coming days for WP:MEDMOS. I'm unsure if this goes there or somewhere else. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:38, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sulcus subtarsalis upper or lower eyelid?

So, I'm coming here with a large number of questions, but is the Sulcus subtarsalis present on both the upper and lower eyelid? To me it seems so, but I'm not an ophthalmologist, so couldn't say without consulting a boo. I got these hits just pushing some random searches.

G-scholar hits:
Sulcus subtarsalis [1] 124
Subtarsal sulcus [2] 38
Sulcus supratarsalis [3] 4
Supratarsal sulcus [4] 116
Infratarsal suclcus [5] 4

Should the article be merged somewhere, and should we include all the names? -- -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Muscles of anterior compartment of thigh

Do any users have any reliable sources that state what the muscles of the anterior compartment of thigh are? My grey's includes the Iliopsoas, however apparently "Grant's dissector" does not. As well as "evidence-based opinions" any sources provided that could be used to substantiate the muscles would be appreciated! --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess this has to do with where you make a cross section, below the insertion of the iliopsoas you won't see it. Moore's Clinical anatomy has the pectineus, iliopsoas, sartorius, quadriceps all in the anterior compartment. Tell me if you need the full source. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 10:39, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I searched some ontologies at BioPortal. It seems that inclusion of the Iliopsoas depends on each ontologies. We can check that at linked page below (please click [+] symbol at "Anterior muscle of thigh" in the tree.) --Was a bee (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SNOMED includes Iliopsoas.[6]
  • Read Code includes Iliopsoas.[7]
  • RADLEX doesn't include Iliopsoas[8].
  • FMA doesn't include Iliopsoas.[9]

Trigeminal nerve

Trigeminal nerve just received a stellar copyedit from Miniapolis, dramatically enhancing its readability as part of a guide of copy editors request. For editors that don't know, the guild of copy editors has a 'request' page where articles in need can be nominated for copy-editing. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:48, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Branch/Anastomosis

I came across the superior epigastric artery, and saw the infobox claims it is a sourced from the internal thoracic artery (all well). The article continues to say it anastomoses with the inferior epigastric artery, but this is not in the infobox. In addition the internal thoracic article says that the superior epigastric artery is a branch from it, something that feels incorrect at least to me.

My own intuition says that the superior epigastric anastomoses from both the internal thoracic and the inferior epigastric, and is a branch of neither (despite not having any major independent source). I'm not seeing any sources in the infobox, and I'm unsure where to look as my books don't go into detail of which of these is a tributary of which. So, does anyone else have a good source?

Also how would you feel about adding an 'anastomoses parameter in the infoboxes?

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:01, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moore: Clinically Oriented Anatomy (7E) states that the superior epigastric artery is a terminal branch of the internal thoracic artery that runs within the rectus sheath posterior to the rectus abdominus muscle. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be that in favour of it, because I would be reticent to add parameters where they may be applicable only to a few structures. Perhaps we could write about 'anastamoses' data in the 'branches' field? The infobox documentation could be updated to match this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on Pictures for Anatomy Articles

First I wanted to say Hello to the WP: Anatomy community. My user name is Brian (HoneyBadger4) and I am an osteopathic medical student and a strong advocate for the implementation of 21st Century Skills -this page is still under construction- (e.g. communication, collaboration) in anatomy and medical education so that everyone can communicate more efficiently. I believe that the most effective way to achieve this is by establishing (in the case of medicine) or adhering to (In the case of anatomy, embryology, and histology) a standard language. So I am always in favor of updating articles to be consistent with the Terminologia Histologica, Terminologia Anatomica, or Terminologia Embryologica. However, I will not make these changes without first discussing them on this page. I would love to talk more about this topic and learn about the different opinions of editors on my talk page or via email if anyone is interested in discussing it.

Now onto my question: I am looking for updated sources for pictures to include in articles. However, I am having difficulty finding updated images that are not under copy-write. Does anybody have advice on where to obtain anatomy, or medical, images that can safely be added to wikipedia pages? Thank you in advance. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To put it this way, that would be my area of expertise. Most of what is available isn't modern, but for a start, and maybe the best newer source: CNX Anatomy & Physiology is free, both when it comes to text and images, all you need to do is attribute properly. The book recently had a major update and now includes numerous images covering specific muscles, bones and organs (whereas they previously mainly covered major concepts). Do take a look, and feel free to ask for help uploading the images. Otherwise just write here what you need an image of and I can see how I can help. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 21:40, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's nice to have you around, Brian! We have a list of small open tasks if / when you think of anything with a defined scope you'd like to work on. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome. With respect to what terminology to use it is important to keep in mind that we write for a general. We should generally be using plain English as much as possible. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:10, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the content of the article should be kept as general as possible. However, most nouns in anatomy are Greek or Latin. That is more of what I meant to refer to. Maybe it would be advantageous to include and explanation of etymology in the introduction of anatomy articles? This could help our readers understand the terms more intuitively. Also it is important to remember that a good portion of our readers are specialists. Though few of them will admit it, I know that several of my professors have copied and pasted directly from Wikipedia articles.HoneyBadger4 (talk) 10:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Recent changes in WP:Anatomy
List overview · Lists updated: 2018-01-31 · This box:

Following this earlier talk here, I have made the Related Changes box (or: recent changes), see right. You can add it to a page with {{WikiProject Anatomy/related changes}} (also to you userpage!).

Try the link. More options are possible, you can take a look at the similar, but more extended WP:MEDICINE box {{WPMED related changes}}. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you DePiep!! This is much appreciated! --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
:-). As you know, if there are more useful lists, they can be added. But with 10,000 pages in this project, all+talks can be in one list page. -DePiep (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomy software

Hi. What software is generally use when making images with markings of anatomical structures (e.g. red-coloured frontal bone on the skull)? Is it the Anatomography software (which seems to be down, at least for me), or are there other open source softwares as well? Thanks. — Gaute chat 12:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for me at http://lifesciencedb.jp/bp3d/?lng=en , and yes that is the most common one, User:Was a bee has written a couple of excellent guides:
-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 17:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you CFCF for introducing. There are many anatomy softwares on Internet though, most of them are fully copyrighted (to say, we can not use that on Wikipedia). But if you use softwares for your own personal use, here is a small list of anatomy softwares (commons:User:Was_a_bee#Free_softwares_for_verification). --Was a bee (talk) 03:29, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical dictionaries

Does wikipedia guidelines prohibit the use of online medical dictionaries as references? I've noticed that some dictionaries — often but not always — contains very accurate and credible information. — Gaute chat 00:04, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, one reason being they often state information that is too obvious to be included in other books, yet fundamental to an article or structure. In my understanding they are treated like other reliable sources. If citing an online dictionary don't forget to include an access date and URL. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great work!

Someone's been a prodigiously busy bee... according to the cleanup page, in the last week we've resolved 8,728 "issues" identified on cleanup ([10]) Unfortunately none of these articles appear to be anatomical... --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:07, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anatomical compartments of leg/arm

Structures in the legs and arms are separated into fascial compartments.

For example, we have fascial compartments of leg and:

We also have articles on the intramuscular septae which separate them:

(we may have others, too)

Would these be better represented in a single article, such as changing Fascial compartments of leg to a list? Currently I find the structure confusing and by virtue of having so many articles I am not quite sure what educational benefit it would be to readers, whereas in one place (if done well) it could convey quite a lot of information in a somewhat clearer format. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to Matthew Ferguson 57, as we may have discussed this previously.
I'm unfamiliar with the general topic so shouldn't really comment, but some of the articles you list above do appear quite short and might be better merged. Matthew Ferguson 57 (talk) 21:42, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sex and gender distinction at anatomy or other medical articles

For those who don't know about this discussion, see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#People, women, and females. A WP:Permalink to that discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy

How is Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy going to work as far as Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy is concerned? We don't need any Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy editors thinking that all non-human anatomy concerns them and never concerns Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy, and these two WikiProjects battling each other. For example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy follows WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, and editing shouldn't come to the point that Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy editors are creating WP:Spinout articles for non-human animal content simply because an anatomy article is primarily about humans. As was stated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Human anatomy, we commonly include an Other animals section in an anatomy article that is primarily about humans and only break that content out into its own article when the split is needed. Like WP:Spinout states, there is no need for haste. Per WP:Content fork, it is better to cover all aspects of a topic in one article unless a split is needed, instead of causing our readers to go to more than one article for that content. Indeed, if an anatomy topic that is about humans and other animals covers both, it is a more comprehensive article. And if splitting the content does happen, it should usually follow WP:Summary style; there should still be a section in the article about non-human animals. I think that when there is reason to believe that an anatomy article should be split, that matter should be discussed between both of these anatomy WikiProjects, preferably in one spot per WP:TALKCENT.

I added this bit (followup edit here) to the Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy page so that it is clear that Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy covers non-human animal content as well, but that Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy is the main project for non-human animal content. I think that Epipelagic perhaps should have thought more thoroughly about creating this spinoff project, if he didn't think about it thoroughly enough, and perhaps should have followed the WP:Consensus that is now seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Alternate proposal to widen the scope of this project. Or should have at least gone with his WP:Task force suggestion. I'll alert Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 04:53, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, Flyer22. As stated there's no rush. This whole process has been extremely quick (Day 1 (6/10/14): question posted about scope. Day 1: Suggest we rename. Day 2: continued discussion Day 3 (8/10/14): entire topic closed on request of Epipelagic). I would welcome other editors and I think it'd be better for both the articles and editors rather that we pool our resources rather than cultivate two separate projects. To other editors, I'd say please understand the intensity and suddenness of the request may have played a role in discussion, and there was a clear consensus that we can create expand our scope, and emerging consensus (before the entire thread was closed, after three days) a taskforce and expand our scope. The best things take time and discussion and I think three days was not really much time. I'd like to hear about the opinions of other editors. --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a great new project and I welcome its existence! Given the enormous number of organisms the animal anatomy project will cover, there will almost always be a good reason for a split of an article. And it's entirely up to the animal project to decide this. You have had a chance to integrate animal anatomy into your project, and you didn't quite want it, as the link to the discussion above shows. I agree, it was quick. But the discussion clearly showed what would have happened: it would have been very difficult to make it clear to a physician that animal anatomy is a huge topic in its own right. The link above to the MedMOS shows that you have the possiblity to integrate a comparative anatomy section into your articles. Nobody expects these sections to grow into full coverage of animal anatomy. To an animal anatomy article, on the other hand, humans are just other animals. Look at it this way - would you be willing to have posts on this very active page here where authors try to coordinate work on horse anatomy or cat whiskers? I think the problem is that Wikiproject Human Anatomy has a way of dealing with conflict and discussion that is different from other projects - for example, adhering to a dated 3RR policy seems common among members of this project and does not create a good climate in this possibly difficult cooperation. The organization of a separate project for animal anatomy has many advantages. It gives both projects the perfect framework to do what they do best, and that is write their articles, in peace. Please cooperate with this new project in cases when conflict arises, discuss first and revert later. Be nice, assume good faith, try to understand the other editors. We're all in this together.--Melody Lavender 20:05, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Melody Lavender (I won't ping you via WP:Echo here after this and will instead assume that you will check back here at this talk page for followup replies), there is not "almost always a good reason to split an article" in the case of anatomy topics, or in the case of the vast majority of topics on Wikipedia. As was stated by me in the aforementioned discussion I linked to above in this section, it's often the case that an anatomy or other medical topic is not as well studied in non-human animals as it is in humans. In that aforementioned discussion, I pointed to the Cancer article, for example, where there is an Other animals section, and there is not a Cancer in non-human animals article because that little bit of content does not need its own Wikipedia article. In those cases, or cases like the Vagina article, where the vagina is not as well studied in non-human animals as it is in humans, it is better to keep the little bit of material, or relatively small material, in an Other animals section, than to break that material off into its own article or than to retitle the main article by adding "Human" to the title. And I reiterate when an anatomy topic is about humans and non-human animals, an anatomy article about that topic is more comprehensive when it covers both human and non-human animal content. We should only be creating WP:Spinout articles when necessary in these cases, not causing our readers to go to an extra article for that little bit of content. This matter has been discussed more than once at WP:Med and at WP:Anatomy, and there is general agreement on it. No, it is not "entirely up to the animal project" to decide to split an anatomy article when it contains non-human animal content. As shown at the Heart article talk page (seen here), it will likely be the case that you will need WP:Consensus to split out the non-human animal content. You should not be going around willy-nilly splitting articles because you feel that the non-human animal content deserves its own article. You should be following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on these matters. WP:3RR is not a "dated" policy; it is a policy you should be following. WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy is a guideline. And as for stating, "You have had a chance to integrate animal anatomy into your project, and you didn't quite want it," that is not completely accurate; that discussion shows that non-human animal anatomy was already a part of this WikiProject; it simply was not a major part of it. That discussion shows that there was WP:Consensus to expand the scope in that regard. It was Epipelagic who decided to derail that WP:Consensus and then create a spinoff WikiProject as though it solves everything. I will now alert WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alerted. Flyer22 (talk) 22:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Melody (and everyone else), it sounds like we need to clear up a few misconceptions. You'll find all this documented in the official guideline on WikiProjects, and extensively discussed at WT:COUNCIL, but maybe my summary will save you some time.

A WP:WikiProject is a social group of editors who want to work together to improve the encyclopedia. It is not a collection of pages that have the word "WikiProject" in the title. It is not a subject area.

Any group of editors can declare themselves to be a WikiProject at any time. (We do sometimes enforce a rule that it be a "group", meaning that at least two editors claim to be involved.) It is perfectly acceptable under the community's long-standing guideline on WikiProjects to have a "WikiProject Anatomy #1" and a "WikiProject Anatomy #2". These two groups may have identical lists of articles they support—or different lists. These two groups of people may even disagree with each other, just like it's okay for normal editors to disagree with each other. Their disagreement doesn't matter much, because WikiProjects are designed to have no actual power over articles.

Here is a complete and accurate list of the true "rights" of a WikiProject:

  1. To decide which pages their group wants to support.

(End of list)

This particular right has a few follow-on consequences: you get to tag articles with your banner, so that you can use various bots to facilitate some of that article support. The banner (and the categories that WikiProject banners use) will help you get alerts on progress, nominations for deletions, etc.

Within some limits, WikiProject members are encouraged to set quality and priority assessments for the WP:1.0 team, but the 1.0 team—which is also a WikiProject—also has the power and authority to ignore your assessments, so a WikiProject doesn't have any real rights there.

WikiProjects, acting as a whole, also have the same rights as their participants. A group of WikiProject participants can get together and write an WP:Essay to help other people, just like a group of non-WikiProject editors can write an essay. You don't give up any rights when you join a WikiProject, but you don't get any new ones, either, except for the right to make what amounts to a watchlist for the group.

The list of things that various editors have claimed to be the right of their WikiProject over the years is too long (and too depressing) to write out, but the popular ones are usually these:

  • An alleged right to decide whether an article should be formatted this way or that way.
  • An alleged right to decide whether an article should exist (create, merge, split, delete, etc).
  • An alleged right to decide whether an article should contain this or that.
  • An alleged right to decide whether an article should be edited by non-members.
  • An alleged right to decide which sources are acceptable.
  • An alleged right to create guidelines that everyone else is required to respect, without properly consulting the rest of the community.

In the science area, it's particularly confusing, because people see WikiProject Medicine, and they see MEDRS and MEDMOS, and they think (not unreasonably) "Oh, look, that WikiProject makes everyone obey their advice, so WikiProjects must be allowed to do that". Here's the problem: MEDRS and MEDMOS, unlike the WP:WikiProject advice pages, don't actually "belong" to the WikiProject, and never have. Those are community-wide guidelines, and they are edited by and supported by people who do not claim to be part of WPMED. (In fact, there are currently five different WikiProjects supporting MEDMOS.) Those pages went through the same WP:PROPOSAL process as any other guideline that's been written in the last several years. While a couple of folks who are prominent at WPMED are also zealous at enforcing them, there's no official connection between the two.

Bottom line: Start a WikiProject if you want to collaborate. Don't start a WikiProject because you think it will give you power; you'll only end up disappointed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing, it's because of potential disagreements between these two WikiProjects that I started the above discussion. So regarding your belief that the "[disagreements don't] matter much," they do, in my opinion, if we are work together productively as WikiProjects and not consistently butt heads. For example, if one WikiProject is following WP:MEDMOS and the other isn't, and there is constant conflict regarding that. If there is, that is something that very much matters and needs to be worked out. And judging by Melody Lavender's response above, this discussion definitely needed to be started, even if it doesn't progress much from here, since, for example, Epipelagic is currently ignoring it. With several years of significant experience editing Wikipedia, I am already aware of the things you stated above. I started this discussion per what I stated in my initial post above. I don't see this matter as quite the same thing as having Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia:WikiProject Veterinary medicine. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't mind Flyer, I would rather keep out of this. So far there has been no conflict between the projects, and I don't see the point of you trying to create conflict. This project has never shown the slightest interest in the vast bulk of animal anatomy articles, nor have they tagged them. They are simply not relevant. There is a tiny proportion of articles that are of mutual interest to both projects. At some point down the track, the two projects might need to negotiate how best to deal with a few of these articles, but it seems to me that most of them could stay structured just as they are. With a little good will, I can see no reason why there has to be problems. Incidentally, Melody is an interested bystander... not currently a participant of either project. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProjects aren't capable of following MEDMOS; only individual editors are. Individual editors have exactly as much choice about following MEDMOS as they have about following WP:MOSLEAD, because MEDMOS is just another page in the whole community's Manual of Style, exactly like the page in the MOS that talks about how to write a decent lead. If you have individuals that absolutely refuse to follow the Manual of Style, then we have methods for dealing with that. I doubt, however, that anyone here actually proposes to do so. (Also, anyone who finds deficiencies in MEDMOS is welcome to show up there and propose changes, just like they'd be welcome to show up at any MOS page to propose changes. MEDMOS is not perfect.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, stating that I am trying to create conflict, a serious bad-faith accusation, is perhaps a reflection of why it's sometimes difficult for some editors to work with you. I made clear why I started the above discussion, and there is no "trying to create conflict" angle to that in the least. As seen by LT910001 (Tom)'s and Melody Lavender's responses above, this discussion was/is absolutely needed. And as seen here and here, you are the one who cut off the previous discussion before it was truly resolved, even after I was clear that it's best that it stay open so that others can weigh in on it. You derailed the WP:Consensus that had clearly formed. So if any conflict arises between these two WikiProjects because of misunderstandings, misunderstandings that are clear by Melody Lavender thinking that "it's entirely up to the animal project to decide [when to split an anatomy article that concerns humans and non-human animals]", as though guidelines don't factor into it at all, and as though Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy should not butt in, then you are somewhat to blame for that. There was clear conflict between the two main trains of thoughts in the discussion you prematurely closed. Prematurely closing the discussion, and then going off and creating Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy, has not necessarily resolved anything; all that you have done is swept the matter under the rug and seemingly hope that the problem does not resurface. Well, if there's anything my years of editing this site have taught me, it's that problems like that usually do resurface. As has been documented at this WikiProject and at WP:Med, there has been, for some time now, a disconnect between those how feel that an anatomy article that is mainly or solely about humans should have the primary WP:Mainspace title (such as Pregnancy) and those who think that a more general anatomy article (all animals) should be covered under the primary WP:Mainspace title. Or that non-human animal anatomy content should have its own Wikipedia article, period. Those were big issues in the discussion you prematurely closed. I won't apologize for seeking to have those matters resolved, and trying to get both sides to see how all of this will work out now that there are two anatomy WikiProjects. And as for you stating, "This project has never shown the slightest interest in the vast bulk of animal anatomy articles.", that is not true. This WikiProject used to have articles that are exclusively about non-human animals tagged as being within its scope. It was already made clear in the aforementioned discussion that you closed...that LT910001 (Tom) and CFCF revamped this WikiProject to primarily focus on humans, and I didn't object much to that, but I did question it. But, yes, as far as this discussion I've started is concerned, you are obviously more than free to go about your business. Discussion busted, whatever.
WhatamIdoing, above, by my stating that a WikiProject is following something, I clearly meant the editors. At least it was clear to me that I meant that. In some cases, I even stated, "Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy editors." As I have indicated to you before, there is no need to inform me of any Wikipedia policy or guideline; I know them all, very well, no matter that we disagree on some of them. There is also no need to inform me of what to do in a WP:Dispute matter, or that WP:MEDMOS is not perfect, or that Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal anatomy editors can propose changes at WP:MEDMOS. Yes, I know, I know that WP:Consensus can change. Being talked to like a WP:Newbie irritates me. This thread is not about any of that, however. But, again, this discussion is busted; so whatever. Flyer22 (talk) 08:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer, can we, in our minds, wind this thread back, and stop at the point where you have written your opening paragraph. There is no way I want to respond to the way you subsequently framed issues. But I'm entirely in agreement with what you said in the first paragraph. However, it is a mistake to think that lines are being drawn in some irrevocable way, or that some damage is being done just because some articles are being tagged. A bot can always simply reconfigure the tagging if a better solution eventuates. I agree with Tom and with WP:Spinout that there is no need for haste. Two separate projects seem necessary at present if animal anatomy is to find breathing space. As animal anatomy finds some ground and it turns out that the sky doesn't fall, the matter can be revisited. --Epipelagic (talk) 19:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's quite reasonable. Whether the articles/editors are here as a task force or not doesn't really influence what will go on editing-wise, in my opinion. As WhatAmIDoing mentioned in the previous discussion, the key to a WikiProject's success is activity and editing, and I think that's key to the Animal Anatomy WP too. So I think we can wait 6 months or one year and see how active either project is, and what the editors are feeling then... if by chance either project is not active they we can consider a merge, if not, well no harm done. I'm confident that most editors are reasonable and I'm sure we'll find a happy equilibrium. I agree having a place to put animal anatomy articles is pretty important, being able to understand the scope and breadth of our articles here has played a big role in changes (see our first newsletter for that), and it will probably be the same in animal anatomy. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Epipelagic, I didn't state, nor do I think I suggested that, "lines are being drawn in some irrevocable way, or that some damage is being done just because some articles are being tagged." But I appreciate your latest approach on this matter (your "19:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)" post), de-escalating any frustration and/or unpleasant/heated responses. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Under the circumstances, I support the creation of an Animal Anatomy project. The anatomy of many invertebrate groups has really been quite extensively studied, and much of the anatomy of invertebrates simply cannot be fitted in as subsections of articles on human anatomy. Humans don't have anything like a sarcobellum or a love Dart, a hinge line, and so on and so forth. There are dozens of examples just from gastropods and bivalves, let alone the other invertebrate phyla. Invertzoo (talk) 21:53, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming the Male reproductive system article

Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Male reproductive system#Requested move. A WP:Permalink to the discussion is here. Flyer22 (talk) 06:10, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out, Flyer22. On further exploration there's a whole suite of articles related to this:

What would be the opinion of other users in terms of:

  1. Centralising most human information in one spot, Human reproductive system
  2. Redirecting Male and Female there and then leaving a hatnote to explain information in more general form is at Reproductive system
  3. Moving information on the reproductive system in animals from Sexual reproduction#Animals to Reproductive system so that it's not duplicated between two articles.
  4. Doing a sweep of all the articles to correct hatnotes to redirects, of which there are many.
  5. Creating a 'reproductive system' anatomical series (but limiting it to articles so-named that are general overviews, not specific structures which are covered in the navboxes)

Thoughts? This is a very large suite of articles. Please add extra articles if there are any missing.--Tom (LT) (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Despite the many unneeded subheadings at the Reproductive system article, that article is not as big as those many subheadings make it out to be, and, in its current state, it has sections that require expansion. And, of course, some animal content from that article could be validly moved to the Male reproductive system article to cover non-human male animals. So that is why I don't yet see a need to have the Male reproductive system article moved back to the Human male reproductive system title. I'm not keen on the idea of merging the Male reproductive system and Female reproductive system articles, but if it works (and, going by the relatively little bit of content in both articles, it will) and saves space (not that Wikipedia is paper), go ahead with that. Whether you use a WP:Hatnote in that case or not, there should be a WP:Summary style section about humans in the Reproductive system article; as you can see, there currently is one. And regarding reproductive system material concerning animals being in the Sexual reproduction article, of course that content should be there. It obviously should not be the case that all of it is moved from that article; a very sufficient WP:Summary style section should be included there; and by "very sufficient," I mean covering all the bases and not being very small. Flyer22 (talk) 07:23, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, everyone, remember that there is no need to ping me via WP:Echo to pages that you know are on my WP:Watchlist (unless you reasonably think that I might overlook the discussion). WP:Anatomy is, of course, on my WP:Watchlist. Flyer22 (talk) 07:24, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simplifying anatomical terminology essay

The words we use are very important, and there are so many articles I feel would be impenetrable if I was not already well-acquainted with anatomical terminology. I wrote this essay as a point of reference so that it can be referred to by users, particularly expert users and/or classes who may not be aware of the need to write for a lay audience. I asked for some opinions on this essay quite a while ago on the project's talk page, and have now fleshed it out, and moved it to the project space as an essay. It's available here: WP:ANATSIMPLIFY. The shortcut 'ANATSIMPLIFY' can be used to refer to the essay if needed.

I'll also be writing about this issue briefly in the quarterly. I know there are probably other opinions on the use of anatomical terminology, I invite the comments of other readers and, if there are any other pressing issues (this or otherwise), invite other users to create and upload some anatomically-themed essays too. --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:12, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This adaptation of the MoS was certainly needed. Technical terms are of little value to most readers, and should be avoided when possible. Well done. — Gaute chat 17:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really useful. Thank you, 109.153.156.71 (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G-spot is possible GA

G-spot has not been rated in relation to WP:Anatomy but WikiProject Sexuality has rated it as a good article. I am not very familiar with GA-criteria; could some one who is have a quick look at the article and see if "we" (WP:AN) agrees it is up to GA standards. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:53, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

JakobSteenberg, see where this matter has already been discussed: Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report. The G-spot article is a WP:Good article and therefore should be rated as a WP:Good article by WP:Anatomy (or at least rated by WP:Anatomy instead of being non-rated as it currently is by the project), but there are concerns that the article needs improvement. So, as a compromise, I will improve the article before re-listing it as a WP:Anatomy WP:Good article. Flyer22 (talk) 00:58, 2 November 2014 (UTC
Ah, sorry. I haven´t been following the discussions in here very closely lately (life got in the way). Thanks for the quick answer and the promise of taking a look at it. JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Original – Image of the left femur of an extinct species of elephant -- possibly a mammoth from the Pleistocene Ice Age

See right. Perhaps I've been working on Anatomy articles too long, but I personally find this image quite appealing, and hence have nominated it for featured picture status here: Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Left_femur_of_extinct_elephant. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy&oldid=632323819"