Template talk:WPANATOMY welcome

References

"And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!" I was under the impression that textbook references are discouraged on Wikipedia, in favor of journal articles that can be accessed online. Also, is the link to the Wikipedia entry for a book meant to be satirical (the digital age is less likely to use books or we forget what a book is)? It comes across as such and seems unnecessary. Vokesk (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Textbook references are certainly not discouraged here; in fact that is exactly why I have put this in. A single anatomical book may have material for hundreds or even thousands of our anatomical articles, and may be used in several area of each article, whereas several journal articles may be required even for a single article if you pursue that method of citing. In addition, the 'book' knowledge, ie. foundational anatomical material (such as location, blood supply / variations etc.) is what we need here; whereas journal articles, by virtue of being a basic science, are often fairly useless in terms of their broader applicability, whether by being based on a small sample size, published in a journal that is not 'significant' or may lack a sufficiently rigorous peer review process, or published recently enough. I hope that clarifies your question. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:13, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more point on reflection, in the most successful wikiproject on Wikipedia (WP:MILHIST), many articles are cited from books for this very reason -- a book may provide a good overview of a subject that is not conveyed very well in piecemeal journal articles. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]