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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
I have nominated Cerebellum 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. DrKiernan ( talk) 13:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the small article fibrous capsule of Glisson while researching pelvic inflammatory disease. It is only referenced in one or two articles and has limited significance outside of this disease and for those interested in hepatic histology. It does link to several pages but this is only because it is included in the abdomen anatomy drop down box at the bottom of several pages. I also believe that fibrous capsule of Glisson is redirected for liver capsule when the two are separate entities that are continuous with each other. Anatomy texts that I have seen it referenced in so far and the TA & TH, designate the fibrous capsule of Glisson as the internal portion of the Liver Capsule that surrounds the portal triad and sinusoids. I suggest:
Any objections? HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm simply alerting this WikiProject to the fact that Wikipedian 2 considers human sex anatomy images to be pornography; see, for example, this edit to the Human body article if you have not seen it already. And this deletion debate on WP:Commons. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Addition of Terminologia Anatomica ID and Foundational Model of Anatomy ID at Wikidata had beem completed. As a reslut, the number of IDs added at Wikidata was about 3,000, for each. You can check this number as "Items processed" in the page linked below. -- Was a bee ( talk) 13:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed to merge the entire set of templates here: {{ Human lymphatic vessels}} Into this single template: {{ Lymphatic system anatomy}} I invite your comments here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_13#Template:Lymphatic_system_anatomy. Please contribute, as other editors who enter the discussion may not be as anatomically aware. A permalink for posterity is here: [2]. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
All medical, anatomy and pharmacological navigation boxes have changed.
The small line of links at the bottom of the navbox has now changed to an "Index of..." with "Description", "Disease" and Treatment" subsections. This will affect almost all medical, anatomy and pharmacology navboxes. As an example, see here:
The links at the bottom ("Index of bones and cartilage...") are what have changed. A full list is at Template:Medicine navs.
Previously all navboxes have had a line of links to other navboxes embedded within them. An example is here: [3]. Prior to today, that line that was a list of abbreviated terms that linked to relevant templates. This attracted a lot of negative feedback, and a length discussion was held on how to improve them. See here for the RfC: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Roundtable_discussion_on_legibiltity_and_usability_of_medical_navs. We concluded that it would be better for the embedded navboxes to be expanded in full form. This is much easier for mobile use, links are clearer, and lay users who may not be familiar with the abbreviated forms can now use the templates with greater ease.
We expanded all the abbreviations. We tried very hard to get the right balance between readability for lay audiences, who are not familiar with medical terminology, and technical accuracy. We have tried to use standard terms for all the templates. Further explanation can be found by reading the discussions on Template_talk:Medicine_navs
Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Please leave feedback here: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Feedback_after_roundtable_changes
The papillary duct article is a stub that is largely redundant. Most of the infomaiton in it is covered in the articles collecting duct system and Bellini duct carcinoma. The only unique content is a small portion of the structure section and the eponym history. Both of these could easily be incorporated into the subsection on the collecting duct system article. I propose:
Any thoughts or objections? HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have made all all changes that I intend to on this page except for citations and a TA number. I would greatly appreciate any feed back on content or readability for lay readers. I was also considering adding unique effects of hormones on protein synthesis in local cells.
Also, does anybody know how to add a TA section to the identifiers of an info box template? HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 16:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been browsing through the list of featured media under WP:MED [4]. Quite a lot relate to anatomy and could be used in our articles. Feel free to add to the list below (including high-quality not FM that could be nominated or used), I'm going to go through most of them and as I go add them to our scope and see if they can be used in some more articles. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The images below are labelled but the labels do not correspond to what we use as article titles, which could be somewhat confusing for readers:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated this image, of bones of the orbit, for featured image status. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Shame they were so quick to draw judgement, as it is a good image. Though blue and purple are probably better than calling the colors aqua etc. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 07:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, you know we have this right (I can likely find a better scan):
-- -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've created a post on Template talk:Medicine navs about removing the "Gray's Anatomy" numbers from anatomy navigation boxes. The post is here: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Removal_of_Gray.27s_Anatomy_numbers_from_Anatomy_templates. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have proposed the subject number in Gray's Anatomy 1918 be stored in Wikidata here: [6]. Once this property is created, the data stored in navboxes and infoboxes can be moved to Wikidata. I've expressed reservations about this on this thread and here but my main point of contention was that it is useless to be stored on templates and displayed prominently to users... if it is stored in Wikidata I have no objections, and seeing as the data is already recorded here on EN WP, it's worth a short to see where a discussion about moving it to wikidata goes. Once that discussion is closed a bot could grab the data (see the wikidata thread below). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Like I just told Visviva, I first came across the Sexual difference article by seeing this edit in WP:STiki. Looking at this link, Visviva redirected the term to Sex differences in humans, and then decided to create the Sexual difference article. From my viewpoint, Visviva's creation of the article is unneeded WP:Content forking. We already have the Sex differences in humans and Sex and gender distinction articles for this content; we don't need another article to address what Visviva added on the topic. Since WP:Anatomy recently got through working out how to cover sexual differentiation and sex difference topics on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles), I decided to bring this matter here for more opinions. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the changed redirect from Gender differences to the human article. Not only does the human article make reference to this, but there's a difference between sex and gender; and moreover, 'gender' is something mainly discussed with reference to humans. But I think a discussion is helpful. Will expand further soon. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
A wide-ranging cleanup effort of many navboxes under WPMED and WPANT is planned. Discussions include regarding titles, colours and more. If interested please contribute here. Also feel free to identify any navboxes under the scope of WPMED that need some cleanup here. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@ CFCF you spoke a while ago about "notability guidelines" for anatomy articles. The more I think about it, the more useful I think such guidelines are, particularly for offering some guidance for what is suitable to be merged and what isn't. Have you made any drafts? I think having such a guideline would be very useful. First questions first... where would such a guideline below, and does one already exist? Any suggestions for draft wording from other users?-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 20:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This is probably one of the worst "Top" priority articles in our scope, in my opinion. In addition, this is such a 'basic' article in terms of anatomy it is disappointing to come across it in this state. Although the anatomy section is well fleshed-out, there is a severe dearth of content in things like clinical signiicance (disease, surgery, specialities), society and culture, and other animals section.
I invite all editors to contribute a few relevant sentences so we can get this fundamental article to be a better quality.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
One radical solution would be to completely forego an arm article and have:
Having Arm as a redirect or disambiguation page (would actually be a WP:Set index). While I tend to favor the anatomical terminology I feel it strays too far from the general understanding in this case. That said as I never studied anatomy in English, but learned the latin definition of brachium/ sv:arm as the entire upper limb I may also be biased, just the other way. As for the use of human in the article titles, that should be removed, but will take time. Maybe an RfC is in order? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been working through our template group and come upon these:
Can any users enlighten me as to (1) why these are relevant? and (2) propose a better name, one that might better convey their scope and purpose to lay readers? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The following templates are severely deficient: Linked from {{ Human_cell_types_derived_primarily_from_mesoderm}}
-- -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 09:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been involved in discussions with other users regarding these templates for the last two months, Template talk:Medicine navs here. A short summary is that these replaced the unreadable bottom bars previously. Have a look and comment at the page itself, discussions are still ongoing and more eyes are always appreciated. We're also slowly going through existing templates to clean them up (a list is on the page). Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Large number of significant historical anatomy images uploaded here recently. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ping to Tobias1984, Was a bee, DePiep and possibly other users who are technologically adept and know what's going on with Wikipedia's innards. We have more than 5,000 articles under our scope. Many of these articles have information in their infobox (a number relating to Gray's Anatomy, Foundational model of anatomy and so on). Many of our WP:NAVBOXes as mentioned above also have a Terminologia anatomica, Terminologia Embryologica and Terminologia Histologica numbers attached. I was wondering if we could:
For properties, there are those:
This relates to a previous discussion about Gray's Anatomy above and on the main navboxes page, but I think that's putting the cart before the horse and we should get Wikidata going first. Have I missed anything above so far? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy (wikidata, as of 09:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | ID | Data type | Description | Example | Inverse |
anatomical location | P927 | Item | where in the body does this anatomical feature lie | (retina bipolar cell) anatomical location (Inner nuclear layer) | – |
part of | P361 | Item | subject is a part of that object | (Hypothalamus) part of (Diencephalon) | – |
Terminologia Anatomica 98 | P1323 | String | Terminologia Anatomica (1998 edition) human anatomical terminology identifier | (tibia) Terminologia Anatomica 98 (A02.5.06.001) | – |
Foundational Model of Anatomy ID | P1402 | String | unique identifier for human anatomical terminology | (parietal lobe) Foundational Model of Anatomy ID (61826) | – |
|type=bone
).part of
is wikidata, it should be in the infobox; one can not expect a bot or an editor to search & find that in the article text.Hi all! I just created some more anatomy properties at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy. Neurolex-ID is in the table "Neurology" below. - Also: It would be good if all of you sign up at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine#Participants. If you sign up I can use "ping project" to alert members of important discussions (e.g. new properties, bot requests). - In case you are interested how data can be used on Wikipedia you can look at e.g. this edit to the disease infobox ( [9]). - Let me know if I can help with anything else. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 12:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Is there any way we can do this in piecemeal? I don't think I have the mental energy to grasp the entire system at once (or the time, soon). But I think I can certainly grasp eg. Get TH done, ask for importing all TH data, and so forth. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm creating a subtopic to keep track of proposed properties and their status, and to discuss eg. their names or worthiness as Wikidata properties relating to infoboxes:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I am a little late to the party here and got a little confused reading the above thread since I know very little about Wikidata, so forgive me if my question is out of place. When importing TA, TH, TE or the infobox parameter "Latin" is it possible to automatically also move them to the "also known as"-?property?/field on Wikidata so people will be apple to search using these terms? Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 01:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
(I don't know where should I put information, so I put here. If this place is inappropriate, please move this to somewhere.)
I added TA98 and FMA IDs at Wikidata manually. I didn't use automatic processes. I opened this TA98 tree, and searched English Wikipedia articles one by one with English, Latin and other synonyms, through from top to down of this TA tree. As a result, there are differences in numbers on each websites. As follows.
The main reason why TA has 7500 entries but Wikidata has only 3000 IDs is...
As far as I think, these two are main reasons of number differences.
TA Property transclusion in {{ infobox anatomy}} is already working. Formerly I asked at Module_talk:Wikidata, and User:RexxS had wrote code for our project at Module:Sandbox/RexxS/TA98. This code is working now smoothly (thank you RexxS).
I added FMA ID ( Foundational Model of Anatomy ID) when I added TA ID at Wikidata. However FMA is not international standard terminology. But in data processing realm (means treating human anatomical concepts on computers as data), FMA is more popular than TA. Because FMA is more detailed and the most importantly FMA is structurized as ontology. FMA defines many relations between each entries (e.g. "is part of" or "is developed from" or "is nerve supplied by" or "muscle attaches to" and so on). Thank you. -- Was a bee ( talk) 06:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am here because I responded to a request on Template:Infobox anatomy. A few comments:
— Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
[http://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/Public/EntryPage/ViewTH/THh{{Str rep|{{Str mid|{{#property:P1694}}|2|4}}|.|}}.html {{#property:P1694}}]
Conditional branch for Terminologia Embryologica links
|
---|
|
There are a number of neglected fields in the "Infobox anatomy", eg "System", "Precursor", "Part of" and so forth. Now that TA has been uploaded to Wikidata, I wonder whether it would be possible to autofill some parameters based on the TA value? EG:
I think this would be possible if we set our minds to it. We could rapidly work through a great deal of infoboxes using this model, and it would add a lot of basic information that I think users may need. Especially interesting would be if we can link some terms to other wikidata entries. Then someday we could click on "Mesenchyme" and see all things that are derived from it (and so forth). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This Friday, Female genital mutilation will be featured on the main page. From 00:00 6 February 2015 and for about three days after, there will be a dramatic increase in traffic to the page. The TFA blurb is here. The date coincides with the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation and the UN will be doing what it can to raise interest in FGM, and that will direct even more traffic to the article.
Would participants here please do extra monitoring of articles linked from FGM. The following is from the lead: clitoral hood ∙ clitoris ∙ labia majora ∙ labia minora ∙ vagina ∙ vulva. Thanks. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to Wikipedia for allowing this to be featured on the main page. I still remember (vaguely) creating category relating to the topic and having the category deleted. So looks like we are making some progress!!! Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
These articles even state they are synonymous, but...
...
also see
Navel's history for the past month.
--
CFCF
🍌 (
email) 20:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Back-round: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Female body shape
The article is already requested in articles for creation but it would be nice to have this done sooner rather than later. Please if anyone would be willing to help out. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: I have just added this new category and noticed many pages with unanswered comments on talk pages belonging to this categry. For example: Talk:Maxillary canine. Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to let someone know that there is an incorrect link in the article "anterior talofibular ligament." The link for "anterior drawer test" is going to the article "anterior cruciate ligament injury." Diagnosing an ACL injury does use a test called the "anterior drawer test," but there's a separate test by the same name for the ankle, used for diagnosing injuries with the ATL. The link in the ATL article should refer to this test, not the one for the ACL. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.143.117 ( talk) 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I've had a look at almost all our templates now as part of a general biology-related template cleanup effort. I've identified a list of 39 or so anatomy templates that I feel are especially in need of cleanup (which would probably be about 10%). Most of these need cleanup in terms of making them easier or more logical to read, or easier for lay readers to understand and use. I'd be very grateful if other editors could help out by selecting one or two and helping out. Thanks particularly to Tilifa Ocaufa who has been helping out currently. The full list is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Open_Tasks#Cleanup_templates. Thanks! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that in a lot of articles related to the kidney e.g. renal papilla or renal pelvis the terms "Efferent artery" and "Afferent vein" (both red links) are used in the infobox in relation to the image Kidney PioM.png. I can not recall ever reading about these two terms. When looking at the image description it states number 2 and 12 as being interlobular artery and interlobar vein which seems right to me.
My questions to you are the following (10 minutes random Google search didn´t really get me closer to an answer):
Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:Response: It is very common to hear about afferent and efferent arterioles in terms of the glomerulus. This is not interchangable with interlobular arteries and veins. There is no such thing as an 'afferent vein', which is a tautology at best, and afferent arteries, well almost all arteries are afferents. I have found some other strange labels on images so I wouldn't be surprised if there are some discrepancies, thanks for your sleuthing! Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Article Fusiform gyrus is assigned to Education Program from Cornell university biology course. ( Education Program:Cornell University). Ending date of the course is May, 2015. Fusiform gyrus is very interesting region of the brain. I hope they will be able to finish expanding. -- Was a bee ( talk) 12:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I noted on RuneMan3's talk page the following: "I wonder if you are creating unnecessary WP:Stub articles and similar in other cases. Take your move of the Tooth development article, for example, which I noticed last year. I don't think that there was a need to split the content into a Human tooth development and Animal tooth development article. Per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, we generally keep the non-human animal content in one article as an 'Other animals' section unless the content needs a separate article. This is the case for the other listings at WP:MEDSECTIONS as well."
Opinions? I'm not strongly opposed to separate articles for this content; I simply wonder if the content is not better served in one article. I will alert WP:Animal anatomy to this discussion as well, though I know that some of them already have this project on their WP:Watchlists. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Data of Gray's Anatomy is discussing now at Wikidata ( wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#Gray.27s_Anatomy_1918_page). Currently main point of discussion is essentially technical aspect, "in what format we should store these data in Wikidata?". If you have any comment or ideas, please join! Thanks. -- Was a bee ( talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion whether to merge template:Accessory organs of the eye with Template:Orbital bones @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Template:Accessory organs of the eye. Given that these templates are within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, you are invited to comment in the pending TfD/TfM discussion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a digital spreadsheet copy of the public pdf terminologia anatomica version to facilitate easy parsing for Wikidata or other articles. I am currently in contact with one of the leaders of the international federation of associations of anatomists (IFAA). However, I am currently struggling with a language barrier. Do any of our more linguistically gifted members know Swedish or, svenska as I believe its called, maybe something close? (Google Translate isn't really cutting it.) Any suggestions or opinions are welcome. HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for all for the help. With some luck this problem will be resolved quickly. HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 02:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to combine these. I do not have the skills to do accomplish this currently and I will not have time until summer. If anybody would like these to upload them to Wikidata or for some other purpose please let me know. HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 13:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Bfpage created the The embryonic and prenatal development of the male reproductive system (human) article. Besides the WP:Article title issues (use of the word the and the parentheses), this article is redundant to the Development of the reproductive system and Development of the urinary system articles (among others). As some know, we merged/redirected a few reproduction and reproduction-related articles last year: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: I'm obviously of the opinion that this content (whatever is not unnecessary redundancy) should be merged. Per what Tilifa Ocaufa and I stated above in this section, there is no valid reason that the "The embryonic and prenatal development of the male reproductive system (human)" article should exist. I would merge the content, but, given my interaction with Bfpage, and that I would rather stay away from the editor because of that, I would rather not be the one to merge the content. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (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 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 13 |
I have nominated Cerebellum 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. DrKiernan ( talk) 13:07, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I stumbled upon the small article fibrous capsule of Glisson while researching pelvic inflammatory disease. It is only referenced in one or two articles and has limited significance outside of this disease and for those interested in hepatic histology. It does link to several pages but this is only because it is included in the abdomen anatomy drop down box at the bottom of several pages. I also believe that fibrous capsule of Glisson is redirected for liver capsule when the two are separate entities that are continuous with each other. Anatomy texts that I have seen it referenced in so far and the TA & TH, designate the fibrous capsule of Glisson as the internal portion of the Liver Capsule that surrounds the portal triad and sinusoids. I suggest:
Any objections? HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 16:54, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 14:49, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I'm simply alerting this WikiProject to the fact that Wikipedian 2 considers human sex anatomy images to be pornography; see, for example, this edit to the Human body article if you have not seen it already. And this deletion debate on WP:Commons. Flyer22 ( talk) 10:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
Addition of Terminologia Anatomica ID and Foundational Model of Anatomy ID at Wikidata had beem completed. As a reslut, the number of IDs added at Wikidata was about 3,000, for each. You can check this number as "Items processed" in the page linked below. -- Was a bee ( talk) 13:09, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
I have proposed to merge the entire set of templates here: {{ Human lymphatic vessels}} Into this single template: {{ Lymphatic system anatomy}} I invite your comments here: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_13#Template:Lymphatic_system_anatomy. Please contribute, as other editors who enter the discussion may not be as anatomically aware. A permalink for posterity is here: [2]. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
All medical, anatomy and pharmacological navigation boxes have changed.
The small line of links at the bottom of the navbox has now changed to an "Index of..." with "Description", "Disease" and Treatment" subsections. This will affect almost all medical, anatomy and pharmacology navboxes. As an example, see here:
The links at the bottom ("Index of bones and cartilage...") are what have changed. A full list is at Template:Medicine navs.
Previously all navboxes have had a line of links to other navboxes embedded within them. An example is here: [3]. Prior to today, that line that was a list of abbreviated terms that linked to relevant templates. This attracted a lot of negative feedback, and a length discussion was held on how to improve them. See here for the RfC: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Roundtable_discussion_on_legibiltity_and_usability_of_medical_navs. We concluded that it would be better for the embedded navboxes to be expanded in full form. This is much easier for mobile use, links are clearer, and lay users who may not be familiar with the abbreviated forms can now use the templates with greater ease.
We expanded all the abbreviations. We tried very hard to get the right balance between readability for lay audiences, who are not familiar with medical terminology, and technical accuracy. We have tried to use standard terms for all the templates. Further explanation can be found by reading the discussions on Template_talk:Medicine_navs
Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
Please leave feedback here: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Feedback_after_roundtable_changes
The papillary duct article is a stub that is largely redundant. Most of the infomaiton in it is covered in the articles collecting duct system and Bellini duct carcinoma. The only unique content is a small portion of the structure section and the eponym history. Both of these could easily be incorporated into the subsection on the collecting duct system article. I propose:
Any thoughts or objections? HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 17:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I have made all all changes that I intend to on this page except for citations and a TA number. I would greatly appreciate any feed back on content or readability for lay readers. I was also considering adding unique effects of hormones on protein synthesis in local cells.
Also, does anybody know how to add a TA section to the identifiers of an info box template? HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 16:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I've been browsing through the list of featured media under WP:MED [4]. Quite a lot relate to anatomy and could be used in our articles. Feel free to add to the list below (including high-quality not FM that could be nominated or used), I'm going to go through most of them and as I go add them to our scope and see if they can be used in some more articles. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
The images below are labelled but the labels do not correspond to what we use as article titles, which could be somewhat confusing for readers:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 01:03, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
I have nominated this image, of bones of the orbit, for featured image status. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)
Shame they were so quick to draw judgement, as it is a good image. Though blue and purple are probably better than calling the colors aqua etc. -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 07:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
By the way, you know we have this right (I can likely find a better scan):
-- -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've created a post on Template talk:Medicine navs about removing the "Gray's Anatomy" numbers from anatomy navigation boxes. The post is here: Template_talk:Medicine_navs#Removal_of_Gray.27s_Anatomy_numbers_from_Anatomy_templates. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:36, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have proposed the subject number in Gray's Anatomy 1918 be stored in Wikidata here: [6]. Once this property is created, the data stored in navboxes and infoboxes can be moved to Wikidata. I've expressed reservations about this on this thread and here but my main point of contention was that it is useless to be stored on templates and displayed prominently to users... if it is stored in Wikidata I have no objections, and seeing as the data is already recorded here on EN WP, it's worth a short to see where a discussion about moving it to wikidata goes. Once that discussion is closed a bot could grab the data (see the wikidata thread below). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Like I just told Visviva, I first came across the Sexual difference article by seeing this edit in WP:STiki. Looking at this link, Visviva redirected the term to Sex differences in humans, and then decided to create the Sexual difference article. From my viewpoint, Visviva's creation of the article is unneeded WP:Content forking. We already have the Sex differences in humans and Sex and gender distinction articles for this content; we don't need another article to address what Visviva added on the topic. Since WP:Anatomy recently got through working out how to cover sexual differentiation and sex difference topics on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles), I decided to bring this matter here for more opinions. Flyer22 ( talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I have reverted the changed redirect from Gender differences to the human article. Not only does the human article make reference to this, but there's a difference between sex and gender; and moreover, 'gender' is something mainly discussed with reference to humans. But I think a discussion is helpful. Will expand further soon. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Comments:
A wide-ranging cleanup effort of many navboxes under WPMED and WPANT is planned. Discussions include regarding titles, colours and more. If interested please contribute here. Also feel free to identify any navboxes under the scope of WPMED that need some cleanup here. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
@ CFCF you spoke a while ago about "notability guidelines" for anatomy articles. The more I think about it, the more useful I think such guidelines are, particularly for offering some guidance for what is suitable to be merged and what isn't. Have you made any drafts? I think having such a guideline would be very useful. First questions first... where would such a guideline below, and does one already exist? Any suggestions for draft wording from other users?-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 20:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello everyone!
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
Harej ( talk) 16:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
This is probably one of the worst "Top" priority articles in our scope, in my opinion. In addition, this is such a 'basic' article in terms of anatomy it is disappointing to come across it in this state. Although the anatomy section is well fleshed-out, there is a severe dearth of content in things like clinical signiicance (disease, surgery, specialities), society and culture, and other animals section.
I invite all editors to contribute a few relevant sentences so we can get this fundamental article to be a better quality.-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
One radical solution would be to completely forego an arm article and have:
Having Arm as a redirect or disambiguation page (would actually be a WP:Set index). While I tend to favor the anatomical terminology I feel it strays too far from the general understanding in this case. That said as I never studied anatomy in English, but learned the latin definition of brachium/ sv:arm as the entire upper limb I may also be biased, just the other way. As for the use of human in the article titles, that should be removed, but will take time. Maybe an RfC is in order? -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 16:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been working through our template group and come upon these:
Can any users enlighten me as to (1) why these are relevant? and (2) propose a better name, one that might better convey their scope and purpose to lay readers? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
The following templates are severely deficient: Linked from {{ Human_cell_types_derived_primarily_from_mesoderm}}
-- -- CFCF 🍌 ( email) 09:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
I've been involved in discussions with other users regarding these templates for the last two months, Template talk:Medicine navs here. A short summary is that these replaced the unreadable bottom bars previously. Have a look and comment at the page itself, discussions are still ongoing and more eyes are always appreciated. We're also slowly going through existing templates to clean them up (a list is on the page). Cheers, -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 09:55, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Large number of significant historical anatomy images uploaded here recently. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 23:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Ping to Tobias1984, Was a bee, DePiep and possibly other users who are technologically adept and know what's going on with Wikipedia's innards. We have more than 5,000 articles under our scope. Many of these articles have information in their infobox (a number relating to Gray's Anatomy, Foundational model of anatomy and so on). Many of our WP:NAVBOXes as mentioned above also have a Terminologia anatomica, Terminologia Embryologica and Terminologia Histologica numbers attached. I was wondering if we could:
For properties, there are those:
This relates to a previous discussion about Gray's Anatomy above and on the main navboxes page, but I think that's putting the cart before the horse and we should get Wikidata going first. Have I missed anything above so far? -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 06:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy (wikidata, as of 09:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Title | ID | Data type | Description | Example | Inverse |
anatomical location | P927 | Item | where in the body does this anatomical feature lie | (retina bipolar cell) anatomical location (Inner nuclear layer) | – |
part of | P361 | Item | subject is a part of that object | (Hypothalamus) part of (Diencephalon) | – |
Terminologia Anatomica 98 | P1323 | String | Terminologia Anatomica (1998 edition) human anatomical terminology identifier | (tibia) Terminologia Anatomica 98 (A02.5.06.001) | – |
Foundational Model of Anatomy ID | P1402 | String | unique identifier for human anatomical terminology | (parietal lobe) Foundational Model of Anatomy ID (61826) | – |
|type=bone
).part of
is wikidata, it should be in the infobox; one can not expect a bot or an editor to search & find that in the article text.Hi all! I just created some more anatomy properties at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine/Properties#Anatomy. Neurolex-ID is in the table "Neurology" below. - Also: It would be good if all of you sign up at d:Wikidata:WikiProject_Medicine#Participants. If you sign up I can use "ping project" to alert members of important discussions (e.g. new properties, bot requests). - In case you are interested how data can be used on Wikipedia you can look at e.g. this edit to the disease infobox ( [9]). - Let me know if I can help with anything else. -- Tobias1984 ( talk) 12:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Is there any way we can do this in piecemeal? I don't think I have the mental energy to grasp the entire system at once (or the time, soon). But I think I can certainly grasp eg. Get TH done, ask for importing all TH data, and so forth. -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:38, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm creating a subtopic to keep track of proposed properties and their status, and to discuss eg. their names or worthiness as Wikidata properties relating to infoboxes:-- Tom (LT) ( talk) 22:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I am a little late to the party here and got a little confused reading the above thread since I know very little about Wikidata, so forgive me if my question is out of place. When importing TA, TH, TE or the infobox parameter "Latin" is it possible to automatically also move them to the "also known as"-?property?/field on Wikidata so people will be apple to search using these terms? Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 01:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
(I don't know where should I put information, so I put here. If this place is inappropriate, please move this to somewhere.)
I added TA98 and FMA IDs at Wikidata manually. I didn't use automatic processes. I opened this TA98 tree, and searched English Wikipedia articles one by one with English, Latin and other synonyms, through from top to down of this TA tree. As a result, there are differences in numbers on each websites. As follows.
The main reason why TA has 7500 entries but Wikidata has only 3000 IDs is...
As far as I think, these two are main reasons of number differences.
TA Property transclusion in {{ infobox anatomy}} is already working. Formerly I asked at Module_talk:Wikidata, and User:RexxS had wrote code for our project at Module:Sandbox/RexxS/TA98. This code is working now smoothly (thank you RexxS).
I added FMA ID ( Foundational Model of Anatomy ID) when I added TA ID at Wikidata. However FMA is not international standard terminology. But in data processing realm (means treating human anatomical concepts on computers as data), FMA is more popular than TA. Because FMA is more detailed and the most importantly FMA is structurized as ontology. FMA defines many relations between each entries (e.g. "is part of" or "is developed from" or "is nerve supplied by" or "muscle attaches to" and so on). Thank you. -- Was a bee ( talk) 06:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I am here because I responded to a request on Template:Infobox anatomy. A few comments:
— Martin ( MSGJ · talk) 21:39, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
[http://www.unifr.ch/ifaa/Public/EntryPage/ViewTH/THh{{Str rep|{{Str mid|{{#property:P1694}}|2|4}}|.|}}.html {{#property:P1694}}]
Conditional branch for Terminologia Embryologica links
|
---|
|
There are a number of neglected fields in the "Infobox anatomy", eg "System", "Precursor", "Part of" and so forth. Now that TA has been uploaded to Wikidata, I wonder whether it would be possible to autofill some parameters based on the TA value? EG:
I think this would be possible if we set our minds to it. We could rapidly work through a great deal of infoboxes using this model, and it would add a lot of basic information that I think users may need. Especially interesting would be if we can link some terms to other wikidata entries. Then someday we could click on "Mesenchyme" and see all things that are derived from it (and so forth). -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 21:23, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
This Friday, Female genital mutilation will be featured on the main page. From 00:00 6 February 2015 and for about three days after, there will be a dramatic increase in traffic to the page. The TFA blurb is here. The date coincides with the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation and the UN will be doing what it can to raise interest in FGM, and that will direct even more traffic to the article.
Would participants here please do extra monitoring of articles linked from FGM. The following is from the lead: clitoral hood ∙ clitoris ∙ labia majora ∙ labia minora ∙ vagina ∙ vulva. Thanks. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
Congratulations to Wikipedia for allowing this to be featured on the main page. I still remember (vaguely) creating category relating to the topic and having the category deleted. So looks like we are making some progress!!! Ottawahitech ( talk) 16:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
These articles even state they are synonymous, but...
...
also see
Navel's history for the past month.
--
CFCF
🍌 (
email) 20:07, 7 February 2015 (UTC)
Back-round: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Female body shape
The article is already requested in articles for creation but it would be nice to have this done sooner rather than later. Please if anyone would be willing to help out. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 02:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
FYI: I have just added this new category and noticed many pages with unanswered comments on talk pages belonging to this categry. For example: Talk:Maxillary canine. Ottawahitech ( talk) 20:27, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I just wanted to let someone know that there is an incorrect link in the article "anterior talofibular ligament." The link for "anterior drawer test" is going to the article "anterior cruciate ligament injury." Diagnosing an ACL injury does use a test called the "anterior drawer test," but there's a separate test by the same name for the ankle, used for diagnosing injuries with the ATL. The link in the ATL article should refer to this test, not the one for the ACL. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.143.117 ( talk) 00:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
I've had a look at almost all our templates now as part of a general biology-related template cleanup effort. I've identified a list of 39 or so anatomy templates that I feel are especially in need of cleanup (which would probably be about 10%). Most of these need cleanup in terms of making them easier or more logical to read, or easier for lay readers to understand and use. I'd be very grateful if other editors could help out by selecting one or two and helping out. Thanks particularly to Tilifa Ocaufa who has been helping out currently. The full list is here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anatomy/Open_Tasks#Cleanup_templates. Thanks! -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 08:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that in a lot of articles related to the kidney e.g. renal papilla or renal pelvis the terms "Efferent artery" and "Afferent vein" (both red links) are used in the infobox in relation to the image Kidney PioM.png. I can not recall ever reading about these two terms. When looking at the image description it states number 2 and 12 as being interlobular artery and interlobar vein which seems right to me.
My questions to you are the following (10 minutes random Google search didn´t really get me closer to an answer):
Kind regards JakobSteenberg ( talk) 21:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
:Response: It is very common to hear about afferent and efferent arterioles in terms of the glomerulus. This is not interchangable with interlobular arteries and veins. There is no such thing as an 'afferent vein', which is a tautology at best, and afferent arteries, well almost all arteries are afferents. I have found some other strange labels on images so I wouldn't be surprised if there are some discrepancies, thanks for your sleuthing! Cheers -- Tom (LT) ( talk) 07:07, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Article Fusiform gyrus is assigned to Education Program from Cornell university biology course. ( Education Program:Cornell University). Ending date of the course is May, 2015. Fusiform gyrus is very interesting region of the brain. I hope they will be able to finish expanding. -- Was a bee ( talk) 12:26, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I noted on RuneMan3's talk page the following: "I wonder if you are creating unnecessary WP:Stub articles and similar in other cases. Take your move of the Tooth development article, for example, which I noticed last year. I don't think that there was a need to split the content into a Human tooth development and Animal tooth development article. Per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, we generally keep the non-human animal content in one article as an 'Other animals' section unless the content needs a separate article. This is the case for the other listings at WP:MEDSECTIONS as well."
Opinions? I'm not strongly opposed to separate articles for this content; I simply wonder if the content is not better served in one article. I will alert WP:Animal anatomy to this discussion as well, though I know that some of them already have this project on their WP:Watchlists. Flyer22 ( talk) 01:25, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Data of Gray's Anatomy is discussing now at Wikidata ( wikidata:Wikidata:Property_proposal/Natural_science#Gray.27s_Anatomy_1918_page). Currently main point of discussion is essentially technical aspect, "in what format we should store these data in Wikidata?". If you have any comment or ideas, please join! Thanks. -- Was a bee ( talk) 15:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion whether to merge template:Accessory organs of the eye with Template:Orbital bones @ Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 March 8#Template:Accessory organs of the eye. Given that these templates are within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, you are invited to comment in the pending TfD/TfM discussion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm trying to get a digital spreadsheet copy of the public pdf terminologia anatomica version to facilitate easy parsing for Wikidata or other articles. I am currently in contact with one of the leaders of the international federation of associations of anatomists (IFAA). However, I am currently struggling with a language barrier. Do any of our more linguistically gifted members know Swedish or, svenska as I believe its called, maybe something close? (Google Translate isn't really cutting it.) Any suggestions or opinions are welcome. HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 15:46, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for all for the help. With some luck this problem will be resolved quickly. HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 02:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to combine these. I do not have the skills to do accomplish this currently and I will not have time until summer. If anybody would like these to upload them to Wikidata or for some other purpose please let me know. HoneyBadger4 ( talk) 13:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Bfpage created the The embryonic and prenatal development of the male reproductive system (human) article. Besides the WP:Article title issues (use of the word the and the parentheses), this article is redundant to the Development of the reproductive system and Development of the urinary system articles (among others). As some know, we merged/redirected a few reproduction and reproduction-related articles last year: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy/Archive 7#Sexual differentiation articles. Flyer22 ( talk) 02:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Note: I'm obviously of the opinion that this content (whatever is not unnecessary redundancy) should be merged. Per what Tilifa Ocaufa and I stated above in this section, there is no valid reason that the "The embryonic and prenatal development of the male reproductive system (human)" article should exist. I would merge the content, but, given my interaction with Bfpage, and that I would rather stay away from the editor because of that, I would rather not be the one to merge the content. Flyer22 ( talk) 22:44, 23 March 2015 (UTC)