Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Merger or more direct cooperation with Wp: MED?

I think this project could benefit from being merged with or at least more direct cooperation with WikiProject Medicine. Many articles could benefit from a section on pathological significance (potentially summaries of larger articles on a disease). It may also attract editors in the medical field who currently aren't aware or interested in this separate project. Thoughts? Please also check out my proposal above for the reorganisation of anatomy articles. Elennaro (talk) 13:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed.--Taylornate (talk) 04:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

More cooperation with WPMED would be nice...but its not there because of lack of interest. Many editors involved with WPMED also watch this project, and occasionally help out; however their main interest is medicine, not anatomy. Making this project a task force of WPMED has been discussed before, but changing its organization/structure would not help its activity. Interested editors make a project active. Currently, almost all of the WPMED task forces are inactive as places for discussion. They are mostly used for article categorization with banner tagging. --Scott Alter (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree that it's not because of a lack of interest. Things that WP:MED can help out with, whether on anatomy or sexual topics relating to medical issues, are generally ignored by that project. And the fact remains that their project is a lot more active than this project or Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality. Flyer22 (talk) 04:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Add Gallery, Lateral Sternal Views to Human Sternum page

Hello, I'm new to editing wikipedia (love the site!), so I don't know the code well enough, but could we add a photo gallery to the Human Sternum page that includes the Gray's Anatomy plate #117, the lateral view of the sternum? The anterior view is #116 and already on the page. There may be some other relevant plates as well once the gallery is in place. Thanks. StevenRoyKnight (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

3

3 positives:

1. The whole article is very thorough. It contains many sections such as presentation, mechanism of injury, pathophysiology, diagnosis, etc.
2. the article is well organized. On the diagnosis section, it is divided into symptoms, signs, MRI, ultrasound and in office testing. None of the sections repeat the information in other sections.
3. The pictures in the article are all has descriptions about what they are. All pictures are placed in the right sections.

3 problems:

1. The article is a little too long. It might be difficult for impatient readers to read.
2. The rehabilitation part is a little too short, and it could include some pictures of exercises. The surgery part is very detailed though.
3. The pictures that represent the anatomy of the site of injury is a little too small, it could have used bigger pictures. The x-ray pictures are also a bit small. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kin412a (talk • contribs) 08:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Kin412a (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It would help if we knew which article you were talking about. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:07, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Gray's Anatomy images

There is an ongoing discussion regarding Category:Gray's Anatomy images. Additional clarification and constructive suggestions would be highly appreciated at the discussion. Thank you, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:55, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Gen-class-bones

Template:Gen-class-bones has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. DH85868993 (talk) 15:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Does this project only include human anatomy? Where do I find animal and plant anatomy and physiology information? Thanks! -- RexRowan  Talk  17:44, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to the first question, but WP:WikiProject Veterinary medicine or WP:WikiProject Plants might be useful pages to look at. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:41, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Redirects from Latin terminology

Hi. I have a general request that I hope you will help me with. When you are editing and especially creating new articles, could you please make a redirect from the Latin term to the article? Since most European countries with the exception of the UK use Latin terms it would help a lot of people to find information with these redirect (the Latin term is often included in the article so it would not take more than additional 30 seconds). This would also make it easier for many people to add to the anatomy project. So far I made about 500 redirects and just made it to "C" in my dictionary, so I need a little help on this one. Thank you. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:28, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Vulva#Requested move

Opinions are needed on the topic of whether or not to split the Vulva article so that there is an article titled Human vulva to specifically cover the human vulva. Flyer22 (talk) 04:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Thoughts

Can you share your thoughts here please? Pass a Method talk 11:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

I posted this at WT:MED, thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Providing data and links automatically for anatomical development

We've recently launched LifeMap Discovery (discovery.lifemapsc.com), a database of embryonic development, stem cell research and regenerative medicine for developmental biologist and stem cell researchers. In our database, we describe the development of organs, anatomical compartment and cells and have created images and developmental trees that describe these processes. We would like to share our content with WikiPedia by adding to existing developmental biology articles (like Lung Development) and by adding new articles. I would very much appreciate your direction regarding our contributions as well as any ideas about automation processes if any exist. Thanks Yaron Guan-Golan LifeMap Sciences — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr8Bit (talk • contribs) 03:40, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. If I where you I would post this at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine for two reasons. The subjects you mention above are more within there scope than ours and this project is not the most active at the moment. But try Wikiproject Medicine since it sounds really interesting. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 10:56, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Joining project

Hi, my user name is Starfleet officer and I would like to join your project. Can you please let me how to join? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starfleet officer (talk • contribs) 01:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi. First, sorry for the long delay. There is no application process for the Anatomy project. You simply select an article that you would like to improve upon and start editing. At the moment we are trying out a theme of the month; improveing bone articles. If you would like to pitch in please do so. This goes for any anatomy related article as well. If you are new to Wikipedia or in any other way require some help you are most welcome to write here or on my talkpage. Any questions are welcome and my self and other are more than willing to look over any edits you made. Happy editing. Kind regards --JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Please remember to sign your post (only on talkpages not in articles) with ~~~~. That way we can see who writes (Generates username, link to talkpage and timestamp).

Resuscitation attempt

Hi. To me it sadly seems as this project is somewhat comatose. I do not doubt that we have many contributatiors who put in a lot of work into anatomy articles, but it seems that there is not much going on as a project when you compare with Wikipedia:Wikiproject Medicine. I have an idea that might change this a bit. We have many stub and start rated articles that are below textbook level. With this I do not mean below highly specific litteratury say rectal surgery, but below Gray´s Anatomy for students and combined anatomy and physiology textbooks (You know the kind of first book you read at medschool and similar educations). I suggest that next month (febuary) be named Adopt a bone month and the rules are simple.

1) Select a bone where the article is below textbook level e.g. tibia

2) Write below: I choose tibia, my favorit bone of all

3) Bring tibia up to textbook level within the month, preferably with a little help from some friends (ask for readthroughs, suggestions for improvements and so on on this page)

4) Feel good about your self

5) Suggest weather next month should be about arteries, lymphatics, face muscles or whatever rocks your boat

What do you say? Is this something you find interresting and/or would like to be a part of? Hopefully this would revieve this project a bit. Let me know what you think. Kind regards --JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Jakob, great idea. Thanks for posting here! I plan to purchase some textbooks on Anatomy and Physiology soon. I'd be happy to work on something with you. Do you think there is a Wikipedia bone article that stands out as being the best right now? It would be nice to see a template for what tibia could become, but no worries if you don't have an example off hand. I'm just curious.Biosthmors (talk) 19:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Great. I would say that humerus is really good, but it could be hard to use it as an template for many other bones. I must say I just briefly look at a couple. JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's great that you want to revive the project, but please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a textbook.--Taylornate (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

I look at the link and of course these changes should apply to WP standards. Maybe I formulated my self poorly above; what I meant was that many stubs does not contain the same amount of information as you would be able to find in a textbook. I am not suggesting it should state things like Palpate the pulse in the foot if you suspect a femur fracture or in any way stray from what Wikipedia is. Mearly bring some bone stubs up to a start level so to speak, without having to start from a pubmmed search. If you see any form of potential pitfalls please let me know... or if this was in no way the answer you where looking for (it is pass midnight where I am) JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:58, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

I figured that's what you meant! So just in case it's me and you, will it be tibia or do you have another bone in mind? I checked the activity of just one participant, and they were active editing anatomy content but they might not pay attention here. Even as active as WP:MED is, there's not a long list at WP:MEDGA2013, for example. So would you like to make it tibia or another page, in case others don't show? Thanks again! Biosthmors (talk) 00:10, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I could go for the tibia, then I would have a leg thing going on. But eventhough it might just be me and you, more people are sure to join in when they see the kind of fun we are having! ...and if that does not work, maybe next month should be recruitement month. JakobSteenberg (talk) 00:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good! Biosthmors (talk) 00:37, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I haven't made any progress now have I?! I should next week. There's always next week, right? Kinda busy this one. =) Biosthmors (talk) 07:10, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

That´s fair. I haven´t made much progress my self. What are you planning on working on? When you are done can we agree to look trough "each others articles"? I know that tibia which I am working on could use an extra set of eyes. JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, one thing I would like to work on is seeing if fecal incontinence meets WP:GACR. Maybe after I improve tibia you could see if that article needs more work! I'll plan on making some edits to tibia tomorrow. Biosthmors (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I will take a look sometime after the weekend. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:35, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

• Why bones? I prefer to talk about arteries and veins for example. Doc Elisa ^✉ 06:26, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I think we'll deviate from bones in March. =) I'd like to work on something at the WP:5000 (something that gets a lot of hits). Biosthmors (talk) 01:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Then we could say arteries and veins for March. It was meerly ment to try to revieve the project as a community thing since there have not really been any posts for the last couple of months. In regards to top 5000; Cat anatomy is number 19 for some reason, while cat it self is number 312! Other anatomy related subjects on the top 5000 include (only top 3000 since I got a little bit bored):

1. 158 Human penis size
2. 381 Chin
3. 451 Vagina
4. 1141 Thyroid
5. 1159 Human height
6. 1473 Heart
7. 1499 Human penis
8. 1922 Liver
9. 2003 Gallbladder
10. 2223 Spleen
11. 2305 Breast
12. 2365 Lymph node
13. 2524 Pancreas
14. 2575 Prostate
15. 2590 Circulatory system

JakobSteenberg (talk) 09:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the list! Next time we might ask at WP:VPT if someone knows an quicker way of doing this. How about circulatory system? It gets around 7000 daily views during the week, it obviously needs work, and it's the ultimate parent article to veins and arteries. Biosthmors (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

I can work on circulatory system without problem. But I'm new at en:WP so it would be kind to tell me what are the urgent subjects to expand. At this moment I'm working on Lower limbs venous ultrasonography which is on PR and I wait some suggestions to get it better. In mean time I will review arteries and veins. Doc Elisa ^✉ 10:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I added a new section, since this post is getting quite long. See the bottom of this page. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Improvements of Circulatory system

The good Doc Elisa ^✉ would like to improve Circulatory system and is looking fore some suggestions. Please join in. Here are my to cents:

• Additional citations since most sections are without any at all
• Expansion of the section Health and disease. Just a couple of lines including a short introduction to cardiovascular diseases and congenital heart defects, which is already linked to.
• Maybe removal of section The effects of nicotine on the cardiovascular system
• A new section concerning regulation perhaps
• Maybe somewhere it could be clarified what "the route" of blood is (elastic arteries -> muscular arteries -> arterioles -> capillaries -> venoles -> veins) or something like that. Could be something readers where looking for.
• Short section about lymphatic system, more or less a boiled down version of the lymphatic systems own heading. Maybe one-third the size
• Fetal circulation section perhaps

Also on the talkpage there is a couple of valid points, not sure if they have been fixed yet. Hope it helps --JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:19, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Great. I also want to help circulatory system this month. =) If we all three wanted to help it out, we could announce it perhaps on the page itself (kind of discretely, perhaps) to tell people they can edit it or make suggestions for improvements on the talk page (in line with {{tafi}}, perhaps). Biosthmors (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I would gladly work on it to. I am unsure if it should be tagged with the tafi-thingy, but that is just because I do not know how it works. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

!! OMG !! all cardiovascular physiology has been progressively wrongly edited by someone since 2007 very subtle and little changements in the midle of a sentence or paragraph have change the meaning. I'm trying to repair. I already have reviewed cardiac action potential and diastolic heart failure, cardiac skeleton but I have dozens of articles to verify. Sometimes I doubt of myself and I think that its me who needs to update knowledge! There is original research and fiction everywhere. Hard to disclose because changements have been subtle in the middle of a correct paragraph. For example: [1] in cardiac skeleton: In youth, this collagen structure is free of calcium adhesions and is quite flexible.(true) The aging heart and vascular tree accumulates calcium to the detriment of compliance (true) and defines itself more clearly by Calcium Score. This accumulation contributes to the AV node and AV bundle delay of the depolarisation wave such that the atria can contract and assist in ventricular filling before the ventricles themselves depolarise and contract... This is false! But it seems true. Is true to explain bundle block is false to explain AV delay. So I can't help as I would wish in anatomy project. I'm so sorry. But affirmations like this one must be corrected quickly: "Venous blood is deoxygenated blood which travels from the left ventricle, through the systemic circulation in route to the right atrium" [2]. Doc Elisa ^✉ 15:35, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Sad to see you go... Happy hunting! JakobSteenberg (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• I can't help as I would wish but I don't go :) Doc Elisa ^✉ 17:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Improvement theme of the month

Theme of the month is... (drum-solo, please)... Arteries and veins! If you would like to improve on a single article within this category, please post the name of the article below. You do not have to do a lot of work. Any improvements are most appreciated. This does not mean that you have to work within the theme. If you love lymph nodes, feel free to work on lymph nodes. But if you would like to improve on an artery or vein article this month, please do the following:

• Write below which article you would like to work on
• Work on it!
• Ask for help here when you are stuck or just looking for an opinion
• Suggest what should be the next theme of the month (we may be only three people at the moment so your vote really counts)

Happy editing. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to make a suggestion, not as an editor or team-member, but as someone who uses Wikipedia. Each article about an artery needs to include what region of the body it supplies. I ask this because I have some pain primarily in my left shoulder and I was looking to find out if the region was all covered by the same artery. After wading through article after article stating that this artery connects to that artery, I finally figured out that the left subclavian artery is the one that supplies the left arm, but I still don't know whether it supplies more than just the left arm or not. Remembering that Wikipedia is meant for common people and not for first year medical students, realize that common people don't really care which artery connects to which artery or whether that artery goes over or under some particular nerve. The common people want to know which artery supplies blood to which portion of the body. Please contact me and let me know what portion of the body the left subclavian artery supplies blood to. Thank you. --Bejjinks (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for making that point, Bejjinks. Jakob, see my comment in #Improvements_of_Circulatory_system. Best. (I hope you feel better Bejjinks!) Biosthmors (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Extremely valid point. BTW the left subclavian artery mainly supplies the left arm (including some of the shoulder), but also part of the neck and breast. JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And the brain, via the vertebral artery. Elennaro (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Labia elongation#Merger discussion

In case there are any members of this project who are not also members of WP:MED or don't simply watch WP:MED, and because this project needs more attention given to it/activity, I decided to alert its members to the above linked matter. Right now, two articles exist on that topic because an editor un-redirected the Labia elongation article, feeling that the merge/redirect[3][4] should have been discussed first (specifically whether or not we should use "elongation" as part of the title or "stretching" as part of the title; before his un-redirect, that article redirected to the Labia stretching article. Flyer22 (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Short reply on the talkpage. JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:22, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. I want to participate in this month's project, working on blood vessels, but I'm scared that I'll break any plagiarism laws or wiki rules. You see, I only have a few atlases of anatomy and two textbooks (Gray's anatomy for students and Larsen's human embryology) to work with. How much can I cite from one book before it's plagiarism? Can I use an atlas of anatomy as a reliable source in a worded text (for example if a picture shows the confluence of the left subclavian vein and left internal jugular vein to be the endpoint of the thoracic duct, can I verbally state that this is so)? Should I refrain from making edits to anatomy articles at all if I don't have any better sources? Kind regards, Elennaro (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope it's not considered bad form to reply to your own question, but for now, I've decided to be bold and just go ahead with this. If I'm breaking any rules anywhere, please let me know so I can be more careful next time. Elennaro (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Firstly it is not plagiarism if you do not copy the text, but simply refer to the information within it (but there can be a fine line to be walked and when/when not some thing is plagiarism is subjective). You can look at Wikipedia:Plagiarism and Wikipedia:Copyrights for examples and some help. Depending on which of the editions of the books you use I will gladly double check for you if you are in doubt (I own the same books). But do not copy/paste or write off text... just like in school (I am sure you know this already).

With regards to atlases at sources. I would personally prefer text over pictures, but you can use an atlas as a source in my opinion (for somethings).

All in all. Go ahead, as you say be bold, and simply ask if in doubt (Wikipedia:Help desk is a good place to get answers for complicated questions). One of the things I think is the biggest pain in the... when editing is writing in information from sources, so if this can same you some time; code for Gray's anatomy for students, 2rd ed. to be used as reference:

<ref name=GrayStudent>{{cite book |last=Drake |first=Richard L. |last2=Vogl |first2=A. Wayne |last3=Mitchell|first3=Adam W. M.| year=2010 |title=Gray´s Anatomy for Students |edition=2nd | isbn =978-0-443-06952-9|pages=558–560 |accessdate=January 29, 2013}}</ref>.

...AND WELCOME ABOARD! Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 22:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Inferring facts from an illustration sounds like WP:OR.--Taylornate (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. Illustrations are used to convey fact in text books, especially anatomy ones. If Inferring facts from an illustration was WP:OR then any reference to Netters Anatomy is WP:OR. WP:OR refers to conducting primary research yourself and publishing it to Wikipedia. Mike (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Popular pages

I love the idea of having a 'theme' for a month, and then each person working on an article within that theme. It's great and encouraging to hear what other people are working on, even if you don't get very far.

You can get a bot-generated list of popular anatomy-related pages like the one at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Popular pages. The instructions for signing up are at User:Mr.Z-man/Popular pages FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:27, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

It seems like the this will not be possible until after November on the Toolserver-page. Other wise a quite nice feature. Thanks for the heads up though. JakobSteenberg (talk) 15:59, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Grave robbery in the United Kingdom

Hello there. I'm writing the above, linked article and have arrived at a quandary. I think there's too much detail on anatomy to remain in an article that's only about grave robbery, so I thought I'd move some of the anatomy history to a better home. However, having read articles like History of anatomy in the 19th century and History of anatomy, I'm not convinced such a home exists.

I think, therefore, that I might be better advised changing the focus of the current article to cover both subjects in more detail, although restricted in scope to the 17th-19th centuries. I'm not sure if it might also need renaming, since my interest is only in explaining why resurrection came about, what everyone thought about it and why it ended.

Thoughts? I still have some way to go, but eventually I propose to take this article to FAC. Parrot of Doom 20:35, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... That is a bit tricky one. Depending on how much you would like to move. Dissection has a small section about England under history. But if you are talking about moving a larger part of the article, then it might be worth to set up an new article with the name History of dissection (and of course a lot more information could be added to such an article). What is your thought on this? There is also Body snatching. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure tbh. I'm only really interested in the grave robbing aspect, I just want to write a comprehensive article which explains everything but which also doesn't go off on tangents. Parrot of Doom 10:47, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If you give examples of what you would like to move out of the article I will happily try to help you if I can. --JakobSteenberg (talk) 12:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

• I think I managed to sort it out. The article, now called Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom, has been at FAC the last few days and appears to be doing well. Parrot of Doom 12:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Articles such as Mucous membrane and Endometrium

Should we tag articles such as these as being within this project's scope? Or, for example, is Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and Wikipedia:WikiProject Biophysics sufficient enough for the Mucous membrane article...and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine is sufficient enough for the Endometrium article? Flyer22 (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

With the two articles in question I would say that Biophysics does not apply... and I do not think that MCB would accept them as within scope either.

I have also been wondering these types of articles. I looked around on the project page and else where and could not find an answer... If no guidelines have been made so far maybe it is time to discuss it. I came across articles like podocyte and filtration slits as well. One solution could be to create a task force sub label (called microscopic anatomy or histology), just as WP Medicine have e.g. Pulmonology task force and as such lung is sub-categorised. That way it would be easier to find articles to work on if you where only interested in micro- or macro-anatomy. JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:26, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject banners from the first two WikiProjects above (in this section) are currently on the talk pages of the Mucous membrane article, and the WP:MED banner is currently on the Endometrium article; that's why I posed the second question the way that I did.

Considering that a WikiProject member tagging an article as within their project's scope simply means that the article is of interest to the project or at least to one member of the project, it's fine to tag any of the articles above (in this section) as within this project's scope (and I see that the Podocyte and Filtration slits articles are already tagged as within this project's scope). The topics certainly fall under the category of anatomy. But I decided to ask this project to see if these are the type of topics it wants to cover. However, given that this project isn't very active, I'm not sure that creating a task force for it is a good idea. Flyer22 (talk) 18:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

With regards to the WP Med tag. I only add it to anatomy articles when there is something pathological within the article. With endometrium as an example; if it only contains information about anatomy it should not have the WP Med tag, but if there is as much as one sentence about endometriosis I would tag it with WP Med. Same with e.g. ligaments, only anatomy no tag, if it says something about torn ligament I add the WP Med tag.

You are right about the task force. If we want to cover it (I think it would be only natural) we could write explicit on the project page: We cover micro- and macro human anatomy. JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with tagging anatomy articles if there is anything pathological in them, but WP:MED has decided that anatomy topics are generally not within their scope; with what they have described, one line or even a section about something pathological in an anatomy article is not sufficient enough to tag the anatomy article with the WP:MED banner. I'm a part of the WP:MED project, as it seems that you now are (or have been for a significant time) as well, but I don't agree with their (general) view on that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hmm... I just read trough the debated you posted to. In that case; I give up! But can you and I (and anybody else watching) agree that in regards to this project we prefer over-tagging over under-tagging? We can always ignore articles, but they are hard to find if we do not no they exist (which can be a problem without the anatomy tag). JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, per above, I obviously prefer "over-tagging" when it comes to WikiProject banners. Flyer22 (talk) 12:02, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Ear

Hi. Three things.

1. Your WikiProject has assessed this article as B class. Our criteria for B class say "The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations where necessary.It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited.". The Ear article has been tagged for lack of references since 2008. Large portions of the article are devoid of any referencing at all. Please will one of your members review the class assessment. Thank you.
2. You might like to know that I've nominated this article at Wikipedia:Today's_articles_for_improvement/Nominated_articles#Natural_Sciences. I don't think there are any other articles from this WikiProject currently on the page.
3. I couldn't help but notice your system for deciding article importance seems a little idiosyncratic. I couldn't find the criteria through your project page, but some of the inclusions/exclusions from Category:Top-importance Anatomy articles seemed inconsistent.Cheers, --Dweller (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Dweller. I looked at the article and moved it down to a C grade. Thanks for the heads up on today´s article. You are right there does not seem to be any guidelines for rating importance for articles. I will make a separate post for this in the near future and try to see if we can set it up. JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:48, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Ace --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Article, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning Monday 06 May 2024. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by ~~~~ on behalf of the AFI team

Thoughts about the project

I been doing some thinking about this project and how we might improve upon it. At the moment we have a 5.68 work load which is very high for a wikiproject. The solution to this is quite simple; we could use a lot more people putting in more time. I think we already have the latter, but the first seems to be a problem. I have not been a part of this project very long, but is seems like this is somewhat of a natural state after the assimilation of the public domain Gray's Anatomy. Maybe we could try reaching out to new possible members and thereby try to move the project to its next stage.

If you think it would be worth such an outreach there might be some things worth doing before hand. Mainly to make it more attractive to new members and give them and old members some better tools to work with. I have no experience what so ever in how to improve on a project, but I have some thoughts (I given each point a number so it is easier to respond):

1) We could start by specifying what we are actually working on. Are we interested in including micro-anatomy and histology or do we stick with what you can see with the naked eye? User:Flyer22 and I have already discussed this briefly. If we as a group have an answer to this question we should write it on the main project page.

2) Where do we set the boundary between us and Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology and others? We could look into and ask these other projects when and when not to add them to articles... And again state it clearly on the main page. This has also been discussed briefly.

3) Define criteria for importance rating. See discussion Ear. We could make some very general guidelines.

4) Who are we? We have a members list on the main page that have not been updated for years. I suggest we create a former members page and move editors who have not made an edit in X time to that list. That way we can see how many we are. Also we should move the active members list from where it is now. It is not relevant enough to take up so much place before relevant information below it. Which brings us too...

5) In the bottom of the main page there is a list of templates. There are many more than these. We could update this list since it is a highly relevant tool.

...Is there any idea in implementing any of these things? There may also be some other good suggestions in this Signpost article on how to revive a project is you feel for it. I know that it may seem like a lot of work (which means less work will be done on the articles), but I think it is a good to start on such things if we want to lure in new members down the line. Please let me know what you think. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 23:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Dua's layer

The media report the discovery of a sixth later of the cornea, discovered by a Professor Dua and to be named for him. Can our experts fill in this red link?

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:30, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. When I first wrote this post, the link was still red!

הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:31, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

"Medial": a disambiguation page

Wikipedia's page titled Medial is a disambiguation page that is mostly about concepts in mathematics and linguistics whose names include that word.

But most of the articles linking to Medial are about anatomy. They should link to lateral and medial.

Could people here work on fixing the problem? (Or has everybody here died a couple of months ago, as suggested by this page's edit history?) Michael Hardy (talk) 16:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we are more comatose than dead. I will change it as I come across articles. By the way; Medial (anatomy) and Lateral (anatomy) also redirect to the same subsection of the article anatomical terms of location as lateral and medial does if that is easier for people to remember.

If you are interested you can take a look at this page if you have not already found it. Here you can see all the articles that link to medial and change them manually one by one for anatomy related articles. There are surprisingly few. If I get the time I will change some from the list. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 21:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, like JakobSteenberg, I'm still here. Flyer22 (talk) 21:51, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I ran through the What links here-page for medial and think I have corrected them all... and lateral for good measures. If somebody is up for it I am sure the same problems exist for other terms such as inferior, superior, posterior, anterior, ventral, dorsal and so on... JakobSteenberg (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Phimosis article again and gender identity, including gender identity at other articles

See this discussion section for this matter I brought up. Flyer22 (talk) 17:32, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Goals

This project is not dead.

I think it would be very helpful to set some goals to help motivate and get some sense of progress. Examples:

• 5 FAs
• 10 good articles
• 50% of articles in C-class or better

With these goals in mind, we can work towards it

Thoughts? LT90001 (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My missing topics pages

I have updated Missing topics about Anatomy - Skysmith (talk) 11:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Distal#Redirect

Some of you might be interested in weighing in on the Distal#Redirect matter. Flyer22 (talk) 22:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Template for scapula

I made navigation template for scapula (click [show] button above). I think this template helps learners who are reading articles included in Category:scapula. Any comment welcome! --Was a bee (talk) 00:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the information in these articles would be more accessible if most of them were merged into scapula. Does it really make sense for an encyclopedia to have a separate article for every border, fossa, notch, and ridge of every bone?--Taylornate (talk) 06:04, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. This template is really great, and could be useful for something like the hip, but I can't see that these topics (such as on 'notch of scapula') could every become articles above stub or start size and would certainly help make a more comprehensive article if they were all merged (a common theme amongst many anatomy articles). Also I'm not sure if there are restrictions on images in templates, as templates are manually embedded in each page and not loaded on demand. LT90001 (talk) 06:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I like the template but must say that in my opinion needs to be collapsed as default otherwise it is simply to big (but this also means that most readers propagator won´t notice it).

In regards to very small subjects such as notch of scapula having their own articles; I think they should have. However there is no reason why the scapula article should not contain most of the information about the notches, fossae etc. I think most people who come across the notch article are looking up information they forgot and just need a quick look where the notch is or which nerve pass through and not more broadly about the scapula. For me personally a good thing about having separate articles is that I can search for the Latin term and get redirected to the article; if we did not have separate articles that might be a problem. And while you are correct that such articles proparly will remain stubs for the years to come their is a possibility to add detail information such as "A spine of scapula with depth x indicates a trapezius mucles y in size", "In horses the notch of scapula is fused to a foramen" or something like this (I know it may seem unrealistic but I think of Wikipedia as a 100 year project so to say).

With separate articles we can also describe surrounding structures for the perspective of the "article structure"; (again with Wiki as a 100 year project) such information could make the articles easier to "understand" for machines e.g. IBM´s Watson or whatever Wikidata can do in the future. And that is important because then we hopefully do not have to remember as much anatomy by heart as we have to now :D

Sorry for the messy answer it was written quickly. If there is something that does not makes sense please ask. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 08:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

most people who come across the notch article [...] just need a quick look [...] I can search for the Latin term and get redirected to the article
— User:JakobSteenberg

That sounds an awful lot like a dictionary. Anyway, redirects can point to a particular spot within an article.

Merging the articles would not preclude splitting them back off if within the next 100 years there is enough content or some other reason to justify it.--Taylornate (talk) 08:35, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I think it is very OK to have redirects, but much better to have a centralized point of information for different articles. Having many redirects pointing to these articles lets researchers search for latinate, english, or middle forms of articles and ensures that these terms all get access to the same information. As we have seen with Anatomy articles, if this information is not centralised you end up with thousands of tiny stub articles, which would be much better covered by fewer longer, more well-attended sources. LT90001 (talk) 10:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, if I am totally missing the point. I am all for that the scapula-article covers notches, borders fossae etc. just like it does now (more or less) as the same subject would if you look it up in a standard anatomy textbook. I am sure that some, maybe much, of the information in the stubs could be incorporated into the scapula-article. However, I do not see the downside to having the information two places. That way the reader can still search for a very specific topic like the suprascapular notch and only get information related to this topic and not the scapula in a broader form.

I agree, that redirect to specific points in the scapula article could do the same. However, we would very likely end up with a situation just like when you search the online version of Grey´s anatomy. When I do this, the text often refers to something previously in text (that I have not read since it is previously to the point I get redirected to) and I have to scroll back. An example of this would be if you search for a specific muscle it might say something like "unlike the other muscles this muscles originates from..." where other muscles refers to the muscle group. Something that is clear from the whole chapter/subsection but you have to scroll back and look for it you did search for something very specific.

I agree, that our many many stubs could use a lot of work (and they are maybe taking time from the broader more important articles). Most of them are by large copies of the 1911 Grey´s Anatomy. But very few discoveries or changes in terminology have been made since then. That combined with that the articles are not really degrading due to vandalism or bad good faith edits; I see nothing wrong with them other than they are a bit thin.

As I said before; I am all for improving the broader/larger/"mother-like" articles by copy/pasting information from the stubs into them. I would just hate to lose the stubs if their aren´t doing any damage.

Again, I hope I not missing the point entirely. JakobSteenberg (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Community consensus is pretty clear on this issue. Please see WP:MERGE.--Taylornate (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting! Though I said "any comment welcome", the topic currently discussed here seem to be not directly related to the template. Anyway I want to say thank you about feedback about template, and ill fix some point about it. --Was a bee (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes sorry, we did get on a bit of a tangent there. The template itself is good. LT90001 (talk) 06:56, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Never mind. I feel sorry too. I didn't respond quickly. Taylornate said "Does it really make sense for an encyclopedia to have a separate article for every border, fossa, notch, and ridge of every bone?." I understand very well about this point and I never do so. I had thought how to explain about this point in English long time, then time passed. Sorry about that. For preparation of explanation, recently I added some TA code and FMA ID to some bone articles. Through these links, we can check that how many substructures are included in each terms in TA (or FMA). Though you may already know, number of substructures in each terms are differ from parts to parts. For example, nasal bone has just 2 substructures in TA (A02.1.10.001). Coccyx has no substructure in TA (A02.2.06.001). Scapula has 22 substructures in TA (A02.4.01.001). FMA defines more and more substructures finely in each terms (Nasal bone FMA:52745, Coccyx FMA:20229, Scapula FMA:13394). As a general point of view, I think suitable number of split articles would be proportional to TA, but should be far less than FMA. This is what I wanted to say at the first time. Sorry for late. --Was a bee (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I am OK to merge too. But I feel like it seems difficult to merge all information into one article. So I also think that having some centralized articles would be better. As a springboard for discussion, I put here a list. It contains one main article (scapula) and eight independent sub articles. († symbol means that 'merging into there would be perhaps controversial').

• Scapula

1. (Angles of the scapula)†
   1. Lateral angle of the scapula (Head of the scapula)
      1. (Neck of scapula)†
   2. Inferior angle of the scapula
   3. Superior angle of scapula
2. (Borders of the scapula)†
   1. Lateral border of the scapula
   2. Medial border of scapula
   3. Superior border of scapula
   4. (Suprascapular notch)†
3. (Fossas of the scapula)†
   1. Infraspinatous fossa
   2. Subscapular fossa
      1. Oblique ridges of scapula
   3. Supraspinatous fossa
4. (Glenoid tubercles)†
   1. Supraglenoid tubercle
   2. Infraglenoid tubercle
5. Glenoid cavity
6. Spine of scapula
   1. Root of spine of scapula
   2. Deltoid tubercle of spine of scapula
   3. (Great scapular notch)†
7. Acromion process
   1. Acromial angle
   2. Clavicular facet of scapula
8. Coracoid process

I don't insist this list at all. Please take this as just a springboard for discussion. --Was a bee (talk) 00:45, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

...I started working a bit on glenoid tubercles. I will put in more work later on. Please feel free to jump in. I agree that the might be some controversials with the "† - marked". Put maybe we for starters could agree to; IF no independent articles are created or mergers occur, we should at least make a disambiguation page like e.g. nasal meatus? Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 04:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

That's not an appropriate disambiguation page. Please see WP:Disambiguation. Also, it's absurd that those are separate articles.--Taylornate (talk) 06:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I think, I may have formulated myself incorrectly or we spoke past each other. Nasal meatus is a disambiguation page, glenoid tubercles is not (I believe we both agree on that much). In regards to the articles being separate; I did not create the supra- or infraglenoid articles, they have been there for a long time. IF a merger of the supra- or infraglenoid articles where to take place I simply started on such a merger. What I meant when referring to a disambiguation page was: IF the merger does not take place; then glenoid tubercles could be turned into a disambiguation page (in the same way that nasal meatus is at the moment). Do I make myself clear or is there something that needs any elaboration? Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Nasal meatus is a disambiguation page. It shouldn't be. Turning glenoid tubercles into a similar disambiguation page would be a step backward, as you would essentially be splitting an article of about only 1kb of readable prose. For context on article size, see WP:TOOBIG. Based on that rule of thumb, I don't see any reason why all of the information in these articles couldn't be merged into scapula. Do the merge and then concentrate on improving scapula into a WP:good article. Isn't the purpose of the project to increase the number of good articles? How can this be accomplished when the information is scattered to such a degree?--Taylornate (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

Working on this page

I am considering developing this page further as part of an educational assignment in Fall of 2013. If someone else is also working on this, please send me a message and let me know soon, so we donʼt duplicate initial efforts in page development. Stack0711 (talk) 16:03, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Stack0711, what page? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 18:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Biosthmors, I will be working on Wolffian tubules. Stack0711 (talk) 01:14, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Stack0711, thanks for clarifying. =) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 12:21, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Working on blastopore

I am considering developing the blastopore page further as part of an educational assignment in Fall of 2013. If someone else is also working on this, please send me a message and let me know soon, so we donʼt duplicate initial efforts in page development. Heykei1 (talk) 17:25, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Revisions for an Educational Assignment: Sox1

Hello,

I am considering developing this page further as part of an education assignment in Fall of 2013. If someone else is working on this page, please send me a message soon so we don't duplicate initial efforts in page development. Ran21 (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Ran21, thanks for posting. I'm curious. Who is your instructor? Do you have an ambassador? Do you have a Wikipedia:Course page? Where did you get the idea to put quote marks around your question? Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:01, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

=) Biosthmors (talk) pls notify me (i.e. {{U}}) while signing a reply, thx 19:40, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ran21, welcome to Wikipedia. I look forward to your edits. LT90001 (talk) 22:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the course page: Education Program:Boston College/Developmental Biology (Fall 2013) --WS (talk) 07:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for peer review

Hi all, I've selected an article I'd like to improve to GA status (Suspensory muscle of duodenum). I'd really value some feedback from some anatomists about how to improve this to GA status. The article is here: Wikipedia:Peer_review/Suspensory_muscle_of_duodenum/archive1. If this goes well, I hope I can improve one or two other minor articles to GA status so that they can be used as templates for promotion in the future.

I'd value any and all opinions, and hope that I'll receive more than one item of feedback (multiple would be much appreciated!). Kind regards, LT910001 (talk) 06:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

I will have a look today! Mike (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Mrfrobinson! I've closed the peer review and put this up for GAN. I'd still love to hear about your feedback, so please feel free either to take up the review, drop feedback on the talk page, or leave it on my talk page. Hope to hear from you soon, LT910001 (talk) 04:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have nominated the article Suspensory muscle of duodenum for GA status. It would be great if a member of this wikiproject took the review. If this article makes it to GA, it would be the 6th article only in this project to reach GA status. --LT910001 (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

I've found at least 2 images relating to the muscle/ligament that are public domain. Will upload them (and possible more) when I can.CFCF (talk) 14:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Looking back they might not be of especially high quality, will get back to you if I find anything.CFCF (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The image from Treitz' original description (as seen here might be useful? --WS (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your suggestions! I don't think that's his original depiction, but I think I may have accessed one in a journal article, which I'll see if I can rummage around and find (will be after Thursday, though). I haven't uploaded, more-or-less because it looks complicated and daunting, I don't know about who owns the copyrights, and I only have a limited amount of time =P. BUT if somebody else were to, I'd be very grateful... ! There may even be a golden doubloon at stake...! LT910001 (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

File:Gwilym 1913 420.jpg low quality image, feeling I really should be able to find something better. That damn yellow arrow probably makes the above image copyrighted, shame. CFCF (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeh, that is a pity. The other difficulty there is that the orientation of that image is very odd =/. There is an excellent image documenting the anatomical variation here [5], and another one illustrating the two heads, I think, in this article "The development and the structure of the suspensory muscle of the duodenum.” Thanks for you help. Have something pressing today/tomorrow, so will respond on Thursday.LT910001 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Note: That first link there should not be per proxy (I fixed it), or else it is only useful for people at your university.

The problem with both those links is that the images are from journals published after 1923 (or less than 70 years from the death of the author) as per copyright law (the second article you linked referenced to a 1976 article for the image, and even that isn't old enough). The alternative is to get express permission from the authors, but I'm not sure I have the time for it.

The image I uploaded was from 1913, and I think I've found something in the pubmed archives at [6] (from 1907) with 4 different variations (3 male, 1 female). I don't fully like the caption on the fourth image, but I'll upload it nonetheless. CFCF (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

-- CFCF (talk) 12:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks CFCF! I've included the first image in the article. --LT910001 (talk) 13:04, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

After even more searching I came upon an old edition 1913 of Gray's Anatomy (not the 1918 used on wikipedia) that included an image for the ligament/muscle which I uploaded.

• 
  Suspensory muscle of the duodenum or muscle of Treitz.

-- CFCF (talk) 14:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)