This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Make a list of ambiguities in current naming conventionY
Make a list of proposed solutions to current ambiguities in the naming convention(for Name, Location, Action, Antagonist, occurences)
Describe what the decimal notation x.y means in O (Occurrences) as well as x-y, to avoid future misunderstandings
Ensure all entries follow muscle naming conventions.(Especially name, location and occurences columns to be coherrent with the naming convention. - Hereafter ideally also update numbers in the summery secion)
Fill in all empty/missing cells
Figure out what to do with antagonistic muscle relationships (remove or find a good source)
Mark the all the muscles which are specefic to males and females(so far only 4 have been marked)
Checking for fake muscles and misleading information in the table
Make a convention for which order the muscles should have in the standard list, that people see before they sort it(should this be based on maximal number of possible row merges, across all columns? or maximal number of possible row merges in just one of the columns? or something 3 entirely?)
I think they should only appear once, it's not like there are two different muscles named "Obliquus capitis superior muscle" (well, there are two muscles, one on each side, but we're ignoring that in this list). In fact I'm not sure at all about dividing up the muscles by section at all - I think a single giant sortable table with a "location" column would be more useful. Because I was comparing this list against some others (the ones Claes mentioned below) and it's really hard to quickly tell if a muscle is missing besides putting both lists in alphabetical order and going down the lists.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I find this is a very good suggestion. We could put it on the format: Is there any of the muscles currently in there which would not fit this format? or can we start implementing it to make sorting, compereson and assuring no duplicates easier?
I thinm beeing able to quickly sort the list according to any one of these factors so that it can quickly be compared to other lists and updated is key, to staying up to date and making the information easily accessible?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
09:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I was thinking about just having a "Count" column instead of the number of occurrences and wiki number. So for example if the list was thumb muscle 1, thumb muscle 2, thumb muscle 3, the count would be 2,4,6 (2 muscle occurrences of each type, one on each hand). But of course it does require a little more work of actually clicking through to each muscle page and counting the number of occurrences instead of just the current ???.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
04:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I looked at the page, the columns are pretty much all the same for each section. The bigger issue is what counts as a muscle / table row. E.g. occipitofrontalis is divided into the occipitalis and frontalis bellies. I personally would just list the most specific reference, so two rows for occipitalis and frontalis and not mention occipitofrontalis. The current organization gets around this by having indented rows within the table, but that won't work with sorting.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
05:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
So maybe a row called: 'Common subdivisions' of the muscle? I like the idear of adding each occurance of a muscle as its own seperate entety in the list. Then it could be specefied in the 'location in the body which of the occurences of the muscle which is beeing refered to.
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
13:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I tried adding an incompleate example of what we could do some of the [insert muscle] 2 are stilling missing some info, but it just have to be copied in from the identical muscle which is listed above it. With this list musle, it would be clear, how many there is of each muscle where they are as well as the total number of all muslce that one would find in a standard human born in our life time
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
13:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
After turning the tables already on wiki into sortable tables I noticed the blocks merged vertically are not so much the problem as these are automatically split when sorting, it is more vertical lines who are supposed to act as an indirect identifier such as: 'Rectus muscles' which sometimes start to be the wrong place after the lists are sorted. So that is one thing we need to overcome before we merge all the tables into one grand table. This could be solve like below by simply adding it in the name of all the muscles which it is relevant to.Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
14:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
tried to list all the dublicates: dorsal interossei, latissimus dorsi, levator scapulae, rectus capitis lateralis, obliquus capitis inferior, obliquus capitis superior is there 2 times, it also seems like innermost intercostal and internal intercostal are really the same thing? semispinalis capitis and splenius capitis is somehow in the neck and torso? Sternohyoid and sternothyroid seems oddly similar no?
They're all different muscles in TA. I have found that Wikipedia is lacking in good pictures for many muscles. If you google the muscles for better pictures you will see.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
21:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Would it make sense to make a list of these? so that there is a central starting point for someone who wants to update them or create conistency in it? or is that just extra work which will not be used? - I think that in the case mentioned above it a bigger issue as it can be potentially misleading?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
10:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
iliococcygeus, pubococcygeus and Puborectalis muscle all link to the same artcle, which is not a problem. But the article describes these as just a part of the same muscle rather then different muscles? which is a bit confusing?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
21:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
is there an overlab between: semispinalis (thoracis, colli) and (semispinalis, splenius, splenius) Capitis later on? some of them seems to be using the same image?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
22:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
with the two rows 'nasalis, alar part' and '
nasalis, transverse part' there seems to be an overlab between the information given in its name and in its location which is inconsistent with how we do it around Rectus, cricothyroid, arytenoid, cricoarytenoid and the still unsetteled Vocalis/thyroarytenoid?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
15:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
adductor muscles(which occurs from gracilis to
adductor minimus) also seems to describe a function rather then a location, even though this occurs in the location column maybe we could move this to the Agonistic relations column?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
20:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Often (male), (female) or (male/female) is listed in the location column. This information does seem highly relevant. However location does not seem to be the ideal place for it. Should we prehabs make a new column denoting which gender in which a given muscle can be found? or is there a smarter way to denote this? we could of course only mark the muscles unique to one gender then we have to remove all (male/female) markings. However location still does not seem like the right column to do it in? Maye in the Occurences column?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
21:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Does it make sense that we have 'iliocostalis thoracis' with the location 'Torso, Back, right/left' when we also have other muscles with the location 'Torso, Back, thoracis, right/left' ??
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
20:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
As well as longissimus thoracis, spinalis thoracis, multifidus thoracis, interspinales thoracis 1-3, intertransversarii, thoracis 1-9- Should we take the information out of the location column or out of the naming column?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
20:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If 'flexor digitorum superficialis' have superficialis in the name, shoulden't 'flexor carpi ulnaris, palmaris longus, flexor carpi radialis and pronator teres' not also have it in thier names?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
12:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Would it make sense to make an overview of what the different lating suffixes and prefixes mean? to also make it easier to new commers?
or is that more then the page needs? I feel it might be usefull to have around untill we settle on some muscle naming convenctions and implement them? Also to make clear that multple of these terms kind of mean the same thing, as well as how inconsitent it is how much information a muslce name gives about the actual muscle.
Latin Term
Meaning
Brevis
short, little
Flexor
a muscle whose contraction bends a limb or other part of the body.
Abbductor
a muscle whose contraction moves a limb or part away from the midline of the body, or from another part.
Superior
Above
Inferior
Below, beneth
Dorsal
on or relating to the upper side or back of an Organ
But I cannot find anywhere which is supposed to be used as pre-fix or suffix when? is there a guide to this somewhere that I am overlooking that we could use to make the naming of the muscle uniform? Also it seems to suggest minor, Major, Superior, Anterior, Inferior will always be locational information and thus never belong in the name? but rahter only in the location column? Does it make sense to update the convention to match this?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
20:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Visual representation to show orientation of muscles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnatomyWikipedia:WikiProject AnatomyTemplate:WikiProject AnatomyAnatomy articles
Make a list of ambiguities in current naming conventionY
Make a list of proposed solutions to current ambiguities in the naming convention(for Name, Location, Action, Antagonist, occurences)
Describe what the decimal notation x.y means in O (Occurrences) as well as x-y, to avoid future misunderstandings
Ensure all entries follow muscle naming conventions.(Especially name, location and occurences columns to be coherrent with the naming convention. - Hereafter ideally also update numbers in the summery secion)
Fill in all empty/missing cells
Figure out what to do with antagonistic muscle relationships (remove or find a good source)
Mark the all the muscles which are specefic to males and females(so far only 4 have been marked)
Checking for fake muscles and misleading information in the table
Make a convention for which order the muscles should have in the standard list, that people see before they sort it(should this be based on maximal number of possible row merges, across all columns? or maximal number of possible row merges in just one of the columns? or something 3 entirely?)
I think they should only appear once, it's not like there are two different muscles named "Obliquus capitis superior muscle" (well, there are two muscles, one on each side, but we're ignoring that in this list). In fact I'm not sure at all about dividing up the muscles by section at all - I think a single giant sortable table with a "location" column would be more useful. Because I was comparing this list against some others (the ones Claes mentioned below) and it's really hard to quickly tell if a muscle is missing besides putting both lists in alphabetical order and going down the lists.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
20:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I find this is a very good suggestion. We could put it on the format: Is there any of the muscles currently in there which would not fit this format? or can we start implementing it to make sorting, compereson and assuring no duplicates easier?
I thinm beeing able to quickly sort the list according to any one of these factors so that it can quickly be compared to other lists and updated is key, to staying up to date and making the information easily accessible?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
09:22, 29 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I was thinking about just having a "Count" column instead of the number of occurrences and wiki number. So for example if the list was thumb muscle 1, thumb muscle 2, thumb muscle 3, the count would be 2,4,6 (2 muscle occurrences of each type, one on each hand). But of course it does require a little more work of actually clicking through to each muscle page and counting the number of occurrences instead of just the current ???.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
04:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I looked at the page, the columns are pretty much all the same for each section. The bigger issue is what counts as a muscle / table row. E.g. occipitofrontalis is divided into the occipitalis and frontalis bellies. I personally would just list the most specific reference, so two rows for occipitalis and frontalis and not mention occipitofrontalis. The current organization gets around this by having indented rows within the table, but that won't work with sorting.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
05:03, 30 June 2023 (UTC)reply
So maybe a row called: 'Common subdivisions' of the muscle? I like the idear of adding each occurance of a muscle as its own seperate entety in the list. Then it could be specefied in the 'location in the body which of the occurences of the muscle which is beeing refered to.
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
13:19, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
I tried adding an incompleate example of what we could do some of the [insert muscle] 2 are stilling missing some info, but it just have to be copied in from the identical muscle which is listed above it. With this list musle, it would be clear, how many there is of each muscle where they are as well as the total number of all muslce that one would find in a standard human born in our life time
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
13:55, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
After turning the tables already on wiki into sortable tables I noticed the blocks merged vertically are not so much the problem as these are automatically split when sorting, it is more vertical lines who are supposed to act as an indirect identifier such as: 'Rectus muscles' which sometimes start to be the wrong place after the lists are sorted. So that is one thing we need to overcome before we merge all the tables into one grand table. This could be solve like below by simply adding it in the name of all the muscles which it is relevant to.Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
14:02, 1 July 2023 (UTC)reply
tried to list all the dublicates: dorsal interossei, latissimus dorsi, levator scapulae, rectus capitis lateralis, obliquus capitis inferior, obliquus capitis superior is there 2 times, it also seems like innermost intercostal and internal intercostal are really the same thing? semispinalis capitis and splenius capitis is somehow in the neck and torso? Sternohyoid and sternothyroid seems oddly similar no?
They're all different muscles in TA. I have found that Wikipedia is lacking in good pictures for many muscles. If you google the muscles for better pictures you will see.
Mathnerd314159 (
talk)
21:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Would it make sense to make a list of these? so that there is a central starting point for someone who wants to update them or create conistency in it? or is that just extra work which will not be used? - I think that in the case mentioned above it a bigger issue as it can be potentially misleading?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
10:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)reply
iliococcygeus, pubococcygeus and Puborectalis muscle all link to the same artcle, which is not a problem. But the article describes these as just a part of the same muscle rather then different muscles? which is a bit confusing?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
21:56, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
is there an overlab between: semispinalis (thoracis, colli) and (semispinalis, splenius, splenius) Capitis later on? some of them seems to be using the same image?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
22:44, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
with the two rows 'nasalis, alar part' and '
nasalis, transverse part' there seems to be an overlab between the information given in its name and in its location which is inconsistent with how we do it around Rectus, cricothyroid, arytenoid, cricoarytenoid and the still unsetteled Vocalis/thyroarytenoid?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
15:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
adductor muscles(which occurs from gracilis to
adductor minimus) also seems to describe a function rather then a location, even though this occurs in the location column maybe we could move this to the Agonistic relations column?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
20:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Often (male), (female) or (male/female) is listed in the location column. This information does seem highly relevant. However location does not seem to be the ideal place for it. Should we prehabs make a new column denoting which gender in which a given muscle can be found? or is there a smarter way to denote this? we could of course only mark the muscles unique to one gender then we have to remove all (male/female) markings. However location still does not seem like the right column to do it in? Maye in the Occurences column?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
21:08, 27 July 2023 (UTC)reply
Does it make sense that we have 'iliocostalis thoracis' with the location 'Torso, Back, right/left' when we also have other muscles with the location 'Torso, Back, thoracis, right/left' ??
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
20:29, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
As well as longissimus thoracis, spinalis thoracis, multifidus thoracis, interspinales thoracis 1-3, intertransversarii, thoracis 1-9- Should we take the information out of the location column or out of the naming column?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
20:34, 31 July 2023 (UTC)reply
If 'flexor digitorum superficialis' have superficialis in the name, shoulden't 'flexor carpi ulnaris, palmaris longus, flexor carpi radialis and pronator teres' not also have it in thier names?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
12:49, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Would it make sense to make an overview of what the different lating suffixes and prefixes mean? to also make it easier to new commers?
or is that more then the page needs? I feel it might be usefull to have around untill we settle on some muscle naming convenctions and implement them? Also to make clear that multple of these terms kind of mean the same thing, as well as how inconsitent it is how much information a muslce name gives about the actual muscle.
Latin Term
Meaning
Brevis
short, little
Flexor
a muscle whose contraction bends a limb or other part of the body.
Abbductor
a muscle whose contraction moves a limb or part away from the midline of the body, or from another part.
Superior
Above
Inferior
Below, beneth
Dorsal
on or relating to the upper side or back of an Organ
But I cannot find anywhere which is supposed to be used as pre-fix or suffix when? is there a guide to this somewhere that I am overlooking that we could use to make the naming of the muscle uniform? Also it seems to suggest minor, Major, Superior, Anterior, Inferior will always be locational information and thus never belong in the name? but rahter only in the location column? Does it make sense to update the convention to match this?
Claes Lindhardt (
talk)
20:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Visual representation to show orientation of muscles