Hi! I picked a women scientist at random off the women in science worklist and have started an article on Elizabeth M. Ramsey, who, with Martin Denner, greatly increased the understanding of the placental circulatory system. If someone here could better describe her work, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Great to have someone keeping an eye on our topics :). How did you come up with a list? Just skimming the list, there are certainly some strange terms in there. Lower bones, for example? In addition many terms on the list have existing articles or redirects. --Tom (LT) (talk) 20:07, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
I have collected the topics from various sources over the years, including dictionaries. And yes, lots of those maybe usable mainly as redirects thought I am not sure which. Purpose is to provide samples for articles and redirects and comments would be welcome - Skysmith (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
The WikiJournal of Medicine is a free, peer reviewed academic journal which aims to provide a new mechanism for ensuring the accuracy of Wikipedia's biomedical content. We started it as a way of bridging the Wikipedia-academia gap.[1] It is also part of a WikiJournal User Group with other WikiJournals under development.[2] The journal is still starting out and not yet well known, so we are advertising ourselves to WikiProjects that might be interested.
Engaging Wikipedians
Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start
Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review (either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review)
Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram
Engaging non-Wikipedians
We hope that an academic journal format may also encourage non-Wikipedians to contribute who would otherwise not. Therefore, please consider:
Printing off the advertisement poster and distribute in tearooms & noticeboards at your place of work
Emailing around the pdf through contact networks or mailing lists (suggested wording)
If you want to know more, we recently published an editorial describing how the journal developed.[3] Alternatively, check out the journal's About or Discussion pages.
^Masukume, G; Kipersztok, L; Das, D; Shafee, T; Laurent, M; Heilman, J (November 2016). "Medical journals and Wikipedia: a global health matter". The Lancet Global Health. 4 (11): e791. doi:10.1016/S2214-109X(16)30254-6. PMID27765289.
Both articles seem to relate to the olfactory system and introduce themselves with the synonym "or the sense of smell". I'm having a hard part working out how to divide content between these two articles as they seem to share the same scope, as is borne out by their content - olfactory system has a subsection developed to difficulties with smell; and "olfaction" has three subsections about the "olfactory system" (and in my view the other subsections relate just as much).
Yes, I understand that one has the word "system" but I think it is very confusing to have the two articles. I proposed a merge previously here Talk:Olfactory_system#Proposed_merge_with_Olfaction and withdrew it, I think, a little too early in retrospect. I'm seeking some comments again because I am not satisfied with the content or readability of olfaction and before improving it want to work this out.
What do other editors think about whether there is or should be a difference? I would ask that you evaluate these two articles themselves.
Some examples may help elucidate the difference to me too :). My main goal here is to work out how to improve both articles, particularly olfaction, which is exceedingly technical and I do not think very welcoming or easy to read. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 11/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy.
We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:
The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).
We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject Anatomy, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.
To what extend should Wikipedia honor the preferred naming choices of the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology?
I have started a discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Peroneus_brevis#Peroneus_brevis_vs._fibularis_brevis about whether the name Peroneus brevis (Greek name) or Fibularis brevis (Latin name) is more appropriate. Our style guide advices:
"Anatomy—Most articles on human anatomy use the international standard Terminologia Anatomica (TA), which is the American English version of the Latin. Editor judgment is needed for terms used in non-human anatomy, developmental anatomy, and other problematic terms."
Besides the preferred Latin name Terminologia Anatomica (TA98) lists synonyms. In this case TA98 lists Fibularis brevis as the preferred Latin name and Peroneus brevis as synonym. Peroneus brevis is historically more commonly used but mixing Latin and Greek terms makes it harder for new learners to learn anatomical terms. For a learner it's much easier to remember that Fibularis brevis is next to the fibula than to remember that Peroneus brevis is. The fact that peroneus is the Greek name for the fibula, doesn't help the learner. Out of this motivation, the Federative Committee on Anatomical Terminology decided to recommend Latin names even in cases like this where the Greek-derived name is historically more commonly used.
I think Wikipedia should support attempts to standardize terms in a way that makes it easier for learners to approach a new topic and go with the preferred Latin names that TA98 recommends. Therefore Wikipedia should use the name Fibularis brevis.
I think that's the intention of the policy of style guide to promote the preferred TA98 name, because otherwise editor judgment would also be needed for items that have TA98 entries. In addition to renaming Peroneus brevis to Fibularis brevis, I propose to add a clarification to the quoted passage of the style guide: "Anatomy—Most articles on human anatomy use the international standard Terminologia Anatomica (TA), which is the American English version of the Latin (TA98 Latin preferred term). Editor judgment is needed for terms used in non-human anatomy, developmental anatomy, and other problematic terms."ChristianKl (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, ChristianKl. Use of the TA term is just one factor we consider when naming or renaming articles. Some things to consider:
We try and stick to the TA term where possible, and usually the English version of the term as our readers are assumed to be able to read that language and are most familiar with it.
We also consider what the WP:COMMONNAME is - this may be a different term. To get a rough handle on this, we may do a google search for alternate results, use a google n-gram, and consult books and journal artiles. The common name is often not the Latin term.
Wikipedia is WP:NOTTEXTBOOK - we are in the business of communicating knowledge clearly, but not teaching it, so we should not be renaming articles solely for educating readers (the vast majority of which won't know Greek or Latin)
Sometimes we need to use terms to clarify a structure from others (eg Urinary bladder)
So to summarise, we usually address each article's title individually rather than apply blanket rules, because there is quite a bit of variation when considering all these factors article to article. Will have a look at the move request you put in, but I would not support a move to the latin terms. Iztwoz, who is also involved in moves, may be able to contribute to this discussion.--Tom (LT) (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Half of all articles at start-class or above: 100% complete
Having updated our stats for the first time since last year, I'd like to say that I feel our editing continues to make a difference in the overall quality of our articles. At long last, about half of our articles are better than stub class; we have more than 20 good articles (one of our goals) as well. This is likely a combination of reclassifying articles, and overall improvements in article quality. Well done to everyone involved.
What should our next goals be? We should have goals that are:
Achievable
One focused on quality content (eg GAs, FAs)
One focused on overall content (eg less than 2,000 stubs, no stub / start class articles in top 500 most popular pages?)
I'm considering moving the task list to the talk pagem ie: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Open_Tasks. I will add a 'discussion' subheading to each task to make it more 'talky'. This is mainly so that we can use automatic archiving and the click archiver to save time archiving tasks. As it is, it is quite a lot of effort on my poor internet connections to archive content manually :). Thoughts/objections? --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
Original articles on topics that don't yet have a Wikipedia page, or only a stub/start (example)
Wikipedia articles that you are willing to see through external peer review, either solo or as in a group, process analogous to GA / FA review (example)
Image articles, based around an important medical image or summary diagram (example)
The lobes are named parts of the same structure (liver) that are mostly anatomical
It is more confusing for readers to have these four things in four separate articles than it would be to put it as separate sections in the same article
In the same article, that would make it much easier to depict common elements & also give some context to any differences
Thanks for the advice, but I didn't find the entities there. The structures are the sesamoids at the metatarsophalangeal joints, as plural, and the sesamoid at the interphalangeal joint of the great toe. Mikael Häggström (talk) 18:57, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken "sesamoideum" is the adjective of a masculin singular noun, while "os" or "ossa" is feminine — so that one looks a little off. My latin is getting rusty, I can see if I have my old study papers lying around somewhere. Carl Fredrik talk00:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Things seem to pan out for the most part. There are some minor issues, but when I checked these exist in the literature as well. I might dig more later, but it is soo complicated, when the declensions of nouns isn't readily available and even disputed. Carl Fredrik talk13:27, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
The articles aren't clear and are missing huge chucks of important information. Links between articles are poorly arranged. There doesn't seem to be (in my mind) a clear and easy to use overall template for this important system.
Exactly how many photos of pubic hair are needed? If an image is lacking pubic hair, is that relevant? You usually don't illustrate a part of a person's anatomy by showing its absence. Also I am blaming implicit bias here but there is one photo of a man's pubic hair and five photos of a woman's pubic hair. Their are no images of axillary hair. There are five images of no pubic hair.
Agree it may be useful to have an image without hair in relevant articles at some point in the article's body. Yes I do find reproductive and genitalia related articles tend to be a bit image heavy. Flyer22 may have something to contribute here. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
The ping didn't work (doesn't work with old usernames), and I usually don't focus on the Pubic hair article (although I watch it), but I'll go ahead and comment: Yes, the article currently has more images of female pubic hair, but these images are in the Removal and Styling sections. The literature clearly shows that it's mainly women who worry about removing and styling pubic hair. Barbara (WVS) should consult the article's talk page about removing some of the images. Grayfell, who watches the article, would be willing to listen to her concerns. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:51, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
To compare pubic hair with eyebrow hair - is then appropriate for consistency's sake to encourage the same treatment of other body hair? There probably even more ways to shave one's eyebrows, stylistically design your eyebrows, pierce your eyebrows, bleach your eyebrows, color your eyebrows, pluck your eyebrows, eyebrows in art, genetically different eyebrows and so on. Why pubic hair? I believe pubic hair is written, and illustrated inconsistently compared to other body parts. That's okay, I'm not hanging my hat on this. To bring in an editor who 'watches' or wrote the article to begin with, especially if we already know what their view on this might be, is not completely valid since all editors like to think that how they wrote and edited article is reasonable, fair, fine and not in need of review. Those of us who add content also do so in good faith. I don't add content that isn't supported and neither does Grayfell, I am sure of it. Adding content is done in good faith - I believe this. I am suggesting that female pubic hair is over-represented in the article. I'm will to create an article on pubic hair modification...
Barbara (WVS), I mentioned the article's talk page and Grayfell because the article's talk page is the main place you should be stating your concerns about the number of images in that article. Unless, of course, you expect this WikiProject to enforce a "limited number of images" rule on the article and similar articles and believe that those directly involved with the article should have no say. Grayfell is just one watcher of the article. Not all watchers are actively involved in editing whatever article they are watching, obviously. Again, I watch that article and am not heavily involved with it. Many watchers of an article do know what is best for an article since they are likely to be more familiar with the literature and/or past disputes, including what matters have consensus. Many watchers of articles are open to feedback and have indeed sought feedback on article matters. Not everyone who adds content does so in good faith. Otherwise, we wouldn't have so many problematic editors. But many of us who do add content in good faith are aware that some article watchers probably know better than we do and that it is likely best to consult the talk page first. We know that some matters have already been thoroughly worked out with a number of editors and don't automatically think that our edits are going to be improvements. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments, such as the ones you made above, can be valid or invalid. If someone would take the time to significantly develop the Facial hair article, we would likely see more facial hair images there. It may also be that eyebrow styling is not as popular as pubic hair styling, even though women in particular pay close attention to the shape of their eyebrows (meaning keeping them trimmed and crafted in a certain way). As for a Pubic hair modification article, why is your solution to create a separate article? How is it needed at all? I know that you are fond of creating articles, but, per WP:No page, WP:Spinout and WP:No split, separate articles should only be created when needed, not simply to break off unwanted content. The Pubic hair article is not big and we have the Bikini waxing article that is specifically for waxing pubic chair. You creating a Pubic hair modification article is not going to stop those who may want to retain the images that you want removed from retaining the images. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I sense we agree more than we disagree in this case. Creating a separate article would provide the opportunity to create a gallery of images related to the topic - and create the opportunity to cover the topic more thoroughly and even include even more images of pubic hair styling than exists now. I'm 100% sure that more information exists 'out there' to support a new article. In this case, discussing the various styles, techniques, the 'whys', the 'who' would provide even more information for a reader than we have now. Didn't we do the same with Nipple piercing? It has its own article that is separate from the anatomical article Nipple, with the former having absolutely no need to adhere to MEDRS. I have 'solved' many discussions, sometimes over the course of years by generating an article from the original article and have always at least doubled the references supporting the new article that did not cover the topic before. To include more references for this section on 'styles' would give a section undue weight while separate of an anatomical structure page each section the new article on styles could even have a section for each style! I'll bet we missed some of styles that are out now. A section discussing the practice throughout the world would be fasinating. I am fond of creating new articles and I am good at it. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉15:55, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), I will state that I understand where you are coming from. But I don't see that we agree in this case. You stated, "Creating a separate article would provide the opportunity to create a gallery of images related to the topic - and create the opportunity to cover the topic more thoroughly and even include even more images of pubic hair styling than exists now." Look at the Pubic hair article again. It is relatively small, and already has spin-off articles. We don't create separate articles simply or mainly for gallery use. In fact, per WP:Gallery, we should be cautious of creating galleries in articles. Gallery use is something that has become a problem at the Blond article. Anatomy and art articles will naturally have galleries at times, but they should not go overboard with them either. Have you taken the time to read WP:No page, WP:Spinout and WP:No split? I ask because, even though I've pointed you to them more than once, and despite what I and others state about not unnecessarily creating separate articles, you continue to create separate articles when unnecessary. Yes, you create separate articles when needed as well, but you more often than not create unnecessary separate articles. This includes you doing so without checking to see if the topic has enough material to flourish as an article, which is why you have created a number of stubs, or articles of otherwise relatively small size, that are unlikely to be expanded much beyond a stub. WP:Stubs are not ideal. Enough material for a stub does not mean that a stub should be created. As shown at WP:Med, WP:Med merges a lot of articles and some of your articles have been merged. Click on the "As shown" link where you acknowledge that you "turn four sentences into a brand new article," and that some of your articles have been merged. WP:Anatomy commonly merges as well. We recently had a similar discussion at Talk:Sex characteristics (legal term). You never seem to think that merging is best, or it's rather that you rarely think it's best, and you seem to take offense to your articles being merged. Well, it is often the case that merging is what is best for an article. After all, why have our readers leave a page to go to another page to find out more information when they don't need to? Our readers typically like finding out about a topic on one page, which is why too many blue links can overwhelm them and cause them not to click on any of the blue links. This is one reason that WP:Overlinking is cautioned against. As for MEDRS, both the Nipple and and Nipple piercing articles should adhere to WP:MEDRS. Sources used at both articles should be the type of sources that WP:MEDRS talks about, although, with regard to WP:MEDDATE, we do not have to worry about very up to date sources for anatomy. This is because knowledge of anatomy is mostly the same as it was years ago.
You can create a Pubic hair modification article, obviously, but a look at the literature shows that most of the styling concerning pubic hair is already covered by the topic of bikini waxing, which, again, already has a Wikipedia article. The "landing strip" and other styles can be done without waxing, but they are still topics that are already covered on Wikipedia. And we also already have the Male waxing article (which isn't big). So unless you plan to be largely redundant to, or significantly reduce, the Bikini waxing article (which also isn't big), and merge the Male waxing article, we will have another article we don't need. All that I am stating is that you need to look beyond creating a separate article as a solution or as something to add to your article count. Looking beyond is what WP:No page, WP:Spinout and WP:No split advises. In this particular case, a good option would be for you to reduce the "Removal" and "Styling" sections in the Pubic hair article; this is per WP:Summary style. While most of the "Removal" material might need to be retained, the "Styling" section can be significantly reduced and include a "Main article" link at the top to point readers to the Bikini waxing and Male waxing articles for further detail. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)
This post is no longer a quick survey. The main question was whether or not it needs to contain so many images of people without pubic hair to illustrate the anatomical structure of pubic. That's all. I probably have had a number of trips down memory lane to last me a lifetime and these flashbacks don't answer the question posed in the survey. If, my editing history is part of the response to a question, then I probably won't bother to ask for input and instead comply with all policies that apply and go on with adding content. We are wasting a lot time going over my editing history to answer a simple question. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐✉14:12, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), you asked a question. I answered it. I stayed on topic. You then suggested creating a separate article. I explained why I felt that this was not a good solution and noted that I have tried to tell you why immediately jumping to creating a separate article often is not a good idea/should usually not be one's first course of action. I am well-aware that I am wasting my time going over these very valid points with you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject
Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.
I don't know why the OAuth tool is not working for you. It might be worth asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation. At least it highlights the articles relevant to this project which have an issues & you might be able to help with some of them without the tool.— Rodtalk07:53, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
Working on male reproductive system/genitalia articles
Anyone here interested in working on articles like Human penis? I ask because I don't see as much attention being given to male reproductive system/genitalia articles as is given to female reproductive system/genitalia articles. And that's despite the fact that the vast majority of Wikipedians (as shown by research) are male. Since 2015, Barbara (WVS)/Bfpage has been working on the Scrotum article, though. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:52, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
I find those articles impossible to work on due to the armies of SPAs and MRAs. The effort and need to justify each even non-controversial edit makes it just not worth it for me. Carl Fredrik talk09:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Has anyone use this? I have only accessed the links on the articles 2-3 times out of interest and find it completely useless. I'm wondering if we should just move it to Wikidata and remove it from the infoboxes as clutter? Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tom - this might be useless for "one who knows" but if you have a look for example at temporal lobe page it points to quite a bit of info - but a lot of the time i agree it doesn't add much. --Iztwoz (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
OK, this is potentially useful as you state, I withdraw my proposal to remove (there is already enough below to discuss!). --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Tom. I personally sometimes use FMA to see some basic information (name/spelling, classification and related structures). But not through Wikipedia link (which send us to this page), but I use at other page (for example OLS). How about changing link target? Even I who use FMA sometimes, I don't feel current linked page is useful design. Other example is BioPortal and Ontobee <- this is currently down. --Was a bee (talk) 06:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
@Was a bee bioportal is much better! I didn't realise there was so much information in FMA - could you make the change? Also if you could comment below, I'd be grateful... --Tom (LT) (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
P.S. FMA is biggest ontology (database) in anatomy field. So I think that it is worth linking from Wikipedia pages to FMA. But at the same time, FMA is essentially ontology (complex database). So it is basically not human friendly. For this reason, I'm thinking that perhaps putting the template like ru:Шаблон:Анатомические каталоги (I can't read Russian though) at bottom of the page might be good for readers. In medical field, there is template like this (Template:Medical resources).--Was a bee (talk) 12:23, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
Good point, Was a bee. For the moment I'm going to focus on updating our infobox series, and then as you say maybe we can have a discussion about moving them all down to the bottom. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Infobox parameters - request for editor participation
Hoping editors can comment (with a view to building consensus or otherwise) on two proposals:
Done thanks for your participation - have removed Dorlands from the infoboxes with the consensus we have established.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!
Hello, Please note that Organ (anatomy), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBottalk00:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team
Infobox parameters to remove
I would like to propose that we remove the following parameters from our infoboxes. Please comment so we can establish consensus or prove that there is none. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Dorland's
This is a proprietary database that is now defunct. It links to an archived dictionary definition. Even our stub articles are as big or bigger than this definition. We should remove it from our articles, but I need more comments here to build consensus - please contribute here.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: Done with consensus that we've established, and the help of a bot developed by Nihlus (see WP:BOTREQ) I've removed the links and code from our infoboxes and relevant articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Gray's
We shouldn't be providing a link on every one of our articles to the 1918 Gray's Anatomy, which celebrates its hundreth birthday this year. The content in Gray's Anatomy does not necessarily reflect current anatomical understanding, and is written in an abtruse manner. The diagrams have to be updated to match our TA-derived terminology. In addition, our articles that are based on Gray's Anatomy should either be matching or exceeding it in terms of content. I think we should transfer this data to Wikidata, and then remove the page and subject links in the infoboxes. Thoughts?--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Update: Done. Seeing as this is stored in Wikidata and there's been no objection to CFCF's removal 2 years ago, and additional supporting editors, I've removed the code from the infoboxes and Gray's from relevant articles, again with the help of a bot as above. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
BaMs
There is a term called "BamsSlug" which is used in only two of our pages Category:Pages using infobox brain with BamsSlug. A google search depressingly reveals this translated into our sister WPs in other languages [4]. I think we should remove this completely seeing as it clearly isn't used and, moreover, we still have a redlink pointing to it. Seppi333 can you comment if this is commonly used? Other thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
"BAMS" or "Brain Architecture Management System" is a useful database IMO, but probably not infobox worthy. I've used it for personal/contextual reference (NB: not article reference) when writing article content a few times and included it in an expansion tag in 1 article (Lateral hypothalamus#Inputs). It seems the url for that site has changed since the infobox parameter was created and when I added that reference to the lateral hypothalamus article. Previously, the base url was http://brancusi1.usc.edu; now it's https://bams1.org/. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Seppi333. I've removed this from the infobox and removed it from the two infoboxes that used it. It can be rediscussed for inclusion later if there's consensus to include.--Tom (LT) (talk) 00:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Maps
Lots of our infoboxes have a parameter called "ImageMap", which takes up a lot of space in terms of parameters (needs 4) in documentation and in the templates themselves. I have never seen these used and my brief test in {{Infobox brain}} and {{Infobox muscle}} found none (Category:WikiProject_Anatomy_infobox_parameter_use). When I have found such maps on articles I have found issues because: the code required is very long, they have a fixed width which impacts on readability, and they are not mobile friendly. I think we should remove these unused fields entirely to simplify our set of infoboxes and, if they are used, they can be included as they are presently in templates. Doc James may be able to provide some history and Mikael Häggström may be able to comment more on their usage (if not I apologise for the unnecessary ping). --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
Ah, well on further investigation we have about 9 articles using them, however there is no need for a special parameter. Use of the "image" parameter works just as well, so I have deprecated them all to that and will remove the unneeded parameter from our infobox set. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Update: Done I've removed the unused and redundant extra code for Maps, and shifted all the maps that are used in infoboxes to image fields. Readers won't notice any difference. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Bundled nerve, artery and veins
Somewhat confusingly, articles on arteries and veins often portray their corresponding structures like this:
Even though this is an artery, there is a field for a vein. Strictly speaking this isn't the vein to the artery, but the corresponding vein (see Neurovascular bundle).
My question is - for these structures (a full list is here: Category:Anatomy NAV infobox with use of other NAV parameters), would it be worth changing something to make it more accurate or easy to understand? Some options I have been thinking of include:
piped link is good but i am afraid that the access to it will be weak because usually the reader doesn't enter the main titles of the infobox but rather the information given by the field.
i think we can modify the 2nd suggestion to be like: Corresponding veinAxillary so it will not be long and no need to repeat the word "vein" because it is already mentioned in the field title.
third suggestion is to remove the the field and adding the corresponding vein in "See also" section of the article.
A user, مصعب, has used AWB to insert links to our Portal:Anatomy in what looks like almost every Anatomy article.
It was originally created in 2013 and hasn't been edited much since. We had a tiny discussion about this here and here with JakobSteenberg. Checkingfax and Wavelength made some helpful edits at the time.
The page currently receives 5-10 views a day and has been edited in total 5 times. This will be an interesting experiment to see how many daily views it accrues now that we have lots of edits. I think it would be appropriate seeing as مصعب has used an automated tool to link to it in so many places that the editor takes some responsibility for the quality of the page they are mass linking and edit it. I will also chip in and hopefully some of the other editors who have contributed to past discussions could also spare an edit or two to improve the portal seeing as the view count is likely to increase somewhat. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Please feel free to engage in the effort to prepare Vagina for its GA review. Current talk page discussions on proposed content are on the talk page. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS)✐ ✉ 12:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Further movement of infobox data to wikidata
We successfully moved quite a bit of template data (TA, TH, TE, and FMA) to Wikidata some time ago, which in my opinion has had a great follow-on effect on our infoboxes. I think we should keep going and move the remainder of our important parameters:
Data export was done (log). As additional information, currently Neurolex website http://neurolex.org/ is under the process of moving into new bigger website SciCrunch. As far as I checked, old website doesn't work, and new website not yet implement functionality to accept links using parameter {{{NeuroLexID}}}. So at this moment, I think it is good to simply removing NeuroLex section from infoboxes. Because data is stored in Wikidata (query), it's possible to use {{{NeuroLexID}}} to create links whenever anyone wants. --Was a bee (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
When their new website starts to support URL link using Neurolex_ID, it is possible to retrieve IDs from Wikidata and generate links automatically by using this code (sandbox diff). Although URL part http://www.neurolex.org/wiki/ have to be changed. --Was a bee (talk) 12:07, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I found new URL for NeuroLexID. Here is sandbox diff. @Tom (LT):, Could you please check this?
Used in all our articles {{Infobox anatomy}} also has two infobox parameters - GrayPage and GraySubject. It's important to preserve this information because many of our articles derives their content from it.--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:02, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
All data is already transferred to Wikidata (log). And now I added small code to Template:Gray's for making readers directly verifiable the source page. For example, see Anterior jugular vein#References. I would appreciate if anyone could check whether wording about page is natural. (Or if you feel no need of link, revert that. I don't have opinion about this. Good point is providing directly accessible link, bad point is linked text is already very old and link is perhaps noisy? I don't know.) Whatever, I think we no longer need infobox parameters for Gray. --Was a bee (talk) 13:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Was a bee, I had a look at the page and the link was working for me, I think what you've done is a great idea. Will let you know if any problems crop up but seems to be working fine at the moment. --Tom (LT) (talk) 14:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Done Gray's have been removed from the infoboxes in 2016 and I've removed the code from all articles that contain it, now that this is stored in Wikidata. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
All data is already transferred to Wikidata (log). Although situation was bit complicated, now it is possible to generate links to NIH by retrieving data from Wikidata, using this code (sandbox diff). So we no longer need data in infoboxes in Wikipedia. --Was a bee (talk) 12:03, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Sounds great, Was a bee, I have gone ahead and made this change. Are you sure all data has been moved? Basal ganglia, for example, has recorded Mesh data in the article's infobox but when I make this change nothing is ported from Wikidata. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:59, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Oh, thank you Tom (LT) for checking. I forgot to run bot for Infobox_brain. So I ran bot for that. (And I re-ran bot for all other infoboxes to make sure.) Then now it's OK. For your information, this link shows current Wikidata status of items which related to anatomy project, especially human gross anatomy. --Was a bee (talk) 18:33, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Complex situation about MeSH variables
Although I didn't write about details of the situation because it is complex. Now I write here for sharing situation (sorry for my laziness). There is complicated situation about MeSH variables between "Tree Number" and "Unique ID". Details are written in following hidden box (Very long and actually no need to read).
Extended content
Parameter |MeshNumber= used in Wikipedia infoboxes is called as MeSH Code (wikidata:P:P672) in Wikidata. And official name for this value is Tree Number in MeSH website. Yes, so complicated. Here after, I call this value as "Tree Number".
1.1. Basic format of "Tree Number" is starting from capital alphabet, followed by digits separated by dots (like A08.186.211.730.317.357).
1.2. "Tree Number" is not unique identifier about concept. MeSH's huge tree puts the same item at different positions repeatedly. "Tree Number" is assigned to these each tree positions one by one. For example, hypothalamus https://meshb.nlm.nih.gov/record/ui?ui=D007031 appeares two times in the tree (see "MeSH Tree Structures" tab). So hypothalamus currently has two "Tree Number", A08.186.211.464.497 and A08.186.211.730.317.357.
1.3. "Tree Number" is not stable identifier. When MeSH developers change thier tree structure, it seems that old "Tree Number" is abolished. As far as my impression through the exporting process, I feel that about a third of "Tree Number" registered in Wikidata seems already lost its link target (dead link), I don't know exact proportion of it though.
1.4 In English Wikipedia, currently "Tree Number" is written inside anatomy related infoboxes in about 800 pages. These all "Tree Number" were already exported to Wikidata (export log and query result).
There is more appropriate values to generate links to MeSH website. It is officially called as Unique ID. And it is called as MeSH ID (wikidata:P:P486) in Wikidata. Yes, complicated again. Here after, I call this value as "Unique ID".
2.1. Basic format of "Unique ID" is starting from capital alphabet, followed by digits without dots (like D007031).
2.3. In Wikidata, all items which have "Tree Number" also have "Unique ID". (see query result).
2.4. So currently it is possible to generate links to MeSH website using only "Unique ID" stored in Wikidata, without using "Tree Number". And actually done so by this update[5].
This confusion between "Tree Number" and "Unique ID" seems also happened in other project. (I saw the page about UBERON[6]). Switching from "Tree Number" to "Unique ID" is right way and we are in this course.
About English Wikipedia, after this WP:BOTREQ proposed by Tom is accepted, all MeSH related parameter in anatomy related infoboxes will be erased. So it's OK just to wait.
About Wikidata, perhaps it might be better to delete property MeSH Code (wikidata:P:P672) because it is not unique and not stable identifier. Even if keep the property P672, I suppose it may not be used by any project.
Update: Done. Thanks, how interesting. It seems like the unique ID is a better approach as it's individual to each article. At any rate, we've removed MeSH from all the articles and the infobox now automatically loads from Wikidata. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
BrainInfo
I have exported {{{BrainInfoNumber}}} and {{{BrainInfoType}}} data into Wikidata (Log). Although there were some complexities as like MeSH data, now it is possible to generate links to BrainInfo by retrieving data from Wikidata, using this code (sandbox diff). --Was a bee (talk) 15:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
@Tom (LT) A bit confusing though, their website name is "BrainInfo" and their database name is "NeuroNames"[7]. Now I can see links as NeuroNames. Can you? --Was a bee (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Just a thought - I often find myself making repetitive edits, and I wonder if we could just get a bot to do a sweep and have them done all at once? Things I find myself doing again and again:
Move {{Gray's}} to the beginning of the "Refernces" section
Reword "is innervated by" to "is supplied by" and rename move the section "Innervation" to a subsection of "Structure" called "Nerve supply"
Move the "History" section to near the end of the article as per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy
i totally Agree with this. If we can add "Bundled nerve, artery and veins" suggestions to the bot task --مصعب (talk) 20:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
Question about fovea jugulari
Hi, I'm writing the etymology section of Peters's wrinkle-lipped bat (Mormopterus jugularis) and the species authority wrote in his 1865 description that it had "fovea jugulari magna", likely inspiring its scientific name jugularis. I've been trying to understand the term so that I can add a hyperlink for readers, but I'm afraid I don't know what the modern counterpart of fovea jugularis is. A 1911 dictionary I found defined fovea jugularis as "the depression at the root of the neck between the sternal origins of the sternomastoid muscles." In short, what is Peters talking about and is there a page I can link to? Thanks. Enwebb (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
@Enwebb: What 1911 dictionary speaking about is human anatomical structure suprasternal notch. This is sure. But I don't know what 1865 description means. As far as my very limited Latin term knowledge, magna = big, jugulari = neck, fovea = hole. So "fovea jugulari magna" can be read as "big neck hole". Do these make sence? --Was a bee (talk)
@Was a bee: Yes, I think it must be suprasternal notch! Peters later wrote that it was a "deep transverse fossa immediately before the manubrium sterni," so that makes perfect sense. Thank you for your assistance. Enwebb (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Turns out many articles on cells have nowhere to live :( (I.e. don't fall under the aegis of any particular project). I'd say they relate to human microanatomy and so are associating them with our project as I fix up issues that have been identified or arisen as a result of the discussions about infoboxes above. Many cells have already been associated with our project but there's also a fair amount that haven't. I've re-created (and used) {{Infobox cell}} to be used on these articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
I can't stress how much impact this will have on our project. If there is consensus to remove all Wikidata, we will have to re-insert our data from Wikidata (including TA/TH/TE/FMA) back into articles and stop and form of interlingual links. Please contribute to the above RfC--Tom (LT) (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
Have created this draft navbox because I think it serves as a vital missing link in some of our articles - I feel many readers may want to surf between articles relating to these more general development articles. Could I ask for some feedback on:
Choice of name (can it be any simpler?)
Inclusion of other articles (eg development of specific organs - I don't want this navbox to be huge, but not sure if I have left anything out).
Articles organized according to field e.g. gross, micro, embyo etc.
Hi. I just finised organizing the last of our articles according to their respective fields/topics (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Anatomy_articles_by_topic]). The question I would like to ask you is; what should we do with it? I have some suggestions that I would like your inputs on and if you have any good ideas please let me know:
Reach out to Wikipedia:WikiProject Neuroscience and ask them if they would like our >2000 articles about neuroanatomy to be tagged within their project as well (hopefully this you increase the work being put in "our articles" from another project)
Would you please give it some thougth about what we can use this for. This classification could be a powerfull tool for us, it contains a lot of data and it took quite a long time to go through them, so please let me know what you think. Kind regards JakobSteenberg (talk) 19:29, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks JakobSteenberg, I saw your thousands of edits on our changelog over the last few weeks to months. This does open a lot of possibilities. From the looks of things, short of moving articles out of our scope it doesn't seem many of those projects are that active. Perhaps you can ask there what the project members think? I wonder also (which is why I originally added this) the possibility of some sort of collaboration with organisations outside of WP. I also often use this classification to make sure the proper articles are linked from navboxes and sidebars. Any ideas regarding collaboration with external anatomical entities, CFCF or Bluerasberry? --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:46, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
@Tom (LT) and JakobSteenberg: Thanks for the ping. I do not have anything insightful or promising to share.
Probably a near future goal should be moving this to Wikidata. We cannot depend on human labor to watch these many thousands of categories to make sure they stay correctly placed, so eventually, these categories need to go into a Wikidata scheme so that it is in a locked database form and it is easy for everyone do see and discuss potential changes as well as be able to query this.
There is no easy way to convert categories to Wikidata right now, so this does not have to be your concern. I expect that English Wikipedia categories will go to Wikidata in the next few years.
As for institutional partnerships - I cannot think of a good way to make a match right now. Also I cannot point to particular examples but the general buzz that I am hearing is that organizations which were unwilling to have partnerships with Wikipedia are more willing to have a partnership based in Wikidata. Many organizations which want their own data structured need help in doing it and Wikidata is the major connector. The way that I anticipate near future relationships to work is that organizations will post their data to an instance of Wikibase then anyone will be able to easily compare an institution's data with what is in Wikidata. Some people are saying that this will be the tipping point which gets the attention of expert organizations, and yes, probably this will start with anatomy and medicine. When that happens, I expect anything in English Wikipedia to be the foundation of what Wikidata compares with external authoritative databases.
Hello, as I mentioned here, that some text book said "adenoids are a symptomatic pathological hypertrophy of the nasopharyngeal tonsil. That in presence of certain predisposing factors (like allergy, environmental pollution..etc), abnormal hypertrophy of the nasopharyngeal tonsil occurs and normal physiological regression is slowed down (nasopharyngeal tonsil normally starts to diminish in size at the age of 7-8 years), and the hypertrophy condition here called adenoids". So if there's no objection I'll move the article from Adenoid to Pharyngeal tonsil? --Alaa:)..!11:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Hello Alaa - The named part of the anatomy is adenoid, aka pharyngeal tonsil and this is the page name being discussed. The name adenoid has the greatest number of hits on Google search - 1.3 million as opposed to 160 thousand for pharyngeal tonsil, and pharyngeal tonsil hardly registers on grams on which adenoid is recognised.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Iztwoz: Thanks for clarification, but I don't talk about (adenoid or pharyngeal tonsil), I talk about that Is adenoid = Pharyngeal tonsil or = pharyngeal tonsil hypertrophy? --Alaa:)..!13:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
You are talking about moving the page named adenoid to pharyngeal tonsil. Adenoid hypertrophy is a related medical condition. The use of adenoid overcomes confusion with tonsils.--Iztwoz (talk) 13:54, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
@Iztwoz: as I see in few books, that adenoid= hypertrophy condition of nasopharyngeal tonsil, and wrote that many people mixed between adenoid and nasopharyngeal tonsil. So, adenoid not an anatomical term, only medical term. Really I found it strange information, but when I found it, I think I should mention it here --Alaa:)..!19:25, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
How interesting. A quick skim over google reveals that adenoid is used both as relating to the nasopharyngeal tonsil, and also as a medical term to describe enlargement of said tonsils. We should make this clear in the article and, in my opinion, retain the current article title given that it's more commonly used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 04:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
This template is long, confronting and verbose, and I do not think it provides a navigation aid on pages.
What are the thoughts about moving it to a subsection of the page Neural pathways and/or integrating the information in the respective tract articles? Am looking through our huge collection of spinal cord related articles, which are in need of attention...--Tom (LT) (talk) 07:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Think this would be an improvement Tom (subsection Neural pathways and some info integrated on tract articles) probably as there is a general lack of clarity about use of tract, commissure, network, and pathway in which template might help. I think as well that the items not strictly on the tract such as their source etc could be weeded out since all the information is to be found on the tract itself; but for other groupings such as Pyramidal tract could have their own format. i don't know about the feasibility for separate templates for this.--Iztwoz (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Dorsal or posterior
Just to note re relevant suggestions - seems that a complete rationalisation of terms is needed. Different claims as to their usage are not consistent - Gray's clearly does use anterior and posterior (probably not exclusively). There is also possibly a mis-match between what may be the most used names on searches (as these will be in text books etc.) and what are most usually recognised by a general reader. Seems to me that posterior and anterior are more in popular usage. There would be a lot of changes needed were dorsal to be preferred over posterior which you don't need me to elaborate on. TA on the few pages i have looked at tend to use posterior and anterior and give English equivalents as posterior and anterior and English synonyms as dorsal and ventral. I know i opted to change back to Dorsal root ganglion as it was much more in use and of more help in identifying it - there being no anterior entity. as for the rest a preference as far as i'm concerned is for anterior posterior all the related terms anterolateral, posterolateral seem a clearer choice. however a clear choice either way is needed. --Iztwoz (talk) 19:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Have just had a look at items like Dorsal striatum and ventral striatum, dorsal respiratory group etc. the page Neuroanatomy makes it clear of the use of dorsal and ventral so perhaps there could be a noted difference of usage for anatomy and neuroanatomy.? --Iztwoz (talk) 19:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
They tend to be used more in neuroanatomy and embryology. Unfortunately as you say there is a lot of inconsistency in the way articles are named. Unless there is a compelling reason I think articles should be named according to their common name (WP:COMMONNAME) and descriptions in text if it can convey the same meaning should stick to the terms front/back or anterior/posterior, which I think are easier to understand than ventral/dorsal (WP:ANATSIMPLIFY). --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Some data for this discussion.
Dorsal - article titles that start with [8] (54), contain [9] (11)
Hi. I just noted that @Tom (LT): and I have been undoing some of each others work. Tom have been rating some of templates by importance and I have set them as NA. Should templates be rated by importance? What do you, Tom, and the rest of you think. JakobSteenberg (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Ah, sorry about that, this is unintentional and to boot, I think I am also inconsistent - sometimes I have marked them as NA and other times with an importance. I'm happy to follow your thoughts on this. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:53, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I've always marked them as NA, simply because it seems odd to rank them at all as their importance depends on where they are used. I think we should continue with this, if for no other reason than that it would be a lot of work to start marking them. Carl Fredrik talk13:13, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Really depends on the template, but in most cases, a template should be rated as {{WikiProject Anatomy|class=template|importance=NA}}. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:27, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.
Portals are being redesigned.
The new design features are being applied to existing portals.
At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.
Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.
Using some of the wonderful tools provided by Wikiproject Portals I've rejiggered and updated these portals, folded them into single pages (from a sprawling set of over 100 subpages and templates), and updated some of the look and contents. They're definitely not "finished" (nothing here ever is!) and I invite more eyes to these two portals. --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
There is a consensus that data drawn for Wikidata might be acceptable for use in Wikipedia if Wikipedians can be assured that the data is accurate, and preferably meets Wikipedia rules of reliability
This has relevance for our WikiProject owing to the tight integration of some Wikidata entries (like terminologica anatomica) in our infoboxes.
How do we use WikiData?
Our anatomy infoboxes integrate information from Wikidata. Information stored in Wikidata is used to provide additional links and "Authority control"-like sources (such as the terminologica anatomica entry) in the infoboxes. We don't at present include any factual information from Wikidata (at least based on my work on the infoboxes). That information (such as the relevant artery, vein, location, or system) is stored on each article.
Do we satisfy the RfC criteria?
It is my opinion that at present we meet the consensus criteria for inclusion as established in the RfC:
(a) in my experience so far, now over several years, the WD-sourced links are accurate. I have found the data transcluded to be accurate and have not yet encountered a linked TA/TH/TE or other WD-derived infobox link in our infoboxes to be vandalised or incorrect
(b) (i) because the WD-sourced information are all linked to respective databases, we have provided a mechanism for proving their reliability, even though (ii) it is my belief that these entries don't need to provide this because they are essentially links and AC-like content to articles so, not being factual content, do not need further evidence of reliability.
Do we satisfy the RfC criteria?: I think YES. Because currently used data is identifiers (e.g. TA/TH/TE) which are linked to external website. So anyone can verify whether certain identifier is correct or not by clicking ID.
How do we use WikiData?: There are many possibilities. For example, as you say, artery, vein, location, or system. But factual information needs sources even if information itself is obvious and not controversial. So, different from identifiers, I think we need any good source, whatever it is, for uses of Wikidata in other fields. I think FMA and UBERON could be one of such candidates. Are there any candidate or ideas? --Was a bee (talk) 22:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
Histology of the vocal folds
What should be done with Histology of the vocal folds? I'm tempted to remove the unsourced parts, leaving a very short article which could then be merged to Vocal folds. But I don't know enough about the subject to say whether this is a subject that deserves a separate article, or just someone's pet ramblings. Opinions? Kendall-K1 (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
If you are going to remove uncited or speculatory content, I think it would be suitable for a merge, taking into account that we often split content into structure (gross, micro, development), function and clinical significance sections, this article would probably be fairly amenable to one.--Tom (LT) (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
It is always worth trying to save, if you can find a reliable source to back it up. In these situations I might start by either reading some summaries from a relevant textbook/s and googling keywords if that doesn't help. --Tom (LT) (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
@Tom (LT) and Kendall-K1: I think a merge should be fine. On the one hand, having done a quick review of the manner in which the describes the anatomy and physiology, I can say that nothing stands out as controversial. And the article is not really a POVFORK or COATRACK in the strictest sense, as it doesn't provide descriptions deviating from or contradicting the main vocal folds article. But said main article is nowhere near the length it would need to be to force this content out via WP:SUMMARYSTYLE considerations, so I tend to feel these two would make a better joint article, if we cut just a bit of the fat here. If there is no rush to get this done this week, I will chase down the necessary sources to verify as much of the content as possible, and then we can decide what is worth retention, at which point I can begin to experiment with integrating the valuable content into the prose of the base article. Snowlet's rap02:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
The whole suite needs a lot of attention... will need some help if anyone can spare some hands. Ideally we can reuse content on WP without wasting time recreating too much, but there are some significant areas missing (please feel free to contribute any extras)
Development of significant organ systems (circulatory, respiratory, haematopoetic)
Role of the placenta
Role of medicine (imaging, testing)
Diseases
Aim here would be to create a short amount of sections with hatnotes that refer readers on to the respective articles, rather than cover in great detail on each subarticle. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I see that the Development of the human body article was titled "Human development (biology)" and you recently changed the title. This is what the article looked like before your recent changes. The "Age related descriptions" section is not development of the human body and should be removed; that content is better left to the Aging article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I thought (biology) was an odd and nondescript title so have moved it to be a narrower focus and for consistency with our other "Development of..." articles. I think it's useful to have as an overall article that other articles can link to and from... not sure if the content can be summarised in a short enough way to fit into human anatomy, and also if we remove it there will also be no article that covers... human growth (we'd just have embryo, fetus, and then... nothing, which is odd as unlike Huitzilopochtli we do not emerge from the womb fully formed) . Agree re. Outline of human anatomy, however from memory there was a discussion 1 - 2 years ago and some editors feel it is very useful. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)--Tom (LT) (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Human growth is covered by the Embryo, Fetus, Puberty and Aging articles. The Development of the human body article is not much outside of pre-birth development. The After birth section, with the exception of the puberty material (which is just a list), is social stuff. "Toddler," for example, is not development of the human body, unless one is extending that to cognitive development. So I really can't see why the article is needed or beneficial. And the Outline of human anatomy article is a waste of space (although Wikipedia does not run out of space). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
Fallopian tubes
Could we arrive at some consensus as to the use of Fallopian tubes vs Uterine tubes. I know that a proposal to move name to Uterine tubes was opposed some years ago - Fallopian tubes being the more common term. However several other pages use Uterine tube such as Isthmus of uterine tube, Infundibulum of uterine tube, Fimbriae of uterine tube and Ostium of uterine tube. I have just changed ampulla of uterine tube to ampulla of Fallopian tube and then found the others. The diagram used on the pages refers to fallopian tube. Also it seems that all these pages are stubs which would be better presented on Fallopian tubes page. ? Also is there any further recommendation on the inline use of Fallopian vs fallopian.--Iztwoz (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
N-gram here [12]. I am in favour of continuing to use "fallopian tubes" (in lower case), per my personal experience that it is more common, and the n-gram. 'Uterine tube' sounds a little weird to my ears and also doesn't appear to be as common. I feel all these subarticle could be merged into the main fallopian tubes article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
What an image! Coloured, good quality, draws attention to only a few structures, labels in English using common terminology, and not too many labels! A rare example of a very good anatomy image in my books.
Have just seen this image on Gut-brain axis and it makes me wonder, do we have a location here where we keep track of some of the best anatomy images? Such a repository would be fairly useful but it'd have to be low effort to maintain, and ideally done via the rater tool. As I'm sure you have seen from my previous posts over the years I consider the featured images process to be a bit of a joke (doesn't promote great images, insists on retaining inaccurate or shoddy images) so I'd rather not use that. Would this be useful, and any ideas how we'd go about doing it? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:40, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
I've been working on something, but it's kind of been on the backburner for a while. I will try to get back to you in a week. Feel free to ping me about it if I don't respond. Frankly, feel free to badger me incessantly, I need to get this done. Carl Fredrik talk10:36, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Also, unfortunately that image is copyrighted, as are most by Cancer.gov. https://visualsonline.cancer.gov/details.cfm?imageid=7206 :( They ran into the problem after they had commissioned all their images — having not included the clause that she was a federal employee when she drew them. As an independent contractor without the explicit need to transfer "all" rights to the NCI she kept the rights to any use beyond Cancer.gov material. When I spoke to some people from the NIH about it they seemed to regret it quite a lot, and I think they've changed their policies since. Carl Fredrik talk10:39, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi Tom, this is the original creator of the YouTube video that generated the term "Xander's Ligament." I wanted to apologize, and thank you. While I was not the one who edited the Wikipedia page to include my made-up term, I was made aware of the edit before you fixed it. I thought it was funny that someone had changed it, and then forgot about it. I apologize for not correcting it, I believe that my pride in having a viewer who liked my video enough to change the Wikipedia entry prevented me from removing it. Then, on a whim, I checked in August 2018 to see if the term "Xander's Ligament" was still up on the median umbilical ligament page and saw that it had been corrected, which led me to this talk page. Here, I was made aware that the published journal article containing the term exists. I reached out to the journal article author on 29 August with an email explaining how it happened and asking for clarification on how the term from my video made it to the article. I have not received a reply. Thank you for bringing all of this to my attention, and I would love to talk more about this (e.g. how did you become aware of the false terminology on that page?) and your job as an editor of the anatomy pages on Wikipedia--ARToftness — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARToftness (talk • contribs) 13:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Information
Can someone direct me to Wikipedia information related to: 1)- Cerebellomesencephalic fissure and, 2)- the Vein of cerebellomesencephalic (mesencephalic) fissure (Precentral (cerebellar) Vein? Otr500 (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
FWIW, it makes me idly wonder if de.WP (German Wikipedia) or en.Wiktionary.org has or lacks those terms, too. Too tired to check myself! Geekdiva (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
Muscles and bones
Muscles
The pages crural ligaments soleus and glueteus maximus do not exist. I post this notice in case somebody in your WikiProject would like to redirect or create the pages.
Source: Kipfer, Barbara Ann, Ph.D., Editor (2010). Roget's International Thesaurus. Collins. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
I feel some additional justification is used for some of these terms. As Iztwoz points out most terms are already here. Are all these terms notable enough? A google search for the typo "Acetabelum" reveals only 2,240 hits. @Iceblock are these terms all verbatim or are some spelling mistakes? Many are certainly not anatomical entities. --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:33, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Glueteus maximus is my mistake. The rest is written as in the source, but intermaxillary bone is probably the editor's intent instead of intermaxillary (shorthand form used in dictionaries, when it is followed by, in this case, incisive bone). I use bold to emphasise the words; the source does not use bold. Iceblock (talk) 18:10, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Males having nipples, and the lead sentence definition at the Nipple article
Moving some things from infobox to authority control
Question to all - what are your thoughts if we move some data from the infobox (especially the terminologia anatomica / histologica, FMA, MesH) to an authority control or external links template at the bottom of an article? (see eg. Influenza#External_links)?
I have two minds - it is smaller and takes away some visual clutter from the infobox; on the other hand I use these links as an editor quite often (although I am doubtful our readers do). The authority control box is also quite inconspicuous and might be missed. Thoughts? --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
This category lists pages that reference Wikidata properties that cannot be found neither by their property ID nor label.
Apparently an editor would have to guess which property is being requested but which does not exist. The problem comes from the infobox. For example, replacing all of Abdominal aorta with {{Infobox artery|Name=Example}} then previewing the result shows the hidden category is generated by the template, presumably via {{Infobox anatomy}}. (The hidden category can be seen in the "page information" link under "Hidden categories", or at the bottom of the page if the preference to show hidden categories is enabled.) Johnuniq (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Meh. @Johnuniq and @Geekdiva unless there can be a more specific way for Wikipedia to state which specific property is at fault, so that this can be changed, I will use my limited WP time elsewhere. When the bug is more clear I'll endeavour to fix it but I'm not going to waste an extensive amount of time delving into this when an automated response from the engine that puts the article in that category could make it much easier. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
Template anatomists
At long last someone (brilliant CFCF) has created {{Anatomists}}, to link the world's famous anatomists over time.
I think this is an important navigational link for editors, one that's been lacking for some time. It's been proposed for deletion on basis of disuse but I have since noticed this and plopped it in some articles and invite other anatomy editors to update the template and deploy it as appropriate. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
