![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Urination pages. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Yup, we just got an article for that: Jelqing. Not sure if it is a myth/urban legend. Besing said that, i am not sure if it deserves an article on enwiki. Would somebody please take a look at it? Thanks, —usernamekiran (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Talk:Vagina#Added physiology section. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not a section titled "Physiology" is needed in light of what WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy states about choosing section titles and when existing sections already cover physiology. Basically, the discussion is about whether a new section is needed or whether the material adequately fits in existing sections. The discussion is also about sourcing for anatomy articles, an aspect that was addressed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, per this request on Wikidata I opened this section. The Pelvic floor article introduction said "The pelvic floor or pelvic diaphragm", but as I clarified on Wikidata request that Anatomy textbooks mentioned some differences. So what is your opinion? and can we fix the article? and make another article for Pelvic diaphragm? or move it? or....? -- Alaa :)..! 16:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Some sources do not consider "pelvic floor" and "pelvic diaphragm" to be identical, with the "diaphragm" consisting of only the levator ani and coccygeus, while the "floor" also includes the perineal membrane and deep perineal pouch.[2] However, other sources include the fascia as part of the diaphragm.[citation needed] In practice, the two terms are often used interchangeably.
Embryogenesis – would this page name be better as (MeSH entries) Embryonic development; likewise Human embryogensis to Human embryonic development? Also can see little benefit in having the page Prenatal development which duplicates a lot of material on Human embryogenesis. Would it be better to change this to Fetal development which would also give clearer linkings. Fetal development also has a MeSH entry. -- Iztwoz ( talk) 13:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
A past discussion ( here)
Overview of the way things are organised:
Organisation of general development articles
|
---|
|
![]() Hello, |
Like I noted at WP:Med, Orangelioncat ( talk · contribs) is a new account. Some here might want to review Orangelioncat's edits to penile articles. Looking at images and sources he's used, there appears to be a WP:Conflict of interest aspect to the editing. I've already welcomed Orangelioncat with a WP:Med template. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Note:
Nasal_septum_deviation#Diagnosis.--
Hildeoc (
talk)
17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Anatomy team,
I am a general reader and landed on this Talk page looking for a way to send an editorial note to the the team curating /info/en/?search=Heart_development. If there is a mechanism to send a note without intruding on this Talk page, well, I've missed it. Regards section "Endocardial tubes":
This article section broadly seems intended as a chronology which then sets reader expectations on how the content will be organized and grouped in reading order, and, for embroyology, how the dependencies flow. My editorial note is that the current section content reads as if paragraph three was the original overview chronolgy content then one or more super fans of splanchnopleuric mesenchyme tacked two un-coordianted notes above the original overview paragraph. Consider the first sentence of Para 3: "At around 18 to 19 days after fertilisation, the heart begins to form." Great opening sentence - short, punchy, to the point. Yet it leads Para 3, not Para 1. So the section reads as if the section content is re-booting at Para 3 and forget about that splanch blah blah mumbling of Paras 1 & 2. Further, Paras 1 & 2, while each containing unique information, reads as redundantly talking about splanchnopleuric mesenchyme, neural plate and endocardial tubes.
IFF this section is intended as a multi-step chronology, or at least a sequence, then I suggest a re-write as:
At around 18 to 19 days after fertilisation, the heart begins to form. [keep this strong opener!]
Days 18-19 {stuff that happens}
Days 19-xx {stuff that happens}
Days xx-xx {stuff that happens}
Days 21-22 {stuff that finishes up and the pump starts}
Days 22-xx {existing content (last sentences of Para 3) about what happens after the pump starts. However, does some of this duplicate section "Heart folding" content?}
The above is really about prompting the writer to clearer, chrono-centric organization of the content, not necessarily those literal sub-heads.
Regards making dependencies clear, for example, does pump start depend on endocardial tube fusion completing or not? Maybe that is an unknown. Can't really tell from the existing article content.
Regards
FLIP1970 ( talk) 02:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I invite comment here: Talk:Thyroid#Hatnote. [1]. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Just letting editors here know that Front hole ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Discussion about the article has taken place on its talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been accepted to host a Wikipedia workshop at IFAA2019 conference in London this August. The workshop will also include my research work which addresses the quality of anatomy articles on the English Wikipedia. Please visit my grant request for more information, and don't forget to endorse my request. Thank you in advance. -- Athikhun.suw ( talk) 13:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I'm working through the list of unsourced articles and there are some that I have questions about:
Thanks for any input. Natureium ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I only learned about this portal recently, when I did a quick once over to tidy it up somewhat. Deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human body.
Please contribute your thoughts. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Coming from the Plantar fascia page which has a photo showing a foot being dissected. I can't argue that it isn't a helpful image, and yet, I found its inclusion more disturbing than enlightening. By contrast, University uses an illustration for their unit on foot dissection which conveys information without triggering the visceral response of a photo.
Apparently there was discussion on how to handle graphic imagery on wikipedia over a decade ago, that ultimately seemed to have stalled out. But I would like to recommend against including photographs of dissections. rubah ( talk) 19:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Woman#Proposed edits to lede. A permalink for it is here. The topic concerns this project due to the biological/anatomical aspects. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Differences of sexual development. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Article alerts now includes merges and articles for creation, which makes these areas much easier to track. Hurray! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I just saw this, which is about File:Vulva collage 12.jpg. See the nomination page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I've expanded Eyelid with a section on ethnic variation (the "Asian upper eyelid" according to the study title), since it didn't mention epicanthic folds at all before. However, the Epicanthic fold article has left me, many of its editors, and possibly the general population confused on what it actually is for over a decade. Terms like monolid (and previously " Asian eyes") redirect there. Any images outside of the infobox that would've helped have been added and replaced constantly due to no one agreeing on what it is.
After looking into this it appears to me that whether one has "single" or "double" or "Caucasian" eyelids is not intrinsically linked to having or not having an epicanthic fold, and I've kept them separate in the section I added.
I would appreciate any help from people knowing eyelid terminology to make the Epicanthic fold article easier for non-technical people to understand. 9 3 ( talk) 02:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I added an image to Eyelid#Variations in structure and captioned it with my understanding of the differences, as well as adding explanations to the leads of Eyelid and Epicanthic fold. 9 3 ( talk) 21:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Vulva#Mons pubis vs. mons veneris. A pemalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at the following:
Talk:Labia#New_lead_image
Talk:Vulva#Proposed lead image
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just wondering if anyone had access or could upload an image of the anorectal junction histology? Was editing rectum and I think it would be quite useful for readers to see the transition between the epithelia of the two regions. Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Terminologia Anatomica second edition (TA2) will be released this August. Thank you user:Mwhalle for letteing me know this at my talk page. Then I proposed new property for TA2 at Wikidata ( d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/TA2_ID). Please take a look. Thank you. -- Was a bee ( talk) 19:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Name | TA | TA2 |
---|---|---|
tibia | A02.5.06.001 | 1397 |
heart | A12.1.00.001 | 3932 |
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I have been editing at prostate and stumbled upon our horrible and confusing lot of lymph node articles. Have a look at some and you'll see what I mean (see, eg. external iliac lymph nodes) - the fragmentation makes it hard to understand and edit, the images are also not very nice. Currently we have:
Current arrangement
|
---|
I feel this produces quite a difficult set of articles to navigate and understand. What would be your thoughts about upmerging the smaller articles into their parents, producing a set of four articles instead?
Proposed arrangement
|
---|
|
I think this would produce some articles that are much easier to navigate and understand. Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the development of the urinary system which includes reproductive and urinary is not named development of the genitourinary system? -- Iztwoz ( talk) 11:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm not greatly enthusiastic about the way our navboxes are currently arranged. They do a good job if I want to trace a blood vessel or nerve from origin to destination, but in my mind we are missing a set of navboxes relating to structures - eg things like the hand, elbow, shoulder etc. In my mind I would much rather be able to easily navigate to things that relate to these gross structures than to have a list of, eg., all joints or ligaments in the arm. On the other hand, most of this information is provided in parent articles and the infoboxes so a new set of navboxes may just contribute clutter, duplicate other ways of finding information, and not be useful at all. What are others thoughts on this? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#You'll_all_want_one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
-- Irony of prudent premise ( talk) 17:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Every so often I feel it's worth celebrating something positive. I often keep an eye on the change log. Sometimes it's very disappointing - lots and lots of either vandalism or bot edits or clustered edits to reference formatting. This week is one of those rare weeks where there's been a fairly high proportion of constructive edits, made by lots of editors (old and new) and in what appears to be in good faith. I thought this might be worth sharing. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Would it be useful with redirects from these?
Utfor ( talk) 17:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
PS @ Utfor what made you think to ask this? Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Introducing
Template:The Anatomist Barnstar.
Jerm (
talk)
19:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Golden Galen barnstar | |
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Galen barnstar for your contributions to Wikipedia's anatomy articles. Thank you for your contributions and well done! |
I'll add yours to our main page :).-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Some great high quality images have been added by Manu5 recently with thanks (although the captions could be slightly tweaked) - just wondering what the thoughts are about use beyond just the parent articles? Quality, resolution, simplicity and labelling are all great -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Skene's gland#Why is Wikipedia calling this the "Skene's gland" when the proper name is "female prostate". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've been thinking about this one for a while. As far as I know, there are 4 types of cells in the body commonly referred to as "follicular cell". But here on WP, there is one of them, which isn't even the most common (the thyroid one), taking the base title "follicular cell". So I've written Follicular cell (disambiguation), and I want to propose moving it to the base title Follicular cell, previously moving the thyroid one to a more specific name. Would there be consensus for this? Thanks! Dr. Vogel ( talk) 14:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, the round ligament artery and Sampson [sic] artery describe the same artery. They should probably be merged, and the redirect should be from Sampson's artery (possessive). I wanted to notify the project before merging, for others to confirm. Modeum ( talk) 19:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm looking at the trabecula article, which is mainly about the trabeculae in bone, and I can't help thinking that there are several other structures in the body also called trabeculae, such as in the kidney, the penis and the head, to name some. Would there be consensus in the community to move that article to something like trabecula (bones) and then in the base title have a relatively short article about what trabeculae are, and then link from that article to all the articles that discuss trabeculae in other parts of the body? Dr. Vogel ( talk) 20:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys. This article, which I think is of extreme importance, had 15 instances of the "citation needed" template. I've sat down with 3 basic books and provided citations for all of them, correcting the claims when they disagreed with the sources. How else do you reckon we can improve this key article? Dr. Vogel ( talk) 15:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've turned the redirect at vasa recta into a dab page, as there is more than one vessel with that name. There are 2 different ones, possibly 3. I feel that it would be a good idea to move Straight arterioles of kidney to Vasa recta (kidney), because that title would achieve 3 things:
How do you guys feel about this? Dr. Vogel ( talk) 09:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
English synonym consistency with straight venules. No opinion on this matter so far, but thought you'd find this useful. Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I found the terms in Corbeil, Jean-Claude; Archambault, Ariane (2013). Mini norsk-engelsk visuell ordbok (Mini Norwegian-English Visual Dictionary). Kunnskapsforlaget.
Which are the correct singulars? (Found in Quick Study Muscular System)
Would it be useful with redirects from any of these?
Would it be useful with a redirect from e.g. Extensor hallucis longus tendon to Extensor hallucis longus and from similar titles to titles without "tendon"? Utfor ( talk) 18:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Are these appropriate redirects ? If so, what targets should the last two have? Utfor ( talk) 16:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Hi all, is there somewhere a list of red links relevant to the human heart or aorta? Please ping. Cinadon 36 08:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
hi guys, I am new to this page. I was focusing in eye only. mainly translating eye related articles to regional language Malayalam. now my eye anatomy contribution to Malayalam wiki is 58 articles (total ophthalmology/optometry articles translated is 93.) I am also interested in improving eye anatomy related articled in English also. Done some contributions to English articles already. since I am focusing only in Eye, Let me know whether I can join this Project or not. Ajeeshkumar4u ( talk) 05:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This interesting proposal is made here: Talk:Sensory_neuron#Merger_Proposal_2. Please have a look and comment if you have an opinion. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Most anatomical structures have received various names through the course of time. Often, they are labelled according to their Greek and then latin names, then translated into English or "rediscovered" during the reconnaissance, for a few generations and sporadically thereafter referred to eponymously by the name of that person, then in the interests of ease of use and returning to roots the eponyms are removed. This is my uncited perspective.
I want to ask what other editors think about moving some of the eponyms away from the introductory sentences? These sentences are very important because they are (1) the only thing readers may want to view, and (2) often reposted throughout the internet. Sometimes there is a thousand or million-fold difference in the use of an eponym vs. not and I think including them in the lead provides WP:UNDUE attention. I wonder if they are better described in the 'history' or 'society and culture' subsections.
Eg "Andersch nerve" [4], "Arantius ligament" [5]
What prompted me to ask this is a series of what I think are good faith insertions of rare eponyms by Dominikbilicki. What do other editors think about moving these out of the introductory sentence? If there is some consensus I will make a more formal suggestion to WP:MEDMOS relating to these sort of things in the lead. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 02:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've just deleted all changes I introduced. I wanted to provide the sources of the information I added but as you suggested eponyms might be "obscure" or "unfriendly" for the reader. I hope that potential reader will find such information (for example to honour the scientist who discovered these structures or simple to have access to as much information as possible) in different websites or in books. Ciao. Dominikbilicki ( talk) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, hope that you are well!
I've nominated Anatomical terms of location for good article status. It's a very important article for us as a project. It's our 61st most viewed article ( WP:ANAT500) and receives about 45,000 views monthly and, if done well, it has the potential to be very useful to readers. It's linked in many articles and in the infoboxes of some articles.
I would really appreciate fresh sets of eyes to have a look, make some corrections or post on the talk page of the article as to how it could be improved to get to GA status. I've been editing since 2014 so I am having that feeling that I know there are issues, but it is very hard to identify them as I've viewed / edited it so many times. If people aren't aware, articles for GA are reviewed against six criteria ( WP:GACR). One thing I am very keen on is making sure it is as understandable to lay readers as possible ( WP:ANATSIMPLIFY), so I am trying very hard not to make it excessively technical or complicated. Ping to Ajpolino who has provided some really useful feedback recently on some other good article reviews. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Puberty#Prepubertal differences in sexes. A permalink for it is here. Right now, the content being discussed is the "only major difference in physical appearance between prepubescent boys and girls are the external sex organs" wording. I'll also alert WP:Med to the discussion for wider input. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I have made some small changes to the manual of style for anatomy articles ( WP:MEDMOS), mostly to just update it against what happens in practice. Discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Some_anatomy_edits. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
This list includes major parts of the |
Respiratory tract |
---|
![]() |
This article is one of a series documenting the anatomy of the |
Human heart |
---|
![]() |
Major parts of the |
Gastrointestinal tract |
---|
Hi all, I was doing some housecleaning and realise some time ago I created a series of sideboxes to make navigating between some of our articles easier - particularly subjects where there is a logical physical flow (eg
gastrointestinal tract,
respiratory tract) and it might be easier for lay readers to have a small sidebox of the main parts in that thing, as compared with our overflowing navboxes. I was worried though at the time that these might just clutter the article space and not be useful, so because of this doubt haven't deployed them other than around
ear and
epithelium.
I'd like to ask what other editors think about this? Would it be useful for me to put these in article space? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, For Anatomy WP, I added progression, pie graph, rainbow. JoeNMLC ( talk) 16:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
In the book endoscopic surgery of the lacrimal drainage system (Springer isbn=978-3-319-20632-5), chapter "anatomy of the lacrimal drainage system" mentions a third type of accessory lacrimal gland.It is named as Popov's glands. But I failed to find the same in other eye anatomy/ophtalmology books (with me). Is it good to mention the gland in article accessory lacrimal glands with above mentioned book reference or wait for another source? Asked the same in article talk page also. Ajeeshkumar4u ( talk) 04:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Parts of the article deal with a lot of anatomy. Not being very medically oriented I can't put those parts in order by myself. Seriously need some help. Aditya( talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, it's about time for a newsletter (more than two years since the last one in fact). My draft newsletter is here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7. Please let me know if I've forgotten something. Also, I'd be interested in some reflections from editors active in this space on their experience editing in the topic area, whether that be notable experiences or tips for new editors, and I was thinking of including this as the feature piece. If you'd like, please drop your reflections on the talk page ( User talk:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7), where I've already pinged a couple of editors. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
We need opinions on the following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Removing guidance about the lead, and adding a bit about terminology and technical language. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
For our project's mid year Christmas in July gift, I present:
150 B-class articles: 102.7% complete | ||
It is heartening to see the articles under our project's scope are gradually improving (this is copied from our main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Goals):
Month | Good articles | B-class articles | C-class articles | Start-class articles |
---|---|---|---|---|
December 2013 | 5(9,333 total) |
70 |
315 |
1,006
|
June 2014 | 9(9,916 total) |
94 |
527 |
1,395
|
December 2014 | 14(10,419 total) |
100 |
552 |
1,485
|
May 2015 | 15(12,766 total) |
102 |
589 |
1,543
|
December 2015 | 16(13,318 total) |
112 |
610 |
1,567
|
May 2016 | 19(19,719 total) |
116 |
617 |
1,570
|
October 2016 | 20(19,828 total) |
116 |
615 |
1,580
|
July 2017 | 25(20,108 total) |
120 |
673 |
1,585
|
January 2018 | 29(20,179 total) |
129 |
687 |
1,595
|
June 2018 | 32(20,417 total) |
141 |
777 |
1,611(2,298 stubs)
|
Dec 2019 | 33(20,608 total) |
148 |
839 |
1,664(2,308 stubs)
|
August 2020 | 37(20,671 total) |
154 |
851 |
1,666(2,289 stubs)
|
The doubling in total articles is mostly explained by an increase in redirects included within our project's scope
The class (stub, start, C, B) of most articles was fully reviewed a couple of years ago, and although the articles under our project's scope are gradually increasing, it is my feeling that most of the improvement that we've measured is due to actual improvement of articles - increase in size, referencing, etc. Well done to all!
Should we set an ambitious goal of, say, more than 250 B-class articles as our next goal? Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Talk:Gut flora#Requested move 4 September 2020: Add "human" to the title?. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 06:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Terminologia Anatomica and Terminologia Embryologica, essential aids to our classification and titling of many articles, have received second editions released in August last year. At the time Was a bee had brought them to our attention ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_12#TA2_will_be_released). Unfortunately the thread was left at this cliffhanger (my bad...):
Thank you I recieved Excel file through e-mail. I added data at Wikidata. Now TA2 has 2,625 IDs ( wikidata:Property talk:P7173). Now it covers 70% of TA98 ID ( wikidata:Property talk:P1323). Then what about...
- Adding TA2 section to the infobox. (and Moving TA98 into authority control box?)
- Changing link target of TA98 to https://taviewer.openanatomy.org. It can shows the tree, and English headings. For example, Heart at the old site [6] and new site [7]
@ Tom (LT):, @ Mwhalle: -- Was a bee ( talk) 03:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Was a bee, could I ask whether by now all TA98 is matched to TA2, and if there's also been an update on Wikidata to corresponding TE2 entries? (and if we have terminologia neuroanatomica? [8])
If we have close to full corresponding entries, we can probably put TA2 and TE2 in the infoboxes and deprecate TA and TE to the authority controls; if however there's still a big mismatch we may need to add both the new and old terms to the infoboxes for consistency while the gaps are filled. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
| label50= [[Terminologia Anatomica|TA2]] | data50 = {{#if:{{#property:P7173}} | {{wikidata|properties|P7173|format=\[https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/?id=%p %p\][%s]}} }}
Released September 2020 · Previous newsletter
Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our seventh newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.
I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.
Yours truly, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
new good articles since last newsletter include Epiglottis, Human nose, Pancreas, Prostate, Thymus, Trachea, T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review |
![]() |
A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article |
![]() |
We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years |
![]() |
In the real world, Terminologia Anatomica 2 and Terminologia Embryologica 2 are released ( [9], [10]). Terminologia Anatomica 2 is now included in anatomy article infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well |
![]() |
A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{ subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}}) |
![]() |
Portal:Anatomy receives some attention, and two related portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals) |
![]() |
Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ( [11]) and Hippocampus ( [12]) are published in Wikiversity. |
I have been asked to write up something introducing the Featured article (FA) process to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.
A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikipedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to standard—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!
Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The Anatomy WikiProject has tagged 4 FAs, 1 Featured list, and 30 Featured media. Working towards upgrading and maintaining older Featured articles could be a worthwhile goal. Immune system is a 2007 FA promotion, and bringing it up to date would make a nice collaboration between WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.
Whether tuning up an older FA at Featured article review, or attempting a new one to be reviewed at Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay is helpful.
You can read the essay "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.
SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations
This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, remove your name from the mailing list
Feel free to discuss below. Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Heads up -
Please add articles if more arise so we can keep an eye on them. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Fallopian tube#Proposed merge of Oviduct into Fallopian tube. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts are needed on the following: Talk:Human skin color#Description regarding differences in skin among individuals. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Immune system has been proposed to run TFA on the mainpage as the COVID vaccine is launched: please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Immune system SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft:National Journal of Clinical Anatomy
I have to ask only because of low-quality journals infesting academia the last decade or two.
If it is, I'll accept the draft, cleanup can be done later. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I have been working on the crown (anatomy) article for my assignment and I was just wondering what class or grade it is currently on? Thank you in advance Physiotherapist1234 ( talk) 00:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of anatomy, could someone reply to me at Talk:List_of_internal_rotators_of_the_human_body? Hesitant to be bold on this one.-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 02:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Hesitant to be bold on this one.
User:Flyer22, longtime wikipedian and highly active on this project, has sadly passed away.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Menstrual cycle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like all documents related to Terminologia Embriologica (TE) went offline, resulting in dead links on wikipedia articles about embryology using a TE identifier (all of them!). Is anyone aware of this? -- Anton.t.gregersen ( talk) 10:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE: As said I wrote the university behind the webpage and a helpful man has now restored the source documents as PDF-files instead of the deprecated flash ones. The new files are public avaible here. Was a bee what do you suggest we do from here? -- Anton.t.gregersen ( talk) 14:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I wanted some advice on the name of an article.
Kuduloka correctly pointed out to me that the article Patellar ligament may not have the most suitable name. Both Gray's Anatomy and Sobotta's Atlas list it as the patellar ligament, but may other sources list it as the patellar tendon. This term is currently a redirect page.
Normally, the patellar ligament runs from the patella to the tibia, so would be a ligament. However, before the patella forms, the only structure present is the continuation of the tendon of quadriceps femoris muscle. The patella forms as an ossification of the quadriceps femoris tendon. What are everyone's thoughts on this? If you think that the term "patella tendon" is more appropriate, then I will move the content from "Patellar ligament" to "Patellar tendon", unless you feel that a formal move request would be better.
Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Ajpolino put up a list of protected articles on Medicine and I thought it would be interesting to do the same for us. Here's the quarry page [14] and here's the list:
CONCAT(' | page_is_redirect | pr_type | pr_level | pr_cascade | pr_expiry |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buttocks | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Buttocks | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Torso | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Anus | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Anus | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_back | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Rectum | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Rectum | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Breast | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Breast | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Elbow | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_muscle | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_muscle | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_nerve | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_nerve | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_bone | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_bone | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_vein | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_vein | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_ligament | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_ligament | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_embryology | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_embryology | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Dissection | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Muscle | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Muscle | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Head | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_leg | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Forearm | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_penis_size | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_penis_size | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Colon_(anatomy) | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Touch | 1 | sysop | 0 | infinity | |
Touch | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Somatosensory_system | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Clitoris | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Clitoris | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_skull | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Mammary_gland | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Fat | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Fat | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Tooth | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Tooth | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Thigh | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Semen | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Semen | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Leonardo_da_Vinci | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Leonardo_da_Vinci | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Anatomy-stub | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Anatomy-stub | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Musculoskeletal-stub | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Musculoskeletal-stub | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Testicle | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Testicle | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Foot | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Foot | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Fingerprint | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Fingerprint | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
G-spot | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
G-spot | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Body | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Testicles | 1 | sysop | 0 | infinity | |
Testicles | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Vulva | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Vulva | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_anus | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_anus | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Muscular_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Muscular_system | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Cranial_nerves_short | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Cranial_nerves_short | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_brain | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_brain | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Gray's | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Gray's | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Reproductive_system | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Nervous_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Nervous_system | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_anatomy | 0 | templateeditor | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_anatomy | 0 | move | templateeditor | 0 | infinity |
Frenulum_labiorum_pudendi | 1 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Frenulum_labiorum_pudendi | 1 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Heart | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Eye_color | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Excretory_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Excretory_system | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Respiratory_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Spinal_cord | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Ear | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Finger | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Bone | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Female_body_shape | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Brain | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Brain | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Circulatory_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Nipple | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Nipple | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Face | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20210921114332 | |
Face | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20210921114332 |
Stem_cell | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:WikiProject_Anatomy | 0 | templateeditor | 0 | infinity | |
Template:WikiProject_Anatomy | 0 | move | templateeditor | 0 | infinity |
Early_modern_human | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Early_modern_human | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Eye | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Eye | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Facial_hair | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_body | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Vagina | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Vagina | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Blood | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Blood | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Scrotum | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Anatomy_terms | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Anatomy_terms | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_artery | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_artery | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Neuroanatomy-stub | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Neuroanatomy-stub | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Human_skeleton | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_skeleton | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:FMA | 0 | templateeditor | 0 | infinity | |
Template:FMA | 0 | move | templateeditor | 0 | infinity |
Skin | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Hair | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20280508125024 | |
Hair | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20280508125024 |
Human_digestive_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_digestive_system | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Macropenis | 1 | extendedconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Macropenis | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_penis | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_penis | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Foreskin | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Foreskin | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Leg | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Leg | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Medical_citation_needed_span | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Medical_citation_needed_span | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Kidney | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Kidney | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Pubic_hair | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Pubic_hair | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Pupil | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Category:Vagina | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_tooth | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Earlobe | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20210530002231 | |
Hand | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Hand | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Immune_system | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Some articles here are not so surprising! Let's have a look and see if all these are some more surprising ones and see if protection necessary - if there are any suggestions to deprotect a page we might be able to make some articles without our project's scope more accessible. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, not a super critical message to our wikiwork here, but there's now a bot ( User:Yapperbot/Pruner) that is able to review our membership list and remove inactive or indefinitely blocked editors. I think this is important because it's very useful to have an active list of members for a project so that editors can be aware of who to contact and it may also reduce wikispam and confusion.
The bot works by reviewing the list and has a default setting of removing editors who have been inactive for three years, and indefinitely blocked editors after five months. A message is posted on their talk pages so that if they become active again they can rejoin. This seems quite useful for our project and reduces the need for a manual census every so often. If there are no objections I will go ahead and implement this in a week or two. I personally think that three years is a reasonable timeframe for inactivity but plan to extend the timeframe for indefinitely blocked editors to 18 months in case there is an appeal at the one year mark. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 04:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
" Pruning users as configured on page: processed 29 inactive user(s); 6 indeffed user(s); 5 renamed user(s) "). I've also removed the old inactive editor section and realphabetised the list Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human#Good article). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thoracic diaphragm#Requested move 3 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
40 GA-class articles: 100% complete | |
We have happily achieved another milestone, with 40 good articles now associated with this project. This represents a doubling since 2016. I've boldly set the next goal as 80 good articles, I hope that is not too ambitious! Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Labia majora 58,208 1,940 Start Mid -- Coin945 ( talk) 13:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Please see Talk:Sex organ#Draft:Genitalia for discussion. GBFEE ( talk) 20:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thoracic diaphragm#Requested move 3 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please join discussion of proposed merger of Fissure into Sulcus (morphology). Coastside ( talk) 20:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've opened a discussion about moving Temporal muscle to Temporalis muscle. This is based on the use of the term in scientific literature, but I wanted to get more opinions as the redirects Temporalis muscle and Temporalis are not used enormously (around 15% of all page views of Temporal muscle). The discussion can be found at: Talk:Temporal muscle#Requested move 27 September 2021. Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 16:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 |
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Urination pages. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Yup, we just got an article for that: Jelqing. Not sure if it is a myth/urban legend. Besing said that, i am not sure if it deserves an article on enwiki. Would somebody please take a look at it? Thanks, —usernamekiran (talk) 10:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Talk:Vagina#Added physiology section. A permalink for it is here. The discussion concerns whether or not a section titled "Physiology" is needed in light of what WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy states about choosing section titles and when existing sections already cover physiology. Basically, the discussion is about whether a new section is needed or whether the material adequately fits in existing sections. The discussion is also about sourcing for anatomy articles, an aspect that was addressed at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-03/WikiProject report. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 02:16, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
Hello, per this request on Wikidata I opened this section. The Pelvic floor article introduction said "The pelvic floor or pelvic diaphragm", but as I clarified on Wikidata request that Anatomy textbooks mentioned some differences. So what is your opinion? and can we fix the article? and make another article for Pelvic diaphragm? or move it? or....? -- Alaa :)..! 16:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Some sources do not consider "pelvic floor" and "pelvic diaphragm" to be identical, with the "diaphragm" consisting of only the levator ani and coccygeus, while the "floor" also includes the perineal membrane and deep perineal pouch.[2] However, other sources include the fascia as part of the diaphragm.[citation needed] In practice, the two terms are often used interchangeably.
Embryogenesis – would this page name be better as (MeSH entries) Embryonic development; likewise Human embryogensis to Human embryonic development? Also can see little benefit in having the page Prenatal development which duplicates a lot of material on Human embryogenesis. Would it be better to change this to Fetal development which would also give clearer linkings. Fetal development also has a MeSH entry. -- Iztwoz ( talk) 13:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
A past discussion ( here)
Overview of the way things are organised:
Organisation of general development articles
|
---|
|
![]() Hello, |
Like I noted at WP:Med, Orangelioncat ( talk · contribs) is a new account. Some here might want to review Orangelioncat's edits to penile articles. Looking at images and sources he's used, there appears to be a WP:Conflict of interest aspect to the editing. I've already welcomed Orangelioncat with a WP:Med template. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:25, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Note:
Nasal_septum_deviation#Diagnosis.--
Hildeoc (
talk)
17:20, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Anatomy team,
I am a general reader and landed on this Talk page looking for a way to send an editorial note to the the team curating /info/en/?search=Heart_development. If there is a mechanism to send a note without intruding on this Talk page, well, I've missed it. Regards section "Endocardial tubes":
This article section broadly seems intended as a chronology which then sets reader expectations on how the content will be organized and grouped in reading order, and, for embroyology, how the dependencies flow. My editorial note is that the current section content reads as if paragraph three was the original overview chronolgy content then one or more super fans of splanchnopleuric mesenchyme tacked two un-coordianted notes above the original overview paragraph. Consider the first sentence of Para 3: "At around 18 to 19 days after fertilisation, the heart begins to form." Great opening sentence - short, punchy, to the point. Yet it leads Para 3, not Para 1. So the section reads as if the section content is re-booting at Para 3 and forget about that splanch blah blah mumbling of Paras 1 & 2. Further, Paras 1 & 2, while each containing unique information, reads as redundantly talking about splanchnopleuric mesenchyme, neural plate and endocardial tubes.
IFF this section is intended as a multi-step chronology, or at least a sequence, then I suggest a re-write as:
At around 18 to 19 days after fertilisation, the heart begins to form. [keep this strong opener!]
Days 18-19 {stuff that happens}
Days 19-xx {stuff that happens}
Days xx-xx {stuff that happens}
Days 21-22 {stuff that finishes up and the pump starts}
Days 22-xx {existing content (last sentences of Para 3) about what happens after the pump starts. However, does some of this duplicate section "Heart folding" content?}
The above is really about prompting the writer to clearer, chrono-centric organization of the content, not necessarily those literal sub-heads.
Regards making dependencies clear, for example, does pump start depend on endocardial tube fusion completing or not? Maybe that is an unknown. Can't really tell from the existing article content.
Regards
FLIP1970 ( talk) 02:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello! Your WikiProject has been selected to participate in the WP 1.0 Bot rewrite beta. This means that, starting in the next few days or weeks, your assessment tables will be updated using code in the new bot, codenamed Lucky. You can read more about this change on the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team page. Thanks! audiodude ( talk) 06:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I invite comment here: Talk:Thyroid#Hatnote. [1]. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Just letting editors here know that Front hole ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) exists. Discussion about the article has taken place on its talk page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 16:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I have been accepted to host a Wikipedia workshop at IFAA2019 conference in London this August. The workshop will also include my research work which addresses the quality of anatomy articles on the English Wikipedia. Please visit my grant request for more information, and don't forget to endorse my request. Thank you in advance. -- Athikhun.suw ( talk) 13:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I'm working through the list of unsourced articles and there are some that I have questions about:
Thanks for any input. Natureium ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I only learned about this portal recently, when I did a quick once over to tidy it up somewhat. Deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Human body.
Please contribute your thoughts. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:05, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Coming from the Plantar fascia page which has a photo showing a foot being dissected. I can't argue that it isn't a helpful image, and yet, I found its inclusion more disturbing than enlightening. By contrast, University uses an illustration for their unit on foot dissection which conveys information without triggering the visceral response of a photo.
Apparently there was discussion on how to handle graphic imagery on wikipedia over a decade ago, that ultimately seemed to have stalled out. But I would like to recommend against including photographs of dissections. rubah ( talk) 19:29, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Woman#Proposed edits to lede. A permalink for it is here. The topic concerns this project due to the biological/anatomical aspects. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 20:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Differences of sexual development. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 15:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Article alerts now includes merges and articles for creation, which makes these areas much easier to track. Hurray! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
I just saw this, which is about File:Vulva collage 12.jpg. See the nomination page. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I've expanded Eyelid with a section on ethnic variation (the "Asian upper eyelid" according to the study title), since it didn't mention epicanthic folds at all before. However, the Epicanthic fold article has left me, many of its editors, and possibly the general population confused on what it actually is for over a decade. Terms like monolid (and previously " Asian eyes") redirect there. Any images outside of the infobox that would've helped have been added and replaced constantly due to no one agreeing on what it is.
After looking into this it appears to me that whether one has "single" or "double" or "Caucasian" eyelids is not intrinsically linked to having or not having an epicanthic fold, and I've kept them separate in the section I added.
I would appreciate any help from people knowing eyelid terminology to make the Epicanthic fold article easier for non-technical people to understand. 9 3 ( talk) 02:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I added an image to Eyelid#Variations in structure and captioned it with my understanding of the differences, as well as adding explanations to the leads of Eyelid and Epicanthic fold. 9 3 ( talk) 21:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Vulva#Mons pubis vs. mons veneris. A pemalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 23:50, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at the following:
Talk:Labia#New_lead_image
Talk:Vulva#Proposed lead image
Kolya Butternut (
talk)
17:51, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi all,
Just wondering if anyone had access or could upload an image of the anorectal junction histology? Was editing rectum and I think it would be quite useful for readers to see the transition between the epithelia of the two regions. Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:22, 5 October 2019 (UTC)
Terminologia Anatomica second edition (TA2) will be released this August. Thank you user:Mwhalle for letteing me know this at my talk page. Then I proposed new property for TA2 at Wikidata ( d:Wikidata:Property_proposal/TA2_ID). Please take a look. Thank you. -- Was a bee ( talk) 19:09, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Name | TA | TA2 |
---|---|---|
tibia | A02.5.06.001 | 1397 |
heart | A12.1.00.001 | 3932 |
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma ( talk) 04:23, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Hi all! I have been editing at prostate and stumbled upon our horrible and confusing lot of lymph node articles. Have a look at some and you'll see what I mean (see, eg. external iliac lymph nodes) - the fragmentation makes it hard to understand and edit, the images are also not very nice. Currently we have:
Current arrangement
|
---|
I feel this produces quite a difficult set of articles to navigate and understand. What would be your thoughts about upmerging the smaller articles into their parents, producing a set of four articles instead?
Proposed arrangement
|
---|
|
I think this would produce some articles that are much easier to navigate and understand. Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the development of the urinary system which includes reproductive and urinary is not named development of the genitourinary system? -- Iztwoz ( talk) 11:04, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm not greatly enthusiastic about the way our navboxes are currently arranged. They do a good job if I want to trace a blood vessel or nerve from origin to destination, but in my mind we are missing a set of navboxes relating to structures - eg things like the hand, elbow, shoulder etc. In my mind I would much rather be able to easily navigate to things that relate to these gross structures than to have a list of, eg., all joints or ligaments in the arm. On the other hand, most of this information is provided in parent articles and the infoboxes so a new set of navboxes may just contribute clutter, duplicate other ways of finding information, and not be useful at all. What are others thoughts on this? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:34, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#You'll_all_want_one. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:57, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
-- Irony of prudent premise ( talk) 17:31, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Every so often I feel it's worth celebrating something positive. I often keep an eye on the change log. Sometimes it's very disappointing - lots and lots of either vandalism or bot edits or clustered edits to reference formatting. This week is one of those rare weeks where there's been a fairly high proportion of constructive edits, made by lots of editors (old and new) and in what appears to be in good faith. I thought this might be worth sharing. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 03:13, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Would it be useful with redirects from these?
Utfor ( talk) 17:01, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
PS @ Utfor what made you think to ask this? Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:58, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Introducing
Template:The Anatomist Barnstar.
Jerm (
talk)
19:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
The Golden Galen barnstar | |
You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Galen barnstar for your contributions to Wikipedia's anatomy articles. Thank you for your contributions and well done! |
I'll add yours to our main page :).-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:10, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Some great high quality images have been added by Manu5 recently with thanks (although the captions could be slightly tweaked) - just wondering what the thoughts are about use beyond just the parent articles? Quality, resolution, simplicity and labelling are all great -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Skene's gland#Why is Wikipedia calling this the "Skene's gland" when the proper name is "female prostate". A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 01:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I've been thinking about this one for a while. As far as I know, there are 4 types of cells in the body commonly referred to as "follicular cell". But here on WP, there is one of them, which isn't even the most common (the thyroid one), taking the base title "follicular cell". So I've written Follicular cell (disambiguation), and I want to propose moving it to the base title Follicular cell, previously moving the thyroid one to a more specific name. Would there be consensus for this? Thanks! Dr. Vogel ( talk) 14:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
As far as I know, the round ligament artery and Sampson [sic] artery describe the same artery. They should probably be merged, and the redirect should be from Sampson's artery (possessive). I wanted to notify the project before merging, for others to confirm. Modeum ( talk) 19:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys, I'm looking at the trabecula article, which is mainly about the trabeculae in bone, and I can't help thinking that there are several other structures in the body also called trabeculae, such as in the kidney, the penis and the head, to name some. Would there be consensus in the community to move that article to something like trabecula (bones) and then in the base title have a relatively short article about what trabeculae are, and then link from that article to all the articles that discuss trabeculae in other parts of the body? Dr. Vogel ( talk) 20:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys. This article, which I think is of extreme importance, had 15 instances of the "citation needed" template. I've sat down with 3 basic books and provided citations for all of them, correcting the claims when they disagreed with the sources. How else do you reckon we can improve this key article? Dr. Vogel ( talk) 15:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi guys. I've turned the redirect at vasa recta into a dab page, as there is more than one vessel with that name. There are 2 different ones, possibly 3. I feel that it would be a good idea to move Straight arterioles of kidney to Vasa recta (kidney), because that title would achieve 3 things:
How do you guys feel about this? Dr. Vogel ( talk) 09:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
English synonym consistency with straight venules. No opinion on this matter so far, but thought you'd find this useful. Stay well, Rotideypoc41352 ( talk · contribs) 22:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
I found the terms in Corbeil, Jean-Claude; Archambault, Ariane (2013). Mini norsk-engelsk visuell ordbok (Mini Norwegian-English Visual Dictionary). Kunnskapsforlaget.
Which are the correct singulars? (Found in Quick Study Muscular System)
Would it be useful with redirects from any of these?
Would it be useful with a redirect from e.g. Extensor hallucis longus tendon to Extensor hallucis longus and from similar titles to titles without "tendon"? Utfor ( talk) 18:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Are these appropriate redirects ? If so, what targets should the last two have? Utfor ( talk) 16:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Hi all, is there somewhere a list of red links relevant to the human heart or aorta? Please ping. Cinadon 36 08:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
hi guys, I am new to this page. I was focusing in eye only. mainly translating eye related articles to regional language Malayalam. now my eye anatomy contribution to Malayalam wiki is 58 articles (total ophthalmology/optometry articles translated is 93.) I am also interested in improving eye anatomy related articled in English also. Done some contributions to English articles already. since I am focusing only in Eye, Let me know whether I can join this Project or not. Ajeeshkumar4u ( talk) 05:47, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
This interesting proposal is made here: Talk:Sensory_neuron#Merger_Proposal_2. Please have a look and comment if you have an opinion. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 05:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
Most anatomical structures have received various names through the course of time. Often, they are labelled according to their Greek and then latin names, then translated into English or "rediscovered" during the reconnaissance, for a few generations and sporadically thereafter referred to eponymously by the name of that person, then in the interests of ease of use and returning to roots the eponyms are removed. This is my uncited perspective.
I want to ask what other editors think about moving some of the eponyms away from the introductory sentences? These sentences are very important because they are (1) the only thing readers may want to view, and (2) often reposted throughout the internet. Sometimes there is a thousand or million-fold difference in the use of an eponym vs. not and I think including them in the lead provides WP:UNDUE attention. I wonder if they are better described in the 'history' or 'society and culture' subsections.
Eg "Andersch nerve" [4], "Arantius ligament" [5]
What prompted me to ask this is a series of what I think are good faith insertions of rare eponyms by Dominikbilicki. What do other editors think about moving these out of the introductory sentence? If there is some consensus I will make a more formal suggestion to WP:MEDMOS relating to these sort of things in the lead. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 02:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)
I've just deleted all changes I introduced. I wanted to provide the sources of the information I added but as you suggested eponyms might be "obscure" or "unfriendly" for the reader. I hope that potential reader will find such information (for example to honour the scientist who discovered these structures or simple to have access to as much information as possible) in different websites or in books. Ciao. Dominikbilicki ( talk) 17:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, hope that you are well!
I've nominated Anatomical terms of location for good article status. It's a very important article for us as a project. It's our 61st most viewed article ( WP:ANAT500) and receives about 45,000 views monthly and, if done well, it has the potential to be very useful to readers. It's linked in many articles and in the infoboxes of some articles.
I would really appreciate fresh sets of eyes to have a look, make some corrections or post on the talk page of the article as to how it could be improved to get to GA status. I've been editing since 2014 so I am having that feeling that I know there are issues, but it is very hard to identify them as I've viewed / edited it so many times. If people aren't aware, articles for GA are reviewed against six criteria ( WP:GACR). One thing I am very keen on is making sure it is as understandable to lay readers as possible ( WP:ANATSIMPLIFY), so I am trying very hard not to make it excessively technical or complicated. Ping to Ajpolino who has provided some really useful feedback recently on some other good article reviews. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Puberty#Prepubertal differences in sexes. A permalink for it is here. Right now, the content being discussed is the "only major difference in physical appearance between prepubescent boys and girls are the external sex organs" wording. I'll also alert WP:Med to the discussion for wider input. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 00:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, I have made some small changes to the manual of style for anatomy articles ( WP:MEDMOS), mostly to just update it against what happens in practice. Discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Some_anatomy_edits. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
This list includes major parts of the |
Respiratory tract |
---|
![]() |
This article is one of a series documenting the anatomy of the |
Human heart |
---|
![]() |
Major parts of the |
Gastrointestinal tract |
---|
Hi all, I was doing some housecleaning and realise some time ago I created a series of sideboxes to make navigating between some of our articles easier - particularly subjects where there is a logical physical flow (eg
gastrointestinal tract,
respiratory tract) and it might be easier for lay readers to have a small sidebox of the main parts in that thing, as compared with our overflowing navboxes. I was worried though at the time that these might just clutter the article space and not be useful, so because of this doubt haven't deployed them other than around
ear and
epithelium.
I'd like to ask what other editors think about this? Would it be useful for me to put these in article space? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Greetings, For Anatomy WP, I added progression, pie graph, rainbow. JoeNMLC ( talk) 16:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
In the book endoscopic surgery of the lacrimal drainage system (Springer isbn=978-3-319-20632-5), chapter "anatomy of the lacrimal drainage system" mentions a third type of accessory lacrimal gland.It is named as Popov's glands. But I failed to find the same in other eye anatomy/ophtalmology books (with me). Is it good to mention the gland in article accessory lacrimal glands with above mentioned book reference or wait for another source? Asked the same in article talk page also. Ajeeshkumar4u ( talk) 04:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Parts of the article deal with a lot of anatomy. Not being very medically oriented I can't put those parts in order by myself. Seriously need some help. Aditya( talk • contribs) 13:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi all, it's about time for a newsletter (more than two years since the last one in fact). My draft newsletter is here: User:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7. Please let me know if I've forgotten something. Also, I'd be interested in some reflections from editors active in this space on their experience editing in the topic area, whether that be notable experiences or tips for new editors, and I was thinking of including this as the feature piece. If you'd like, please drop your reflections on the talk page ( User talk:Tom (LT)/sandbox/Anatomy newsletter 7), where I've already pinged a couple of editors. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
We need opinions on the following Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Removing guidance about the lead, and adding a bit about terminology and technical language. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:30, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
For our project's mid year Christmas in July gift, I present:
150 B-class articles: 102.7% complete | ||
It is heartening to see the articles under our project's scope are gradually improving (this is copied from our main page: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy#Goals):
Month | Good articles | B-class articles | C-class articles | Start-class articles |
---|---|---|---|---|
December 2013 | 5(9,333 total) |
70 |
315 |
1,006
|
June 2014 | 9(9,916 total) |
94 |
527 |
1,395
|
December 2014 | 14(10,419 total) |
100 |
552 |
1,485
|
May 2015 | 15(12,766 total) |
102 |
589 |
1,543
|
December 2015 | 16(13,318 total) |
112 |
610 |
1,567
|
May 2016 | 19(19,719 total) |
116 |
617 |
1,570
|
October 2016 | 20(19,828 total) |
116 |
615 |
1,580
|
July 2017 | 25(20,108 total) |
120 |
673 |
1,585
|
January 2018 | 29(20,179 total) |
129 |
687 |
1,595
|
June 2018 | 32(20,417 total) |
141 |
777 |
1,611(2,298 stubs)
|
Dec 2019 | 33(20,608 total) |
148 |
839 |
1,664(2,308 stubs)
|
August 2020 | 37(20,671 total) |
154 |
851 |
1,666(2,289 stubs)
|
The doubling in total articles is mostly explained by an increase in redirects included within our project's scope
The class (stub, start, C, B) of most articles was fully reviewed a couple of years ago, and although the articles under our project's scope are gradually increasing, it is my feeling that most of the improvement that we've measured is due to actual improvement of articles - increase in size, referencing, etc. Well done to all!
Should we set an ambitious goal of, say, more than 250 B-class articles as our next goal? Thoughts? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:04, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Talk:Gut flora#Requested move 4 September 2020: Add "human" to the title?. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 06:06, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Terminologia Anatomica and Terminologia Embryologica, essential aids to our classification and titling of many articles, have received second editions released in August last year. At the time Was a bee had brought them to our attention ( Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_12#TA2_will_be_released). Unfortunately the thread was left at this cliffhanger (my bad...):
Thank you I recieved Excel file through e-mail. I added data at Wikidata. Now TA2 has 2,625 IDs ( wikidata:Property talk:P7173). Now it covers 70% of TA98 ID ( wikidata:Property talk:P1323). Then what about...
- Adding TA2 section to the infobox. (and Moving TA98 into authority control box?)
- Changing link target of TA98 to https://taviewer.openanatomy.org. It can shows the tree, and English headings. For example, Heart at the old site [6] and new site [7]
@ Tom (LT):, @ Mwhalle: -- Was a bee ( talk) 03:33, 12 October 2019 (UTC)
Was a bee, could I ask whether by now all TA98 is matched to TA2, and if there's also been an update on Wikidata to corresponding TE2 entries? (and if we have terminologia neuroanatomica? [8])
If we have close to full corresponding entries, we can probably put TA2 and TE2 in the infoboxes and deprecate TA and TE to the authority controls; if however there's still a big mismatch we may need to add both the new and old terms to the infoboxes for consistency while the gaps are filled. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
| label50= [[Terminologia Anatomica|TA2]] | data50 = {{#if:{{#property:P7173}} | {{wikidata|properties|P7173|format=\[https://ta2viewer.openanatomy.org/?id=%p %p\][%s]}} }}
Released September 2020 · Previous newsletter
Hello WikiProject Anatomy participant! This is our seventh newsletter, documenting what's going on in WikiProject Anatomy, news, current projects and other items of interest.
I value feedback, and if you think I've missed something, or don't wish to receive this again, please leave a note on my talk page, or remove your name from the mailing list.
Yours truly, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:24, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
![]() |
new good articles since last newsletter include Epiglottis, Human nose, Pancreas, Prostate, Thymus, Trachea, T tubule, Ureter and Vagina, with Anatomical terms of location also awaiting review |
![]() |
A made-up eponymous term is used in our article that eventually makes it in to university anatomy teaching slides and a journal article |
![]() |
We reach a project goal of 150 B-class articles in July 2020, increasing by about 50% over five years, and are one good article away from our goal of 40 GAs, doubling over the last five years |
![]() |
In the real world, Terminologia Anatomica 2 and Terminologia Embryologica 2 are released ( [9], [10]). Terminologia Anatomica 2 is now included in anatomy article infoboxes, and there is ongoing discussion about updating TE as well |
![]() |
A beautiful new barnstar is released ({{ subst:The Anatomist Barnstar}}) |
![]() |
Portal:Anatomy receives some attention, and two related portals are deleted (vale Human body and Cranial nerve portals) |
![]() |
Some things left out from past newsletters - A large amount of redirects are created to help link plural structures, and Cerebellum ( [11]) and Hippocampus ( [12]) are published in Wikiversity. |
I have been asked to write up something introducing the Featured article (FA) process to anatomy editors, but I took a more general approach to explaining why one might want to contribute featured content and the benefits to the editor and to Wikipedia. I also tried to address some misconceptions about the FA process, and give you a guide that is somewhat specific to health content should you decide to take the dive.
A vital purpose of Featured articles is to serve as examples for new and aspiring Wikipedia editors. FAs are often uniquely comprehensive for the Internet. They showcase some of our best articles, and can enhance Wikipedia's reputation if they are maintained to standard—but in an "anyone can edit" environment, they can easily fall out of standard if not maintained. Benefits to the writer include developing collaborative partnerships and learning new skills, while improving your writing and seeing it exposed to a broader audience—all that Wikipedia is about!
Looking more specifically at WP Anatomy's featured content, the Featured media is impressive and seems to be an Anatomy Project strength. The Anatomy WikiProject has tagged 4 FAs, 1 Featured list, and 30 Featured media. Working towards upgrading and maintaining older Featured articles could be a worthwhile goal. Immune system is a 2007 FA promotion, and bringing it up to date would make a nice collaboration between WikiProject Medicine and the Anatomy WikiProject. Hippocampus is another dated promotion that is almost 50% larger than when promoted, having taken on a bit of uncited text and new text that might benefit from a tune-up.
Whether tuning up an older FA at Featured article review, or attempting a new one to be reviewed at Featured article candidates, taking the plunge can be rewarding, and I hope the advice in my essay is helpful.
You can read the essay "Achieving excellence through featured content" here.
SandyGeorgia has been a regular FA reviewer at FAC and FAR since 2006, and has participated in thousands of nominations
This has been transcluded to the talk pages of all active WikiProject Anatomy users. To opt-out, remove your name from the mailing list
Feel free to discuss below. Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:37, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
Heads up -
Please add articles if more arise so we can keep an eye on them. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
See Talk:Fallopian tube#Proposed merge of Oviduct into Fallopian tube. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:22, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Thoughts are needed on the following: Talk:Human skin color#Description regarding differences in skin among individuals. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Frozen ( talk) 04:58, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Immune system has been proposed to run TFA on the mainpage as the COVID vaccine is launched: please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Immune system SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 17:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Draft:National Journal of Clinical Anatomy
I have to ask only because of low-quality journals infesting academia the last decade or two.
If it is, I'll accept the draft, cleanup can be done later. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 18:42, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello,
I have been working on the crown (anatomy) article for my assignment and I was just wondering what class or grade it is currently on? Thank you in advance Physiotherapist1234 ( talk) 00:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Speaking of anatomy, could someone reply to me at Talk:List_of_internal_rotators_of_the_human_body? Hesitant to be bold on this one.-- 50.201.195.170 ( talk) 02:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)Hesitant to be bold on this one.
User:Flyer22, longtime wikipedian and highly active on this project, has sadly passed away.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Menstrual cycle for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 01:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Looks like all documents related to Terminologia Embriologica (TE) went offline, resulting in dead links on wikipedia articles about embryology using a TE identifier (all of them!). Is anyone aware of this? -- Anton.t.gregersen ( talk) 10:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE: As said I wrote the university behind the webpage and a helpful man has now restored the source documents as PDF-files instead of the deprecated flash ones. The new files are public avaible here. Was a bee what do you suggest we do from here? -- Anton.t.gregersen ( talk) 14:27, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Hello everyone. I wanted some advice on the name of an article.
Kuduloka correctly pointed out to me that the article Patellar ligament may not have the most suitable name. Both Gray's Anatomy and Sobotta's Atlas list it as the patellar ligament, but may other sources list it as the patellar tendon. This term is currently a redirect page.
Normally, the patellar ligament runs from the patella to the tibia, so would be a ligament. However, before the patella forms, the only structure present is the continuation of the tendon of quadriceps femoris muscle. The patella forms as an ossification of the quadriceps femoris tendon. What are everyone's thoughts on this? If you think that the term "patella tendon" is more appropriate, then I will move the content from "Patellar ligament" to "Patellar tendon", unless you feel that a formal move request would be better.
Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 14:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Ajpolino put up a list of protected articles on Medicine and I thought it would be interesting to do the same for us. Here's the quarry page [14] and here's the list:
CONCAT(' | page_is_redirect | pr_type | pr_level | pr_cascade | pr_expiry |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Buttocks | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Buttocks | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Torso | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Anus | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Anus | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_back | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Rectum | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Rectum | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Breast | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Breast | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Elbow | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_muscle | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_muscle | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_nerve | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_nerve | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_bone | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_bone | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_vein | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_vein | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_ligament | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_ligament | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_embryology | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_embryology | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Dissection | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Muscle | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Muscle | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Head | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_leg | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Forearm | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_penis_size | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_penis_size | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Colon_(anatomy) | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Touch | 1 | sysop | 0 | infinity | |
Touch | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Somatosensory_system | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Clitoris | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Clitoris | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_skull | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Mammary_gland | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Fat | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Fat | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Tooth | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Tooth | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Thigh | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Semen | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Semen | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Leonardo_da_Vinci | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Leonardo_da_Vinci | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Anatomy-stub | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Anatomy-stub | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Musculoskeletal-stub | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Musculoskeletal-stub | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Testicle | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Testicle | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Foot | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Foot | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Fingerprint | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Fingerprint | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
G-spot | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
G-spot | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Body | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Testicles | 1 | sysop | 0 | infinity | |
Testicles | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Vulva | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Vulva | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_anus | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_anus | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Muscular_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Muscular_system | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Cranial_nerves_short | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Cranial_nerves_short | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_brain | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_brain | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Gray's | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Gray's | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Reproductive_system | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Nervous_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Nervous_system | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_anatomy | 0 | templateeditor | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_anatomy | 0 | move | templateeditor | 0 | infinity |
Frenulum_labiorum_pudendi | 1 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Frenulum_labiorum_pudendi | 1 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Heart | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Eye_color | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Excretory_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Excretory_system | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Respiratory_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Spinal_cord | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Ear | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Finger | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Bone | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Female_body_shape | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Brain | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Brain | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Circulatory_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Nipple | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Nipple | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Face | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20210921114332 | |
Face | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20210921114332 |
Stem_cell | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:WikiProject_Anatomy | 0 | templateeditor | 0 | infinity | |
Template:WikiProject_Anatomy | 0 | move | templateeditor | 0 | infinity |
Early_modern_human | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Early_modern_human | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Eye | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Eye | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Facial_hair | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_body | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Vagina | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Vagina | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Blood | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Blood | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Scrotum | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Anatomy_terms | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Anatomy_terms | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Infobox_artery | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Infobox_artery | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:Neuroanatomy-stub | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Neuroanatomy-stub | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Human_skeleton | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_skeleton | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Template:FMA | 0 | templateeditor | 0 | infinity | |
Template:FMA | 0 | move | templateeditor | 0 | infinity |
Skin | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Hair | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20280508125024 | |
Hair | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20280508125024 |
Human_digestive_system | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_digestive_system | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Macropenis | 1 | extendedconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Macropenis | 1 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Human_penis | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_penis | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Foreskin | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Foreskin | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Leg | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Leg | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Template:Medical_citation_needed_span | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Template:Medical_citation_needed_span | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Kidney | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Kidney | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Pubic_hair | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Pubic_hair | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Pupil | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Category:Vagina | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Human_tooth | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Earlobe | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | 20210530002231 | |
Hand | 0 | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity | |
Hand | 0 | move | sysop | 0 | infinity |
Immune_system | 0 | move | autoconfirmed | 0 | infinity |
Some articles here are not so surprising! Let's have a look and see if all these are some more surprising ones and see if protection necessary - if there are any suggestions to deprotect a page we might be able to make some articles without our project's scope more accessible. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi all, not a super critical message to our wikiwork here, but there's now a bot ( User:Yapperbot/Pruner) that is able to review our membership list and remove inactive or indefinitely blocked editors. I think this is important because it's very useful to have an active list of members for a project so that editors can be aware of who to contact and it may also reduce wikispam and confusion.
The bot works by reviewing the list and has a default setting of removing editors who have been inactive for three years, and indefinitely blocked editors after five months. A message is posted on their talk pages so that if they become active again they can rejoin. This seems quite useful for our project and reduces the need for a manual census every so often. If there are no objections I will go ahead and implement this in a week or two. I personally think that three years is a reasonable timeframe for inactivity but plan to extend the timeframe for indefinitely blocked editors to 18 months in case there is an appeal at the one year mark. Please let me know what your thoughts are. Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 04:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
" Pruning users as configured on page: processed 29 inactive user(s); 6 indeffed user(s); 5 renamed user(s) "). I've also removed the old inactive editor section and realphabetised the list Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:32, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Over the last few months the Human article has been transformed from this to its current state. This has involved a lot of citation hunting and reorganisation. This is in a push to get it to GA standard (see Talk:Human#Good article). It has been suggested that some input be sough from various wikiprojects as to further improvements. Please feel free to contribute or offer advice at this article. Regards Aircorn (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thoracic diaphragm#Requested move 3 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
40 GA-class articles: 100% complete | |
We have happily achieved another milestone, with 40 good articles now associated with this project. This represents a doubling since 2016. I've boldly set the next goal as 80 good articles, I hope that is not too ambitious! Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:03, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Labia majora 58,208 1,940 Start Mid -- Coin945 ( talk) 13:51, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
![]() Hello, |
Please see Talk:Sex organ#Draft:Genitalia for discussion. GBFEE ( talk) 20:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Thoracic diaphragm#Requested move 3 September 2021 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 16:27, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Please join discussion of proposed merger of Fissure into Sulcus (morphology). Coastside ( talk) 20:57, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi everyone! I've opened a discussion about moving Temporal muscle to Temporalis muscle. This is based on the use of the term in scientific literature, but I wanted to get more opinions as the redirects Temporalis muscle and Temporalis are not used enormously (around 15% of all page views of Temporal muscle). The discussion can be found at: Talk:Temporal muscle#Requested move 27 September 2021. Thanks! Bibeyjj ( talk) 16:52, 27 September 2021 (UTC)