Medial

What is the medial aspect? -- HJH User:0 15:43, 25 February 2002

From Kidneys:

Kidneys are one of the most important organs of the body. A pair of kidneys lie in the abdominal region. The kidneys red apple

n-shaped structures. They consist of nephrons, individual units. Each nephron consists of Bowman's capsule, which includes glomerulus, comprising of afferent and efferent arterioles. this is followed by proximal convoluted tubule, Henle's loop and distal convoluted tubule, leading to the ureter. the uerter leads into urinary bladder where the urine is collected and stored temporarily.

my booty, filtration, absoprtion and secretion, taking place at the glomerulus, henle's loop and distal convoluted tubule respectively, the kidneys produces urine which needs to be excreted as it is toxic. User:Mav 22:34, 23 July 2002

This is wrong: "kidneys weigh about 150 grams. Kidneys are 0.5% of a person's body mass". This would lead to a person weighing 15 kg (33 lbs), or 30 kg (66 lbs) if the first statement refers to individual kidneys and the second to their combined mass. I'd suggest to either strike this or replace it with a verifiable (preferably footnoted) figure (which I do not have available, or I'd do it myself). - André User:194.95.179.131 09:50, 15 November 2006

Just a note in the Plasma Volume section: "A lack of water causes the posterior pituitary gland to secrete antidiuretic hormone, which results in water reabsorption and an increase in urine concentration." It is an increase in the osmolarity of the blood, detected in the hypothalmus, which causes the release of ADH, not simply a lack of water (assuming it refers to plamsa volume?). A large hemorrhage would not cause ADH to be released. User:68.147.130.238 05:07, 30 March 2007

2003

Who has kidneys?

Does someone know which groups of animals have kidneys, do all vertebrates have some? Of course I'm not only asking for myself, this should be added to the text. :o) Aragorn2 17:30, 20 Sep 2003 (UTC)

To do

write more about kidney dialysis machines, they are very relevant to this type of article. I did not happen to see them being written about anywhere else, so i think it is appropriate for them to go here.
someone to write up more on the structure and function of each part of the nephron
- IMO, this belongs at Nephron, where, incidentally, most of this information can already be found. --David Iberri | Talk 23:29, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
more detail on anatomy of the kidney
physiology of the kidneys (e.g. control of renal function, control of pH and so on) - can be folded into structure, I suppose
- You mean renal physiology? --David Iberri (talk) 21:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
include information on non-mamalian kidneys
animal kidneys as food. --84.58.42.75 06:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
much better diagram - one with readable labels --GrimRC 86.4.53.107 14:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kidney development, more than likely a separate article.
- Done, but more details are needed. I agree that a separate article is necessary. --David Iberri (talk) 18:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is Kidney development, but it's pretty rough. --Arcadian 05:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Blast, I wish I'd looked for that first. :-) I'm trying to address WP's lack of embryo coverage, so I'll see what I can do with the article in the next couple days. Thanks for pointing it out. --David Iberri (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-- Serephine ♠ talk - 13:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to edit this list as necessary. --Alex.tan 09:22, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Questionable References

Just wanted to say that I Removed a line about having multiple kidneys because the source was extremely questionable. (The magazine cited was a russian tabloid that also talked about UFOs, celebrity citings, cyclops babies, etc...I forgot to put an edit summary. (cur) (last) 08:56, 16 March 2007 Vihsadas (Talk | contribs)

i have a Q... why it is prefer the left kidney than the right one for the donation??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.158.158.206 (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a reference for this except an anatomy professor, but I've heard it's because the left renal vein is longer than the right. --David Iberri (talk) 12:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2004

EDIT THIS

Do edit this article soon!!!!!!!!!!!! Soilguy6 19:45, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"In soviet block satellite states, hemodialysis was introduced primarily because of the need to aviod international scandal and provide some means of survival for political dissenters, who lost kidneys due to secret police beatings."

Is there a source for this? --JWSchmidt 13:30, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2005

Sourced

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Murphy, Stephanie R. (January 1, 2005). "I'll Give You My Heart..." Lew Rockwell.

User:Ta bu shi da yu 07:44, 2 March 2005

Edits to come

I will edit and expand on some of this stuff...it lacks on the actual function of hte kidney. -ari User:172.205.160.26 14:55, 4 December 2005

You mean functionS? JFW | T@lk 15:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're incorrect. There is a good paragraph on "function". What do you mean? JFW | T@lk 15:07, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JFW, don't feed the troll. Alex.tan 23:28, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Some histological pictures should be added here. User:213.76.58.169 16:45, 13 December 2005

Kidneys are edible...

This article lacks any discourse on the kidney as a foodstuff, e.g. in steak and kidney pie. Can anyone oblige? 217.155.20.163 00:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You, perhaps? JFW | T@lk 13:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cannibalism
Steak and kidney pie isnt made from human--203.53.201.11 01:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed well prepared kidneys (I think from cow or pig) are good food. Neccessary step is to cook them for hour or so to get the taste of urine disappear - there was some specific cooking term for this process. There is finnish traditional food "Karjalan Paisti" - roughly "Karelian steak" wich is meat soup with liver, kidney, heart, and normal meat.

Well it took almost a year but I came along and added a little section on Kidneys as food. -- 125.238.58.85 08:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I was a kid on the farm, we used to stew beef heart and kidney together in water, onions and seasonings. We sliced the organs into bite-sized pieces, and simmered them in a covered pot of water for approximately one hour, adding a little flour to make a gravy. I still see these items in some local groceries, but have not eaten it in about 20 years. The meat does not have a pleasing aroma as it is cooking, but it has a very pleasant flavor.--Inspirationalpoet (talk) 16:49, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2006

What about the number of kidneys

I was born with one [left one, not horseshoe] and no problems so far. Can people have more than two? It doesn't seem like the number of brains or hearts varies much. Or bladders for that matter. Why kidneys? User:216.211.25.5 00:59, 31 May 2006

Well I've never heard of more than 2 kidneys in humans, but if you look at all the people donating kidneys you'll see that the remaining kidney can function quite well by itself - as I'm sure you're aware. The other one will compensate to a large degree. I think you'll find that this is the reason why people can vary in their number of kidneys - 2 kidneys aren't essential, 1 kidney is essential, 1 heart is essential, 1 brain is essential -- Serephine ♠ talk - 13:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More than two kidneys can occur in humans I believe...just let me look through pubmed for a source. However, I recently removed a line that stated that same fact because the source that was given was a russian tabloid. If I find the source, I'll add a line about it. Vihsadas 17:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny you should bring this up. I was actually born with four kidneys. I have 2 regular sized kidneys and I have 2 smaller kidneys behind them.--Supersword (talk) 22:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damage, protection

Surprised to see no mention of kidney protection from movement (motorcycling) or damage in fights/sport. --Snori 19:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I'll add a little note about the kidneys being prominent targets in martial arts. --GenkiNeko 18:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... on second thought, I can't see where to insert such a note. Hmm. It -is- a significant aspect of the kidney (the term "kidney punch" is one I'm sure we've all heard), but I'm not sure how to best note it within the present structure. --GenkiNeko 18:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We know that one kidney in us is ok but what can happen from having a damaged kidney in the body? Infection? Lots and lots of pain?

Adding a line about the idiomatic expression 'kidney punch' would be fine, but since the kidneys are retro-peritoneal organs, they are very heavily encased in back flesh and fat. They are located high up and the top is protected by one rib. All of these factors make kidneys very, very hard to traumatize by blunt force. I would imagine that the idiomatic expression 'kidney shot' is more just an expression that doesn't have much physiological merit. -- Vihsadas 17:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If blood from the heart did not make such a short trip to the kidneys it wouldn't be a weak spot. If a kidney ruptures it's really bad. Say someone had a few rerouted arteries so a damaged kidney would not be an immediate threat to the poor guy's life. Would his urinary system still work fine with the lower blood flow?

What you say is true, the blood does make a short trip to the kidneys. However, the blood makes a very short trip to the aorta, and the lungs as well. Would they be weak spots as well? :)

Kidney rupture is infact a serious condition, however, the likeliness of this happening due to blunt force trauma by punch is not high. In other forms of trauma (car accident, puncture wound, etc.) I would imagine that this would be much more common.

Blood flow to the kidney directly affects the filtering capabilities. If blood flow is reduced, GFR will be reduced, and therefore overall kidney function would be reduced. However, if the scenario you describe only happens to one kidney it would not be serious at all. There is an IMMENSE amount of redundancy in the volume of liquid the kidneys filter. (150L/day!, that's like 15 times your TOTAL blood volume!) So, rather large reductions in GFR have no real effect on the plasma cleaning capabilities of the kidneys. Vihsadas 06:23, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gastronomy

I agree with one of the previous comments : this excellent article needs a complement about kidneys in gastronomy. Lamb or veal kidneys are commonly used in Europe and probably other parts of the world, as well as pig; of couse, kidneys are also eaten in poultry or rabbit. I am not an expert myself, maybe refer to the French Wikipedia, there must be something about "rognons" (we do not say "reins" in French when we eat them)

2007

Weight

In a normal human adult, each kidney is about 10 cm long, 5.5 cm in width and about 3 cm thick, weighing 150 grams ^[3]. Kidneys weigh about 0.5% of a person's total body weight.

If they are 0.5% of total body weight, a normal human adult must weigh 30kg, which must be under half the actual normal weight. Richard001 22:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recheck your math. Half of one percent (0.5%) of normal body weight (70 kg) is 0.35 kg or 350 g. --David Iberri (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I didn't pay close enough attention to the wording, it makes perfect sense with the plural. All the same I'll reword it just so make it clear. Richard001 02:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea. Cheers, David Iberri (talk) 02:17, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External Links

User:Beetstra has removed my external link as he has stated it does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia guidelines state that: "Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article (such as reviews and interviews)".

I believe that information found at the [ http://unckidneycenter.org UNC Kidney Center] on kidney disease is beneficial to Wiki readers. Please feel free to visit and see for yourself. I would appreciate any feedback. --Unckc 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the site shouldn't be linked to because it is essentially a UNC advert; also, it doesn't provide any information about kidney disease that shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. --David Iberri (talk) 23:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with keeping the link off the page. Every University med center has a kidney clinic. If we are going to have external links, make them to places like the National Kidney Foundation or American Society of Nephrology. Just the humble opinion of a future nephrologist. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:10, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Renal plasma threshold?

I do not think that the Renal plasma threshold article should be merged here. I think it would be better merged to Renal physiology. —Gaff ^ταλκ 21:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What happens if my kidneys fail completely?

Complete and irreversible kidney failure is sometimes called end-stage renal disease, or ESRD. If your kidneys stop working completely, your body fills with extra water and waste products. This condition is called uremia. Your hands or feet may swell. You will feel tired and weak because your body needs clean blood to function properly.

Untreated uremia may lead to seizures or coma and will ultimately result in death. If your kidneys stop working completely, you will need to undergo dialysis or kidney transplantation. --142.167.106.79 (talk) 22:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If your kidneys fail completely, you will have end stage renal disease, and will require hemodialysis, peritoneal dialysis or a renal transplant, which are all forms of renal replacement therapy. Remember to sign in, and if the articles don't answer your question, research and edit them yourself! FelixFelix ^talk 14:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dialysis

The two major forms of dialysis are hemodialysis and peritoneal dialysis. In hemodialysis, your blood is sent through a filter that removes waste products. The clean blood is returned to your body. Hemodialysis is usually performed at a dialysis center three times per week for 3 to 4 hours. Illustration of a man being treated with hemodialysis. [d]

Hemodialysis

In peritoneal dialysis, a fluid is put into your abdomen. This fluid captures the waste products from your blood. After a few hours, the fluid containing your body’s wastes is drained away. Then, a fresh bag of fluid is dripped into the abdomen. Patients can perform peritoneal dialysis themselves. Patients using continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis (CAPD) change fluid four times a day. Another form of peritoneal dialysis, called continuous cycling peritoneal dialysis (CCPD), can be performed at night with a machine that drains and refills the abdomen automatically. Illustration of a person being treated with peritoneal dialysis. [d] Peritoneal dialysis Transplantation Illustration of a transplanted kidney. [d]

Kidney transplantation

A donated kidney may come from an anonymous donor who has recently died or from a living person, usually a relative. The kidney that you receive must be a good match for your body. The more the new kidney is like you, the less likely your immune system is to reject it. Your immune system protects you from disease by attacking anything that is not recognized as a normal part of your body. So your immune system will attack a kidney that appears too “foreign.” You will take special drugs to help trick your immune system so it does not reject the transplanted kidney.

which organs are kidneys attached to?

can someone bloody answer that!!! im am soo friggen pissed User:124.180.181.189 07:35, 7 November 2007

Cool down, bud. The kidneys sit beneath the adrenal glands. --David Iberri (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Secretion/reabsorption ("Acid-base balance" section)

Since those words are completely confusing to laymen, and sound like the opposite of what they actually mean in renal function, I took the liberty of adding the necessary words "into the blood" when reabsorption is mentioned. I also changed "secretion" to "excretion into the urine." If "excretion" must be changed back to "secretion," please retain my added "into the urine" each time, so readers will know what it actually means. (Normally, when a reader reads the word "secrete," they believe it to mean secrete into the bloodstream or body; and normally when they read the word "reabsorb," they believe it to mean "remove from the bloodstream or tissues.") Softlavender (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't considered that, but good point. I won't change it, but the term should be "secreted", not "excreted". I'm not moved enough to change it, but if someone does, I agree that the "secreted into the urine" is a reasonable substitution. --David Iberri (talk) 12:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2008

Stronger kidneys

Any one know anything you can eat / drink to make your kidneys stronger or function better? Besides water@! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.88.27 (talk) 23:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Creatine vs. Creatinine

I changed the reference to 'Creatine' in the introduction of the article to 'Creatinine.' Creatine has nothing to do with the kidney. User:71.239.120.111 02:57, 31 July 2008

2009

Too anthropocentric

I think this article is too anthropocentric and too medical focussed:

Human kidneys are just examples of vertebrate kidneys.
These operate on the same principles as the nephridia of invertebrates, see e.g. Ruppert, E.E., Fox, R.S., and Barnes, R.D. (2004). "Introduction to Bilateria". Invertebrate Zoology (7 ed.). Brooks / Cole. pp. 196–224. ISBN 0030259827.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link). The main difference is that vertebrate kidneys get their input from their own branch of the circulatory system, while invertbrates use a variety of transport methods that do no involve blood vesses. BTW all these systems are wasteful of water compared with Malphigian tubules, evolved convergent by various groups of air-breathing arthropods (the structures and mode of operationare similar, but the embryolical development varies between groups).
As a previous post ("Kidneys are edible...") pointed out, there are also significant non-zoological aspects.

I suggest WP needs:

A hierarchy of articles about excretory systems to handle the zoological principles, e.g.
- Excretion
  - Nephridia
  - Kidney dealing with vertebrate-specific aspects.
    - Human kidney to handle medical aspects.
Kidney should also deal with non-zoological aspects, e.g. as food. --Philcha (talk) 17:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I completely agree. It's a little inconvenient that 'kidney' is used in quite a loose sense in common parlance - however, I think that your choice to restrict it to vertebrate kidneys, and use nephridia to deal with invertebrate organs performing the same function, is very shrewd. I further agree that human kidney warrants an article of its own to deal with aspects which only relate to humans. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are many, many articles that should be so split. Femur vs. Human femur, etc. – Quadell ^(talk) 20:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Too technical?

Might just be me, but this article seems way too technical (or medical, or something) - I tried reading under "functions" just now, only to see that I was better served by reading the Simple English edition. Isn't this supposed to be a general encyclopedia rather than a medical one? I'd suggest keeping the article "Kidney" in more or less layman's terms, and keep the detailed doctor-speak inside the main articles linked to inside this one - "renal physiology" strikes me as much more logical a place to talk about renal sinuses and interlobal nephrons than "kidney". --80.212.160.146 (talk) 00:43, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(JUST A COMMENT) Actually I thought it was pretty cool how technical it is. The terminology used to describe the functions made me way more interested in kidneys than I thought I ever would be. Not an example, but my favorite part is "despite their relatively small size they receive 20% of the cardiac output"! So cool, i never knew! :D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.241.106 (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abdominal cavity

shouldn't the paragraph read "abdominal cavity" and not "anal cavity"? in all of the other paragraphs it says abdominal cavity... and it almost sounds like someone is just making a practical joke. Boofs (talk) 23:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article plural

Does anyone else see the bold opening title spelled as kidney's rather than kidneys? I have no idea why it appears this way because there is not an apostrophe in the actual code of the term. All I can figure is there might be some other code in the article affecting it. There should not be an apostrophe (see Wiktionary:kidney#Noun) because that would be for when talking about a single kidney's attributes. Conversely the plural possessive form would be kidneys' or kidneys's. Dictabeard (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cancel that, seems between the time of loading the page and clicking edit to check the source, a vandalism had been corrected. Dictabeard (talk) 19:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

disgusting article

It is a disgusting and unintelligent thing to point to dishes in a scientific article. This article should be splitt immediately into two. 77.249.201.75 (talk) 08:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a "scientific" article, it's an encyclopedic one. That aside, if you think you can come up with enough good content for a separate article, go for it. Despatche (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kidneys.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kidneys.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Kidney2.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kidney2.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Right kidney.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Right kidney.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Left kidneys.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Left kidneys.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011

What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blood supply

There's a paragraph about renal vascularization at the end of "Histology" section, full of spelling mistakes (and sometimes unintelligible), which I think is just unnecessary, since the same concepts are very well explained in the previous section, "Blood supply". I've tried to fix it but I think it should be better to remove it completely. Other suggestions? --Doc.mari (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excretion of waste

Have added a few phrases of introduction to a most central aspect of kidney function, why for example mammalian kidneys require such huge blood supplies, namely countercurrent concentration and exchange. Cpsoper (talk) 21:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Poor quality dissection images

I moved a bunch of awful dissection images by Anatomist90. They don't give anything in way of understanding and are flooding the page. I don't think they should be in the article at all, but I moved them to additional images. CFCF (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

History

The history section seems to have a grammar issue: "The Latin term renes is related to the English word "reins", a synonym for the kidneys in Shakespearean English (e.g. Merry Wives of Windsor 3.5), which was also the time the King James Version was translated." Unless Shakespearean English is a time I believe it should read, "a synonym for the kidneys in Shakespearean English, which was also in use at the time the King James Version of the bible was translated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.127.74.39 (talk) 08:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney function in excretion -- explanation and diagram of countercurrent mechanism needed

This article, and the ones kidney physiology and nephron very much need a good explanation, with diagrams, of the central role of active transport and countercurrent mechanisms in enabling kidney function. Such an explanation can be found, with diagrams, in http://www.zuniv.net/physiology/book/chapter25.html . Once these principles are explained, kidney function makes sense, including adaptations such as the kangaroo rat's long loop of Henle, which (together with other physiologic and metabolic adaptations) enables it to produce such concentrated urine that never needs to drink, subsisting on water metabolically produced from dry food materials. CharlesHBennett (talk) 04:56, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Kidney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100513031140/http://www.bioportfolio.com:80/indepth/Kidney.html to http://www.bioportfolio.com/indepth/Kidney.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mislabeled photo

The last of the dissection images from Anatomist90 is labeled "Left kidney" and is for File:Left kidney.jpg. While the left kidney has a bold label compared to the others the image should be renamed to "Horizontal cross section through the kidneys". Does this seem like a reasonable name for the image? We will need an administrator to rename the file though can correct the image caption now.

Assuming I interpreted things correctly the person's back is towards the bottom of the image and:

The white thing between the kidneys is the spine.
What's the circular thing just below the spine in the image? I assumed the spinal column is within the spine.
What's the thing that's immediately above the right kidney in the image? I'm guessing it's part of the colon
At the top of the image is a structure identified as an umbilical vein. It appears this cross section is of either a fetus or less than one week old baby. Are the features shown in this image the same as what would appear in an adult? For example, before I realized the significance of the umbilical vein I was wondering why there seemed to be so little fat. If it's a fetus then the absence of fat would make sense.

--Marc Kupper|talk 22:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction is bad

The introduction seems to contain lots of redundant sentences. Someone should shorten it. E.g. "Their main function is to regulate the balance of electrolytes in the blood, along with maintaining pH homeostasis." and "Kidneys are essential to the urinary system and also serve homeostatic functions such as the regulation of electrolytes (including salts), maintenance of acid–base balance, maintenance of fluid balance, and regulation of blood pressure (via the salt and water balance)." both say that Kidneys are important for electrolytes and pH.77.179.8.100 (talk) 06:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Kidney. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130927221414/http://www.indexedvisuals.com/scripts/ivstock/pic.asp?id=118-100 to http://www.indexedvisuals.com/scripts/ivstock/pic.asp?id=118-100
Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20030322082801/http%3A//www.adath-shalom.ca%3A80/body_metaphors_bib_hebrew.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:56, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Riddle for kidney article readers

So - is a kidney an organ or a food? And which is correct: a "kidney shaped bean" or a "bean shaped kidney"? Regards IiKkEe (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Format under "Blood supply"

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.

I am interested to know if the format under Blood supply is acceptable as per WPMOS: the use of footnotes in a table with explanation of the footnotes under the table in bullet format. Can anyone help me with whether that is acceptable? I personally see no problem with it, and if it compatible with WPMOS, I can think of other WP articles where using that format would be useful. If it is not in compliance with WPMOS, I presume the solution is to move the footnote explanations to the bottom of the article minus the bullets. Input would be appreciated. IiKkEe (talk) 13:58, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not feel such a table is ideal. We generally present information in a discursive format as we are WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. I generally find notes attached to tables contain tidbits tangential to the primary topic best located on other articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2017 (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.

Semi-protected edit request on 22 May 2020

This edit request to Kidney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

CA College of Ayurveda". www.ayurvedacollege.com. Retrieved July 21, 2019. ^ List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, according to the American Medical Association's Report 12 of the Council of Scientific Affairs (A-97) and claims by skeptics ('The Skeptics Dictionary' website) ^ Sangu PK, Kumar VM, Shekhar MS, Chagam MK, Goli PP, Tirupati PK (January 2011). "A study on Tailabindu pariksha – An ancient Ayurvedic method of urine examination as a diagnostic and prognostic tool". Ayu. 32 (1): 76–81. doi:10.4103/0974-8520.85735. PMC 3215423. PMID 22131762. ^ A Few Thoughts on Ayurvedic Mumbo-Jumbo, Stephen Barrett, M.D, head of the National Council Against Health Fraud NGO and owner of the QuackWatch website. ^ The Patient as Person: Explorations in Medical Ethics p. 60 by Paul Ramsey, Margaret Farley, Albert Jonsen, William F. May (2002) ^ History of Nephrology 2 p. 235 by International Association for the History of Nephrology Congress, Garabed Eknoyan, Spyros G. Marketos, Natale G. De Santo, 1997; Reprint of American Journal of Nephrology; v. 14, no. 4–6, 1994. ^ "Rognons dans les recettes". Archived from the original on October 18, 2008. Retrieved July 21, 2019. External links Wikimedia Commons has media related to Kidneys. Kidney at the Human Protein Atlas The Kidney in 3D Viewer – At Hilzbook electron microscopic images of the kidney (Dr. Jastrow's EM-Atlas) European Renal Genome project kidney function tutorial Training at wisc-online.com How do kidneys work showvte Anatomy of the urinary system Authority control Edit this at Wikidata GND: 4042270-7 LCCN: sh85072254 NDL: 00574833 TA98: A08.1.01.001 Categories: KidneyEndocrine system Navigation menu Nikhil Rooprai Alerts (0) Notice (1) TalkSandboxPreferencesBetaWatchlistContributionsLog out ArticleTalkReadView sourceView historySearch

Main page Contents Featured content Current events Random article Donate to Wikipedia Wikipedia store Interaction Help About Wikipedia Community portal Recent changes Contact page Tools What links here Related changes Upload file Special pages Permanent link Page information Wikidata item Cite this page In other projects Wikimedia Commons Print/export Download as PDF Printable version

Languages বাংলা Cymraeg Deutsch Ελληνικά Français Italiano ਪੰਜਾਬੀ Scots 中文 125 more Edit links This page was last edited on 19 April 2020, at 22:01. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using

NOT MANY PEOPLE CANT BE ASKED TO READ THIS LET ALONE EVEN UNDERSTAND IT Nikhil Rooprai (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: This is incoherent and no request can be discerned. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 25 May 2020

This edit request to Kidney has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Change the following "The kidneys are two bean-shaped organs found in vertebrates."

To

"The kidneys are two bean-shaped organs found adjacent to vertebrates."

Reason

It is not found in the vertebrates but are next to them. Pryshinita (talk) 00:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not done. Err, try clicking on the link in that sentence to vertebrates –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 30 April 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Shivani622.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vertebrate kidneys

What kind of kidneys does this article describes? The basic definition is: "The kidneys are two reddish-brown bean-shaped organs found in vertebrates". But vertebrates can have pronephros, mesonephros and metanephros. Moreover metanephros is different in mammals, reptilians and birds. And only the metanephros of mammals is usually bean-shaped. But not always, as one of horse's kidneys is heart-shaped.

This article is about the human kidneys. But it made so that it looks like it describes vertebrate and mammalian kidneys too. It's a huge original research as I think. Separate article must be created to describe the kidneys of vertebrates, the kidneys of mammals and the human kidneys. -- D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the basic definition and made a separate Wikidata item Q111907436 for the vertebrate kidney. -- D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:16, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to rename the article to Human kidney but my actions were reverted. Could somebody rename my sandbox page to Kidney page? User:D6194c-1cc/sandbox/Kidney. I plan to translate full article but help would be appreciated since writing in English is not so easy for me. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Praxidicae: You reverted my edit: [1]. But the sources cannot contain information that vertebrate kidneys are bean-shaped or about their color. Please revert my citation request back. It was absolutely correct. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's literally in the first paragraph of "Structure"[2]. PRAXIDICAE💕 21:00, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This source is about human kidney, see upper categories: Health -> Human Body -> Body Systems -> Kidney & Urinary Tract. It can't be used to describe vertebrate kidneys at all. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is certainly very biased towards human kidney's, but that's probably reasonable given the average reader's interests. I suggest that if you have more content to add regarding the kidney in other animals, then Kidney#Other animals has plenty of scope for expansion. Once it's large enough there would certainly be a case for a split. Otherwise, I suggest refining the structure to address the over-generalizations.

It's not biased. It's about human/mammalian kidneys but the first sentence is misleading and says nothing that could be applicable to all vertebrate kidneys. And only the "Other animals" section has some common information about kidneys in other animals. Almost nothing said abut bird kidneys and about reptilian kidneys. Mammalian kidneys are different between species. They vary in lobules count and papilla form (fused or not fused). For example a cow has visually lobulated kidneys. Can we say that they are bean-shaped? What about differences in structure and function of kidneys between animal classes? --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:30, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your category argument, there are many ways of view the 'hierarchy', which is really more of a web; for example, Category:Animal anatomy:Category:Urinary system:Category:Kidney is also a valid current reading of the categories. Klbrain (talk) 09:50, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about category, it's about wrong information in the definition. The definition creates an illusion that it describes the vertebrate kidney, but it describes the human kidney. And all information in the preamble is about human kidneys, preamble says nothing about other animals or about their kidney types. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:34, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has created Kidney (vertebrates). In my opinion this matches the intended scope of Kidney and I have suggested a merge — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My new article is about vertebrate kidneys and is specialised on animals (vertebrates) without human context. If you compare the preambles of those two articles you will see all the difference between human and general kidney description. This article must be transformed into the human kidney, because is mostly describes the human kidney with a little bias to the mammalian kidney (since human kidney is mammalian, too). The only section about vertebrate kidneys is Kidney#Other_animals. The whole article is made upside down. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another discussion was opened in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Need_attention_to_Kidney_page. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Plant Behavior 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 March 2022 and 17 June 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Trorstad (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Gonet99 (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody explain how the kidney article is related to plants? I think there is a confusion with the bud article. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 19:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney structure image in the article

The arteries and veins are illustrated as a ladder in the cortex. But as I read before it must be some kind of a tree: the interlobar (between kidney lobes) artery -> arcuate artery (between cortex and medulla) -> interlobular arteries (between cortical lobules) -> afferent arterioles (they supply nephrons). The image made wrong. It would be hard to explain the meaning of the 12 number. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the veins are located close to the arteries. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 22 June 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Discussion led to an irreconciliable split on whether kidneys in general or the human kidney is the primary topic. (closed by non-admin page mover) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 15:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kidney → Human kidney – The Kidney article describes human kidneys with little bias to mammalian kidneys. A new article about vertebrate kidneys has been created to describe kidneys carefully without any bias towards human or mammals. Human anatomy must be split from other animals because combined articles are highly biased towards human and create misunderstandings or even give wrong information like bean-shaped kidneys in all vertebrates (fishes are vertebrates too). D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 21:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@D6194c-1cc: What do you propose should be done with the "main" kidney page? Should kidney (vertebrates) be moved to "kidney"? Should a disambiguation page be created there? Natg 19 (talk) 23:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Main page must be transformed to describe human kidney. In fact, most of the article is just about human kidneys. Human kidney is well described with a lot of good quality sources. But information about human kidney cannot be used to describe vertebrate kidneys. For example mesonephric kidneys of fish are not bean-shaped, their nephrons doesn't have the loop of Henle and even some marine marine fish species have aglomerular nephrons.

Some nephrons of fish have non-integrated nephrons. In amniotes metanephric kidneys are also quite different in structure, form and function. Of course, all kidneys are made of nephrons which filter blood, but kidney tissues and structure can differ. Some facts must be correctly attributes to human or other animal classes. For example if the article says that kidneys help to produce vitamin D, then it must be correctly attributed to human according to the source that was used for this information. To say so about amniotes another reliable source is needed because their kidneys can have no such function. Produced hormones can also vary between classes. If we say about erythropoietin than we must attribute information to appropriate animals accordingly to the used source. Renin function is also different in fish compared to mammals. Also mammals are the only class of animals that doesn't have renal portal system in kidneys.

Separate articles about the human kidneys, mammalian kidneys, vertebrate kidneys and nephron must be made. Separate article about human kidneys is very important because kidney is vital organ in human and is related to medicine too. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 05:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My question is more of what should be done with "Kidney"? Should it be a page with links to "human kidney" and "kidney (vertebrates)"? Natg 19 (talk) 17:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We should probably provide a list of possible names to discuss it. Those are:

Kidney with about-distinguish template, Kidney (vertebrates)
Human kidney, Kidney (vertebrates), Kidney as disambiguation page
Human kidney, Kidney with about-distinguish template

I prefer the Human kidney and Kidney variant because it would be enough to place about-distinguish template to the Kidney article and in some future I'll write an article about mammalian kidneys which would have section about human kidneys with the link to the main page. So those article could form a tree with Kidney -> Mammalian kidney -> Human kidney branch. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if a separated article about kidneys as food would be created then Human kidney, Kidney (vertebrates), Kidney as disambiguation page variant would be better. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:ASTONISH and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. When you think of (a) kidney, most people would assume you mean the human kidney, and the extra dab is not needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support in general for these discussions I think the main page has to satisfy two conditions - (1) the primary topic is what readers expect, and (2) there is enough content to justify a split. I think this meets both criteria. The use of kidneys as a food in particular throughout society in addition to the kidney as an anatomical structure means, I think, that readers would not be astonished to see the primary page of this topic being the general structure. Regardless of the outcome I think we should also acknowledge the great contribution by the nominator writing this article. Tom (LT) (talk) 11:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I ~~agree~~ think that information about kidneys as food should also be moved to a separate article (something like Kidney (food)). It has no relation to the kidneys in biology context. It's just about nutrition and cooking. Moreover, it is very strange to see the section about kidneys as food in an article that is about human kidneys, even if it doesn't says directly that it is about human. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 21:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Tom. We need to be specific in this instance that this page is about human kidneys. Also, move the vertebrate kidney page to "kidney". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spekkios (talk • contribs) 00:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Yes, this article really is the kidney article; it is not a "human kidney" article pretending to be a kidney article. The main article should cover the broad range of subtopics. This includes humans and other animals (and yes, history and culture, including food, to some degree), as this article does. The organization of content should follow principles such as Wikipedia:Summary style and Wikipedia:Broad-concept article. (It should not be based on principles of trying to mirror taxonomic hierarchies such as vertebrate > mammal > human. It should also not use Template:about-distinguish as if it were a substitute for a broad-concept article.) What may not be obvious, though, is that appropriately broad coverage will often result in giving more attention in total to subtopics specific to humans (e.g. human medicine), or to human-oriented coverage of subtopics not technically unique to humans. This is not improper bias toward humans, but in fact is as WP:NPOV requires: treating aspects of the subject with weight proportional to the attention given to them in the aggregate body of sources. An approach pervasively taking care to emphasize comparisons between animals and scrupulously avoiding "bias" toward humans is, in the bigger picture, a narrow point of view of the topic. The general organization I've described is also consistent with articles such as Lung or Heart. It is true that other differently-organized articles exist, and at some point there may be such long detail that the way to achieve summary style is to spin off a separate "human kidney" article, but we are not at that point. The current kidney article does not perfectly achieve the principles I've mentioned (and for that matter, certainly doesn't achieve the difficult ideal of making technical articles understandable), but it's the article with the right general idea. For these reasons I oppose the move.

I also would discourage a full merge, since Kidney (vertebrates) goes into detail which is appropriate for itself, but greater detail than the broader-scoped main article should have. This is not a general opposition to editing how this article summarizes animals, and not an opposition to partial transfer of content from one article to the other. (As a small example, I think having the first sentence describe the function of the kidney, as Kidney (vertebrates) currently does, is more helpful than starting with the shape and color.) Lastly, I applaud the nominator's work on Kidney (vertebrates), and I look forward to your continued contributions in this and other areas. Adumbrativus (talk) 13:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As said below the article has the "Other animals" section which means per the anatomy guidance that this article is about human kidney which pretends to be a kidney article (as we see from the basic definition). The example of an article around human anatomy is Human leg in oppose to Leg as more common article. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 16:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per Lugnuts. Often, per the anatomy guidance, there's an "other animals" section. But Kidney (vertebrates) is its own article right now. GBFEE (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:MEDTITLE: "The word human is usually omitted in titles, but it may occasionally be helpful if non-human references to the structure are common. For example, compare the articles at Leg (including insect legs, robotic legs, etc.) and Human leg. However, if the article is about humans and the reader will expect to find information about humans under that title, e.g., Arm and Pregnancy, then pre-disambiguation of the title is inappropriate." Links to the Kidney page: Special:WhatLinksHere/Kidney. Many of them are from articles on non-human or common topics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D6194c-1cc (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - D6194c-1cc, do you mind explaining what you mean by quoting WP:MEDTITLE? The kidney article is about humans and the reader will expect to find information about humans under this title. That's what Lugnuts is arguing. And Adumbrativus highlights this as well, by saying, for example, "What may not be obvious, though, is that appropriately broad coverage will often result in giving more attention in total to subtopics specific to humans (e.g. human medicine), or to human-oriented coverage of subtopics not technically unique to humans. This is not improper bias toward humans, but in fact is as WP:NPOV requires: treating aspects of the subject with weight proportional to the attention given to them in the aggregate body of sources." So my oppose is also "per Adumbrativus" to a degree. I didn't notice before, but I've noticed now that there is an "other animals" section in the article. The existence of that section doesn't mean that the kidney article is not an article that is about humans. Per the anatomy guidance, it's common for articles that are predominantly about humans to have such sections. If there's a dedicated article for other animals and an "other animals" section in the article, then we link to that in that section as "main article" for more information. GBFEE (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - As per WP:MEDTITLE some articles about animals or general anatomy articles refer to the Kidney page and those articles do not expect that the reader will go to the human kidney page. In my previous reply I provided the link to a list of articles that refer to the Kidney page (Special:WhatLinksHere/Kidney). They include Organ (biology), Amphibian, Reptile, Dinosaur, Bird, Common ostrich, Rat, Camel, etc. --D6194c-1cc (talk) 07:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose although I understand the reasoning. From a physiology point of view, what is currently at Kidney (vertebrates) is "the kidney article" and this here is an in-depth treatment of a subtopic. However we do have a site-wide habit (spottily observed) of having such search terms land on the human physiology version rather than the generic one, so I don't think there's a call to break from that in this instance. I think the current setup, with a nice long summary of Kidney (vertebrates) and a {{Main}} link there works well. -Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:22, 4 July 2022 (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.

Two links to renal?

The lead to this article has two links to the word renal, which is itself a redirect to this page. That seems unnecessary, and I can't think of why it would need to be linked at all, unless it's meant to be the Wiktionary link for etymology. I'm hesitant to remove it in case there was some specific reason, though. Thoughts? - Procyonidae (talk) 10:18, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]