Talk:Paramesonephric duct

Move Paramesonephric duct back to Müllerian duct?

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus as to what title is most appropriate, per the discussion below; in this case the title for the last three years has been Paramesonephric duct, so the result is to not move the page at this time. Given the comments here, bringing up the underlying issue for further review/clarification at the applicable MOS seems like it will lead to a productive discussion that might lead us to revisit this in the future. Dekimasuよ! 03:18, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

---

Paramesonephric duct → Müllerian duct – As seen by Googling Müllerian duct here, and Paramesonephric duct here, Müllerian duct is the WP:Common name. And yet the article was changed to Paramesonephric duct back in 2011 by Arcadian. I don't see how the term paramesonephric duct is any more technical/correct than the term Müllerian duct, and request that the article be returned to its former name per the WP:Common name policy. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles states, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." From what I see in older and newer sources, and those in between, the term Müllerian duct complies with that. I first realized this Müllerian duct vs. paramesonephric duct issue at Talk:Mesonephric duct#Proposed merge with Wolffian system. My attention was brought back to it with this and this edit, and similar edits, made by HoneyBadger4 today. In that second edit, you can see that HoneyBadger4 also changed the term Fallopian tubes to uterine tubes, despite Fallopian tubes being the WP:Common name. That article was changed back to Fallopian tube by Oknazevad in 2012 after a different editor renamed it Uterine tube; see here. Despite my reverting HoneyBadger4 on the "change Müllerian duct to paramesonephric duct" matter here and here, and at multiple other articles, explaining why I have reverted him, he has continued to make these changes at different articles...including changing Fallopian tube to uterine tube, as seen here, presumably because he is preparing to move that page to the Uterine tube title; he also recently moved the Müllerian eminence content to Sinus tubercle, and made this move request. This type of editing needs to stop.

I will alert WP:Anatomy and WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's a general trend away from eponyms, so I expect this article to eventually end up at Paramesonephric duct. For this particular one, the eponym seems to still be in fairly common use, though. However, it's been stable here for years. Is it really important to change it? The redirects still get readers here, and both names will need to be in the lead for at least the next generation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:43, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  WhatamIdoing, when I open anatomy books, including very recent anatomy books, nine times out of ten, the term Müllerian duct is used instead of the term paramesonephric duct. Compare here and here on Google Books, for example. We should be going with the terms that are most recognizable to our readers, unless there is a valid case not to do so, such as in the case of heart attack. Fallopian tube is usually instantly recognizable and is far more common than the term uterine tube. I don't think that we should be going around changing articles from their WP:Common names based on some WP:Crystal ball rationale that the eponyms will be superseded; in these cases, they have not been superseded, which goes back to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles. And HoneyBadger4 is not sticking to the more common terms in article text anyway, as I've pointed out above; he's changing the article text away from these very recognizable terms and is violating WP:NOTBROKEN. His intention is currently stated on his user talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

  I don't actually care about the other articles, since they've got nothing to do with the choice of title here, but since you bring it up, he's probably right about "uterine tube", since MEDMOS prefers TA, and TA says uterine tube (and has since at least the 1998 edition). There's no such straightforward solution here, though, because TA doesn't cover embryology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Given the recognizability of the term Fallopian tube as opposed to the term uterine tube, not only among the general public but in anatomical literature (including very modern anatomical literature), I highly doubt that he would be right to rename the Fallopian tube article to Uterine tube, and I'm certain that if doing so were proposed in a WP:Requested move, that proposal would not pass. And he certainly is not right to go around changing all instances of (and links to) Fallopian tube to uterine tube. Flyer22 (talk) 23:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• I would like to clear up an apparent misconception here. At no point did I (HoneyBadger4) intend to move the Fallopian tube page to uterine tube. In fact, I had not even considered it until the point was brought up in this discussion. It was assumed that I would move this without respect for the opinions of the Wikipedia community. I believe that respect should make the world go round. I would NEVER move a page of that gravity without serious discussion. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to Flyer22: Thank you for bringing this up. Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Article titles states, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." This is exactly why the term Müllerian duct should be remain changed. It is a "historical eponym that has been superseded." Most, if not all modern medical and anatomic texts prefer the term paramesonephric duct. When they do use Müllerian duct it is in parentheses directly next to the word paramesonephric duct. This is because most modern texts are systematically removing eponyms. Texts that I consulted prior to making this statement include: Theime: atlas of anatomy & Netter: Atlas of anatomy (The two largest names in anatomy both certified by the American Association of Medical Colleges & the American Association of Osteopathic Medical Colleges - I still have the sticker on my copy verifying that they certify these texts), The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology (by Moore, Persaud, torchia), The Terminologia Embryologica (a standardized list of words used in the description of human embryologic and fetal structures. It was produced by the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology). I can also include over 20 practicing medical physicians and 5 PhD levels anatomists as sources. I can provide more sources if it is requested. However, I believe that the authority of the before mentioned sources is sufficient to designate paramesonephric duct as the "scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." I moved the page Müllerian eminence to the page sinus tubercle because both pages already existed independently of each other and the terms are synonyms. I chose to move towards sinus tubercle because that is the scientific or recognized medical name that is most commonly used. I can provide an exhaustive list of authoritative sources professing this as well. In the future I would appreciate it if you contacted me asking why I made a change rather than presuming ("presumably because he is preparing to move that page to the Uterine tube title") my intention without attempting to speak civilly beforehand. I would love to discuss this topic further in the WP:Anatomy and WP:Med forum. Thank you for your time, HoneyBadger4 (talk) 23:03, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

HoneyBadger4, as been stated above, the term Müllerian duct is still commonly used instead of the term paramesonephric duct; is still far more used than the term paramesonephric duct. The Google searches, including Google Book searches (anatomy books included) above, show this, both in terms of old sources and new sources. And those in between. The fact that paramesonephric duct is sometimes used, or Müllerian duct is sometimes used side by side with paramesonephric duct, does not mean that Müllerian duct has been superseded, especially since when these terms are listed side by side, Müllerian duct is usually first (as shown on Google Books), including on Encyclopedia Britannica. I don't believe that I've violated the WP:Civil policy regarding you above by stating that it is likely that you plan to move the Fallopian tube article to Uterine tube; it was a fairly easy deduction, per above. There was no need to come to you first to seek changing this article's title back to its WP:Common name. Per WP:Requested moves, you should be going through the appropriate channels when moving an article. Any article move that is likely to be contested (and changing Fallopian tube to Uterine tube would be) should be taken to WP:Requested moves for discussion. Furthermore, like I also noted above, you are not sticking to the more common terms in article text, which is a disservice to our readers. Per WP:NOTBROKEN, you should not be changing the redirects that help aid our readers on these matters. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

First off, Flyer22 I wanted to say thank you for posting all of these policies as links. You really have a strong grasp of the edit guidelines and I am learning a lot from from reading them. Second I wanted to clarify what I meant by "I would appreciate it if you contacted me asking why I made a change." It sounds like it was generally interpreted that I believe editors should contact me before reverting my work. While I think it would be a kind gesture, I do not believe people are obligated to do so. I was trying to say that if an editor does not like changes that I am making, or wants to know what changes I am making and why,then they should ask me because I will tell them and hopefully save them some time. I will be completely straight forward with my intentions and actions. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I've been here for several years, LOL. And I apologize for coming across as harsh, if I did come across that way to you at any point. I was more so frustrated. Also, speaking of guidelines, policies or other rules, you should make careful that you don't mark comments as WP:Minor. You've marked your 15:13, 12 October 2014 (UTC) comment, and others, as WP:Minor. And, again, like I just stated below, "since I have this article (and therefore this talk page) WP:Watchlisted, there is no need to ping me to it via WP:Echo." Flyer22 (talk) 15:23, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi HoneyBadger4, it does take some to find the "wiki way" of editing, which usually involves a bit more discussion than you may be used to, particularly when it looks like there's noone editing or watching pages (... there usually is). Wikipedia editing is gradual and there's no deadline, so there's no hurry for discussions. In addition what is "right" may be in the eyes of the beholder, and other users may have other reasons that cause them to disagree. I say this not to deter you or disagree with you, but because I know that you are a new editor that may be in a hurry to set things right, and so frustration may build up very quickly. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

With regards to PMN vs. Mullarian duct, I think one compelling argument to keep at PMN duct is for homology with "mesonephric duct", which is significantly more used than its counterpart (see this n-gram: [1]). That said the counterargument would be to retain MD for its homology with AMH. The embryology book that I have access to also uses PMN as the primary term and puts MD in brackets.. Altogether I'm not sure, I'll see if I can locate our previous discussions on this and perhaps the opinions of more editors will be useful.--Tom (LT) (talk) 22:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Update: our previous discussions were here (at WT:ANAT: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anatomy/Archive_7#Mesonephric_duct_.2F_Wolffian_duct and here: Talk:Mesonephric_duct). PMN duct seems to be the accepted term in Terminologia Embryologica: [2] --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:31, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I already linked to Talk:Mesonephric duct#Proposed merge with Wolffian system above. And I disagree with the "let's move the articles from their eponyms or merge away the eponyms" choices in those other discussions. We should be using WP:Common sense here (not that any of Wikipedia's rules are for the eponyms not being used in these cases). And by that, I mean: Are our readers most likely to search for these terms under the eponyms that have yet to be superseded, or are they most likely to search for these terms under their latter names? Going by the Google searches, it's easy to see that the eponyms will be the likelier search choice. A person is likelier to search Fallopian tube than uterine tube. In anatomy books, anatomy classes, online medical sources, these eponyms are still commonly used/are still the most commonly used. So why should we (Wikipedia) be going out of our way to remove these eponyms? Because we think that the eponyms are less accurate, that the non-eponyms are more precise? That is not a good enough reason, in my opinion. Just like we are supposed to write anatomy articles for lay readers, per WP:Technical, not so much for anatomy students or experts, I feel that we should also use the anatomy terms that are most recognizable to our readers, unless those terms have truly been superseded; the vast majority of our readers are lay readers. When Encyclopedia Britannica is still using these eponyms as their article titles, then I certainly don't see why we should not also be doing that. And, for goodness sakes, if we are going to use the non-eponyms for article titles, then make sure that we are mentioning and linking to the eponyms in some respect, and are not violating WP:NOTBROKEN. Flyer22 (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is more difficult than it would at first seem. Moving away from eponyms is major trend in modern medicine, but many clinicians stick to the old names they were once taught. I'm going to support the move to Paramesonephric duct, mainly on the grounds that TA uses it, and as HoneyBadger says it is quickly becoming the more common name today. I have a number of things I'm planning on proposing for WP:MEDMOS, and expressing adherence to TE & TH (maybe even TAnth) in addition to TA is one of them. That said, as Flyer22 says, it is exceedingly important that we continue to display the eponymous name at the start of the article. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 15:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

• CFCF I could not agree with you more. I would never encourage the eradication of eponyms from their original pages. It is important that very important that paramesonephric duct also states on the paramesonephric duct page that it has been referred to as Müllerian duct or any of its other previous names. That is the only way that we can fully appreciate and understand old and new literature alike. HoneyBadger4 (talk) 16:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

HoneyBadger4, I'm obviously one of those people who prefers to stick to the old names, and that's per the reasons I've stated above. In some cases, I don't like change. And this is one of those cases. In my opinion, it's hardly beneficial to change widely used eponyms to the significantly less common names. WP:MEDMOS specifically states that the eponyms should be superseded. In these cases, they have not been superseded, at least not significantly enough to state, "Oh, let's discard them." Wikipedia is not a medical book. Wikipedia is not an anatomy book. It is an encyclopedia for the general audience, and should be treated as such. Again, that's the approach that the Encyclopedia Britannica takes on these eponyms. Why Wikipedia should be different in that approach has yet to be validly stated. Like I noted, when a person states "Fallopian tube" to a layperson, that layperson usually automatically knows what is meant, or has an inkling as to what is meant. Not so much if you state "uterine tube" to that layperson. While knowing that the latter term has to do with the uterus, that layperson is likely to think that the uterine tube is something different than the "Fallopian tube." To test that assertion, I recently tried it out on several of my friends and acquaintances, and I was, as suspected, correct in that assertion. And that assertion is why I objected to you going around changing the eponym links to the newer terms. One of the reasons that the WP:NOTBROKEN guideline exists is so that we can use alternative terms and let readers know that they've wound up on the correct page, if they don't know that already. Using the more common terms is surely beneficial. The articles not going by their eponyms in their titles doesn't mean that we should change all instances of/links to the eponyms in other articles. And, in the case of the Fallopian tube article, as you know, it's not even yet titled Uterine tube; so your changing the links in that case made even less sense to me. Because these eponyms are still so widely used, I don't support moving the articles away from them. The term Müllerian is so well known that it seems odd to me to move away from that. Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH), for example, is not called Anti-paramesonephric hormone.

All that stated: With you, WhatamIdoing, LT910001 (Tom), and CFCF going opposite my feelings on this, I will obviously have no choice but to go along with these "let's move away from the eponyms" decisions, especially since no non-medical, non-anatomy editors have yet to weigh in on these matters (though I could drag this out by starting a wide-scale WP:RfC on such moves if I wanted to). But, yes, work it out via email or whatever. Just don't expect me to support it. Flyer22 (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why I said it is a difficult situation. I believe we need a discussion concerning this, and I'm fine if you chose not to support more adherence to the TA, and hope you will contribute in further discussion.

The eponyms are engrained in many fields, and very much so when it comes to certain structures, while in others: not so much. When it comes to fallopian tubes I would oppose a name change on the grounds that this is a vastly more common name. For example 6 pubmed articles in 2014 used "uterine tube", and 256 used "fallopian tube". When it comes to paramesonephric duct and Müllerian tube you have a 2/9 distribution, which isn't as conclusive, especially when multiple newer books use the TA-terminology. It may be that we are doing ourselves a disservice renaming this article, but we might just as well be doing the opposite if we don't rename it or other similarly eponymous articles.

I believe we should use the TA whenever it's reasonable, but I won't suggest we rename the circle of Willis to arterial circle of brain. In any case I think that is a larger discussion than should be held on this article, and I hope you Flyer22, as well as everyone else here will contribute to that discussion, so that a future guideline has consensus and may decrease the amount of time we need to spend on article titles. I will present a suggestion shortly over at WT:MEDMOS. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, CFCF. Your "22:16, 11 October 2014 (UTC)" comment makes me feel a lot better about this matter, and more so where you are coming from regarding it. Thinking on this further, I could support the newer names in some cases where they are reasonable (meaning even when the eponyms are in wide use). I already support using the newer names that have truly superseded the eponyms.

And for future notice, since I have this article (and therefore this talk page) WP:Watchlisted, there is no need to ping me to it via WP:Echo. I think you are also watching it now, but I pinged you and others in my "21:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)" post above just in case any of you were no longer watching it and/or might overlook that comment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: HoneyBadger4 added the alternative title "Anti-Paramesonephric Hormone" after I stated "Anti-Müllerian hormone, for example, is not called Anti-paramesonephric hormone" in my "21:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)" post above. He also added it to the Anti-Müllerian hormone article. All of that is, of course, fine. I'm simply noting that I did not comment on the anti-paramesonephric hormone matter while that was in the article. I had initially thought to amend my "21:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)" post regarding anti-paramesonephric hormone with "usually," but hardly ever is Anti-Müllerian hormone referred to as Anti-paramesonephric hormone, and I don't yet see the latter gaining favor in anatomical literature, which is also no doubt why LT910001 (Tom) stated in his "22:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)" post above, "That said the counterargument would be to retain MD for its homology with AMH." And we also have the Anti-Müllerian hormone receptor article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

This MESH entry shows twelve names for that substance, none of which is Anti-paramesonephric hormone. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

Applies to?

It's clear that this article applies to humans, but not clear if it extends to all primates, all mammals, etc. M-1 (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)